Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[wingless]

Just a quick update on the Ag Commission meeting today.

Two of the commissioners missed the last meeting (Kennedy and Green), and one of those missed the public comment period of the July meeting (July), so I think those two had very little idea of what is going on with the GAAMPS.

However, they got an earful today, because thanks to RaZ's efforts on the Michigan thread we had 4 BYCers there advocating for RTF. However, it still feels like early days in thinking about this on the Ag Commission, so it was impossible to get a read on where they stand. It was a bit frustrating.

On the other hand, I talked to Jamie Clover Adams afterwards, and learned a little bit more about what is going on with the Attorney General's Office. As I understand it he is looking not only at the 2012 GAAMPS preamble language, but also at the larger question of whether RTF does indeed supercede ordinances, zoning, and other regulations by local units of government. So that opinion will be very interesting.

I told her that we BYCers have done our homework, and that based on the information we have it appears that RTF does indeed trump local regulations. Given that effort, I told her that we are frustrated that MDARD neither agrees with that point of view nor gives a rational argument about what part of the argument is faulty, or provides new information that we don't have that explains the discrepancy between our interpretation and theirs. She said it is fair and reasonable to expect a point by point explanation of their position. So the very good news is that in Jamie Clover Adams hands, MDARD will justify their positions. It doesn't get better than that.

Have a good evening, everybody.

Wendy

 

[blackswan]

Thanks for the update Wingless.. I was wondering how 'it' went.

I do believe that your informed and direct approach gains their respect. I can only hope that it proves to be sucessful in our favor.

And.. I have good news. I will be able to join those who are attending the Oct 31 meeting in Lansing. I just heard yesterday that my shift will be covered.

 

[RaZ]

During the break I spoke with Commissioner Don Coe (and the commissioner from the UP listened in), Mr. Coe offered some friendly advice that we backyard might want to consider not being so closely associated to the large commercial farming operations as we make our arguments. Some of the public comments touched on the animal unit method of measuring (i.e. 50 animal units = 5000 chickens) and that there is no way backyard keepers could ever get close to that number.

I think his advice was based in part to how I tried to relate lessons learned from large operations can be pared down to small flock owners; how set-backs can be proportioned to backyard dimensions. Same hold true with manure management, protective shelter, etc.

So I came from the meeting thinking that we should address two (2) aspects of the MRTFA as it relates to us backyard keepers.
1) Work to immediately halt the proposed 2013 changes that restore zoning and ordinance to local government.
2) Help define a set of GAAMPs that apply to backyards and hobby farms.

Since the committee vote is December 12th, there is not much time. I suggest that we mount a letter campaign to ask the commissioners to NOT ACCEPT the proposals at all and return to the language of the 2011 GAAMPs.

I'll have some more thoughts as I try to separate the hard science from the political science behind the proposed changes.

 

[fuzzybutt love]

Hi peeps! I didn't know this thread existed, or i would have been following!

I have been struggling to find out of town land that is zoned for agriculture. Increasingly, rural land is zoned so that agriculture is either a special use or not allowed at all. Rural residential designation for homes on large tracts is common as are land conservancy zoning designations. Of those parcels over 20 acres within 20 miles of Muskegon I would estimate that half of them will be removed from protection by this change. Additionally, the change to applying the setbacks to any number of animals will means that hose on a few acres will often be unable to have any animals no matter what the zoning because they cannot meet the 100+ foot setbacks.

Effectively this eliminates the 1999 amendment.

I spoke about the 100 ft setbacks, the fact that 1-5000 chickens are in the same category, at the last meeting, but it seemed like they didn't understand that the new bill would put us in the same category essentially as the "big" guys, and push the bigger space requirements on us too. I am concerned about the small dairy farms around me............... Good news is that i am sure that at least one of the representatives was moved enough by our speaches to go look up what we were talking about! Yay! It seems that they haven't gotten their paper copies yet, and he wasn't aware that it was posted online. If i am not mistaken, this is the one who was talking about 4-H and promoting farming to the younger generation........

I know that I haven't had the time to read through everything, and how much less time they have in the scheme of things, So i am going to look to referencing specific passages in anything i write to them here on out.

What is this about land being removed from protection? This could be me, because the acerage my chickens are on are zoned ag, i think, but have conservation across the street. I am smack on the line between muskegon co and ottowa co.

 

[fuzzybutt love]

How many of the 5 have to vote against the changes to make it stop???

Also, we need a "name" to call the backyard "farms". We are a business, technically, but do not fall into their category of for profit "farms"...........
Could've been my imagination, but they seemed to cringe every time the word "farm" was said in reference......

My personal angle is to try to figure out how to reach the most small farms in my area in the quickest time possible, since a lot of them will be affected but don't know it yet. If we can get the other livestock owners involved, and the small businesses that would be affected by it too, like the feedmill it will strengthen our case. If the changes could be halted at least, it would give you smarties a chance to make a better definition for us "little guys"

 

[fuzzybutt love]

This is the streamlined, condensed version of the proposed site changes. I am going to print this off, and present this as well as wingless's article to the local feed mill's bulletin board if they will allow me to try to involve the other livestock owners right away. (that was you, right?) I will include the e mail address for those who can't attend meetings to write in their opinions. It won't address the issue with needing a separate category for ourselves, but it will get a lot more people involved in hopefully stopping this thing!
Excerpts taken directly from the proposed new draft of the site selection gaamp

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdard/2013_DRAFT_SITE_SELECTION_GAAMP_392878_7.pdf
From the home page, you can get to each and every GAAMP.
http://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1567_1599_1605---,00.html

Animal Units....................... 50
Number of Animals:
Slaughter and Feeder Cattle 50
Mature Dairy Cattle 35
Swine *2
Sheep and Lambs 500
Horses 25
Turkeys 2,750
Laying Hens or Broilers 5,000
All other animal classes, types or sizes (eg. Nursery pigs) not in this table, but defined in the Michigan Right to Farm
Act or described in Michigan Commission of Agriculture Policy, are to be calculated as one thousand pounds live
weight equals one animal unit
*"For facilities with 50 animal units or more tThe minimum setback will be 250 feet for new livestock production facilities. For expanding livestock production facilities with 50 units or more the minimum setback will be 125 feet ."

Category 1 sites are those sites which have been traditionally used for agricultural purposes and are in an area with a relatively low residential housing density.
Table 2. Category 1 Site Setbacks, Verification and Notification in areas where local zoning allows for agricultural uses
Total Animal Unit..................................................................................0 - 49
New Operations Non-Farm Residences within Distance...........0-5 within ¼ mile /Expanding Operations 0-7 within ¼ mile
Property Line Setback.........................................................................100 ft
MDARD Site Review and Verification Process ..............................Upon Producer Request............."An Odor Management Plan (OMP) will not be required for these sites in most circumstances. It is however, recommended that all producers develop and implement an OMP in order to reduce odor concerns for neighboring non-farm residents. "

Category 2 sites are those where site-specific factors may limit the environmental, social, or economic
acceptability of the site for livestock production facilities and where structural, vegetative, technological,
and management measures may be necessary to address those limiting factors. These measures should
be incorporated into a Site Plan and a Manure Management System Plan, both as defined in Section IV,
which are required for all new and expanding livestock production facilities seeking verification. New and
expanding livestock production facilities should only be constructed in areas where local zoning allows for
agriculture uses. Due to the increased density of non-farm residences in Category 2 sites, an OMP is
required for all proposed new and expanding livestock production facilities.
Category 2 Site Setbacks, Verification and Notification – New operations in areas where local zoning allows for agricultural uses
Total Animal Units ................................................................................0-49
For new Operations Non-Farm Residences Within Distance ...6-13 within ¼ mile/ for expanding operations 8- 20 within ¼ mile
Property Line Setback...........................................................................100 ft
MDARD Site Review and Verification Process ................................Upon Producer Request


Brad Deacon
Emergency Management &
Administrative Law Coordinator
Michigan Department of Agriculture &
Rural Development
[email protected]
517-241-4085

 

[fuzzybutt love]

Note that for pigs, the amount of pigs allowed is only 2 for the first category, and the space requirement is much bigger!!!!!!!!! If any of you know small time pig farmers, this could be used to get them involved as well.
To access the 50+ category, you have to go to the link. I only did the first category, since that is the one most people i know would fall under.

 

[wingless]

Holy cow, fuzzybutt love, you're going to make us all go back in and do more GAAMPS homework and my brain already hurts!

I'm not sure yet, but I think the issues you are raising are of a different kind than those usually brought up on this thread. Most of us here are not zoned "agricultural" (or at least that has been my assumption!), so will lose RTF protection based on that fact alone. I think the issue that you - and perhaps also eldenbrady - are raising is that the combination of changes to the animal units requirements AND the setback requirements means that even people in areas that are zoned agricultural will lose RTF protection if these changes pass. Is that right?

Actually, I think eldenbrady may have been making additional points as well. RaZ, it sounds like he is saying that all land that is "rural" is not zoned "agricultural" - which might mean that my estimate that 8 million Michiganders will be affected by these changes could be an under-estimate. Do you see what I'm saying? Do you have the data to figure this out?

fuzzybutt love, I embarrass myself every time I write your name, but I'm so glad you joined the conversation. I am going to go back into the 2013 GAAMPS to try to understand the points you're making. Thanks for bringing them up.

blackswan, very glad that you'll be able to attend the next meeting. So far we BYCers have doubled our presence at each Ag meeting since we started going in July (July (1), Aug (2), Sept (4) - so hope we can keep that up with 8 of us at the meeting in October, and 16 or more at the meeting in December.

 

[fuzzybutt love]

Yes, i am deep in farm country zone 1, but these changes look to affect a lot of the small farms around me, which is pretty big! These extra requirements will knock most of the zoned ag land off the OK list as well, particularly for the smaller acreage and those on the edge between zone 1 and 2........... Also, i see a lot of the smaller farms are pretty close to the road oftentimes, so unless they own the property across the road they will have to move their barns. Not good in this economy, especially after the poor harvests.

The good news is if we can get the word out to these other people who currently aren't aware of the changes, it will add a ton more manpower towards shooting down the new draft! If the new draft gets stopped, at least that would buy you urban farmers more time to lobby for your end of the deal

Ya, the nickname was because i get a kick out of chicken's fuzzy "bloomers", i never thought about it any other way 'till my DH saw it and busted up............*blush*
Most call me "fuzzy", or my name is Amie

 

[RaZ]

Actually, I think eldenbrady may have been making additional points as well. RaZ, it sounds like he is saying that all land that is "rural" is not zoned "agricultural" - which might mean that my estimate that 8 million Michiganders will be affected by these changes could be an under-estimate. Do you see what I'm saying? Do you have the data to figure this out?

That is my interpretation, (i.e. Rural does not equal Agricultural)...
Which is why I'm digging into the state database of survey material. This is the GIS data that I was talking about.