Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[RaZ]

You will need some history of the zoning. Look at the former property owners and the zoning for them. Then check the archives for any mention of zoning changes. Changes require a public notice, a public hearing and a legitimate vote of the officials in order to be legal.

Get archive copies of the local paper if you can. A lot of change proposals are listed in the paper.

 

[wingless]

You will need some history of the zoning. Look at the former property owners and the zoning for them. Then check the archives for any mention of zoning changes. Changes require a public notice, a public hearing and a legitimate vote of the officials in order to be legal.

Get archive copies of the local paper if you can. A lot of change proposals are listed in the paper.

Is this generally true, or is it just true for zoning laws in Michigan?

The addition of the Preamble to the 2012 GAAMPs was done without public notice and without a public hearing. Is that enough of a process error to invalidate that change?

 

[RTFchickens]

I asked the county for this, and they directed me back to the township(which is not going to be thrilled to provide me with this info).
My hubby said we need to fight one battle at a time... Right now we are getting our ducks in a row for RTF protection from our township ordinance.

 

[RaZ]

I hope the RTF defense works for you. Any judge with common sense should arrive at the correct conclusion.

The zoning defense could develop into a huge battle. If these towns and cities have been arbitrarily and illegally changing the zoning without legal due process, they could be liable for millions in falsely obtained tax revenue.

If it is only one or two properties, you might have a shot. Here in GC, an illegal change years ago, affects 1,000's of residents. What are the ramifications of a city falsely taxing residents at an over-inflated rate for decades? That is a fight to yet be waged, but it is certainly valid.

And to think it all started over someone wanting to have a few chickens in the yard.

 

[RaZ]

Attention all Michigan keepers of livestock. It seems that the Agriculture Commissioners are once again considering the options of small scale farming operations within the state. That is to say that backyard chickens are once again on the radar for how the Right to Farm law may affect us.
The minutes of the August meeting have not been approved or published yet, but a draft can be found at http://www.michigansmallfarmforum.com/index.php?/topic/107-proposed-2014-site-selection-gaamps/

Here is wording from the draft:
SITING SELECTION GENERALLY ACCEPTED AGRICULTURE MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES (GAAMP) AND BACKYARD ANIMAL AGRICULTURE
The Director invited the Commission to address the backyard livestock issue and
discuss how they wish to proceed. She asked Jim Johnson, Director of the
Environmental Stewardship Division, to join the discussion.
The Director acknowledged the department understands the Commission’s situation in
attempting to solve the issues around backyard chickens and other livestock. Following
several meetings, the Site Selection GAAMP Committee recently sent a letter to the
Commission advising that the committee is struggling, was basically again at a standstill,
and requested assistance in this regard. In the meantime, Mr. Johnson has been meeting with stakeholder interest groups to discuss an idea that could potentially solve
the problem.
Mr. Johnson reiterated the challenge has been the use of the Right to Farm (RTF) Act to
justify circumvention of local decision making with regard to land use within areas that
are residential in nature. The Director has very effectively organized several meetings
with various agriculture interest groups to consider the problem from a broad
perspective. It is very clear that this is a legal question dealing specifically with animal
agriculture, and resolution must be made within the Site Selection GAAMP, because that
GAAMP is the one that pertains to siting of animal agriculture facilities.
What is being proposed to the various larger stakeholder groups is language in the
GAAMP that clarifies the definition of a livestock facility and indicates such facilities
located in non-agricultural zoned areas are not in conformance with the Site Selection
GAAMP. If a local community allows for livestock as an exception in areas zoned
residential, the operator must abide by whatever restrictions that local unit of
government has established. … The Director advised Chief Deputy Director Wenk will respond to the Site Selection
Committee’s letter and the department will keep the Commission informed as they
progress with meetings regarding the language addition to the GAAMP.”

It is my opinion that Director Clover-Adams, Deputy Director Wenk and Mr. Johnson are not fans of backyard chickens or even small scale farming operations. I hope my assessment is incorrect, but after attending these meetings for over a year now, they seem to favour Big Farma over all else. I find is telling that the MSFC has been excluded from discussions with the “stakeholders”, except for an initial meeting with the Siting Committee in April 2013.
If you are at all concerned about this, please contact MDARD as soon as you can. http://michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-3099---C,00.html Ask them to include MSFC in these important discussions. Heck, why not send a message to the governor as well. http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277-57827-267869--,00.html

 

[RTFchickens]

Thank you for the information RAZ. I think local townships have too much authority over decisions!
Just one more branch of government making more rules for all of us to follow. The latest from our township as of today is "we are consulting with our attorneys about your situation before deciding to pursue this matter further"
Our response was "you are the only ones breaking any laws by not respecting our right to farm"
I will be sending letters to Snyder and MDARD.

 

[wingless]

Ok RTFers. We prevailed last year and convinced the Ag Commission to NOT approve changes to the Site Selection GAAMPs that would have weakened our Right to Farm protection, but that was last year. These issues arise a new every year, and based o the draft minutes from the last Ag Commission meeting, it looks like our rights are on the line again as the Commission considers changes for the 2014 GAAMPs.

Several of us are already planning on attending the Ag Commission meeting next week in Benton Harbor. We'd love to meet up with other folks there, or to carpool if you're on our way from SE Michigan to SW Michigan. PM me to see if we can work something out.

Details are here:

Wednesday Sept. 18, 2013, 9 AM

Southwest Michigan Research & Extension Center
Jordan Tatter Conference Center
1791 Hillandale Road, Benton Harbor

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Since the state legislature is the ones who wrote in the provisions that protect the very small farmer, it might be appropriate to also address concern to your legislators.

 

[wingless]

Hey everybody -

Just back from the September Ag meeting, where I got to meet Deanna. I'll let her tell her story, but just want to say that the Commissioners took a great deal of interest in her story of living on 59.4 acres, but not having permission to keep chickens. And no wonder, because she was terrific.

I also want to let you all know that after receiving the draft minutes of the August meeting of the Ag Commission, I FOIA'd MDARD for a copy of the letter that Wendy Powers sent to the Ag Commission about the 2014 GAAMPs. Wendy Powers is not me (despite similarity in our names!), but is the chair of the Site Selection GAAMPs Committee. Her letter is great for a number of reasons, but I am going to leave all of that aside for a moment because I want to call out the first sentence in her third paragraph:

"Currently the Site Selection GAAMP is applicable almost exclusively to facilities with more than 50 animal units. Land owners with smaller facilities, those with less than 50 AU [animal units], may request a proactive verification, but their facilities must meet the standards that were developed for facilities housing more than 50 AU"
- Wendy Powers, Chair of the Site Selection GAAMPs Committee, July 3, 2013

I know that this is not shocking news to anyone on this thread, since folks here have been making this argument for years. However, MDARD pretty much always says that even farming operations with less than 50 animal units - like most of us - are subject to the Site Selection GAAMPs, and that this specifically excludes those farming operations (us) from RTF protection. I'll have more to say about that in a future post, but for now I want to be clear that the statement by Wendy Powers asserts that the Site Selection GAAMPs do not apply to farming operations of fewer than 50 animal units. Since she is the chair of the committee, her opinion should carry significant weight. If you think you might find yourself in court fighting for your RTF protection, I recommend taking a copy of this letter. You can FOIA it yourself from MDARD, or can find a copy here: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-commission/

I am immensely grateful to Wendy Powers for presenting the situation with such a clear understanding of and respect for the interests of all the interested parties - the Site Selection GAAMPs Committee, the Ag Commission, the Ag Agency, and us.

Lots of other interesting points in this letter as well.

 

[RTFchickens]

My state representative's office called me Friday!!!
I got his info at the agricultural meeting, and sent an email about our situation in Baldwin. I'm pleasantly surprised they "are looking into it"
They are supposed to call again on Monday.