SouthEast Michigan: Where can you raise chickens and where can you not

[faerie77girl]

So am i correct in that if I live in a subdivision in New Baltimore I can not have chickens? My city ordinance says this:No person shall keep or house any animals or domestic fowl within the city except dogs, cats, birds, fowl or animals commonly classified as pets. So does the RTFA apply in a subdivision?

 

[wingless]

Hifarie77girl -

I am not a lawyer, but I have been looking at this issue for awhile now, and it appears to me that RTF covers all commercial farming operations of any kind, size, or place in Michigan so long as you follow the GAAMPS.

However, you never know if your city or township will read the law and court cases and recognize that RTF trumps local regulations under those conditions, or whether they will continue to assert that their ordinance rules. So it could be easy, or it could be a court case.

I think there are three essential documents to have on hand if you want to claim RTF. One is the actual law, one is a very simple paper written by professors at MSU explaining why RTF covers all commercial farming operations that follow the GAAMPS, and the last is the most recent court case from December 2012 in which Forsyth Township learned that RTF does protect its citizens from local ordinances. Here they are:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdard/RTF_ACT-93-of-1981_379049_7.pdf

http://www.animalagteam.msu.edu/uploads/files/20/Tech Bullitin Land Use.pdf

http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-courts/

Good luck!

 

[thegospelisgood]

After speaking to the Dept. of Agricultura, and the RTFA inspections persons this week, I have concluded that there are an awful lot of armchair lawyers interpreting the RTFA for residential scenarios when that is not the purpose of the act.

However, if you request a pre-emptive site inspection and submit a plan for GAAMPS compliance, you might be able to hold your own against an ordinance that is not helpful.

My suggestion is to contact the clerk or code enforcement and ask for a hearing to request code amendment.

My 2 cents.

 

[wingless]

It has also been my experience that the opinion of the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is that non-rural farming operations should work through local, rather than state regulations. Several things, however, should be noted.

First, this is not the historical opinion of the MDA (as MDARD was previously called). In the years immediately after the 1999 RTF amendment was passed, MDA supported residential farmers who wished to claim RTF protection for their commercial operations. So whether or not folks like us were the main intended beneficiaries of this act, MDA has historically recognized that the act does protect us, so long as our operations are commercial and we follow the GAAMPS.

So the current opinion of MDARD is out of step with the historical opinion of that agency. In addition, it is out of step with the stated law (as I and many others read it), and also out of step with court rulings (most recent case is Forsyth Township v Buchler but there are others), and out of step with how scholars from MSU have interpreted the whole history of the law and court cases. Links to all of those documents are in my post above, and I encourage you to take a look at them.

If you only look at one of those documents, look at the Buchler court case. This was a suit brought by a township against a farmer, to force the farmer to follow local regulations with respect to the keeping of chickens and other animals. The farmer claimed Right to Farm protection and he won. Again, this decision came down very recently, in December of 2012. Not sure how much more clear it can be that the law protects commercial farming operations in Michigan, even in residential areas.

Finally, I would add that most of the folks who you might have talked with at MDARD over this are also not lawyers. I assume you spoke to Wayne Whitman or Jim Johnson? Not lawyers. And if you ask them to justify their opinion that RTF does not cover everyone, I expect that they will be unable to point to a section of the law that supports their view, and will also be unable to provide you with a court decision that supports their view. At least that has been my experience.

However, I do understand that some folks wish to work through their city or township to change their ordinance, rather than claiming RTF protection. That is also a fair approach, and if it is the approach you choose I certainly wish you luck.

 

[thegospelisgood]

Excellent thoughts wingless. I have spoken to Wayne, but regarding beekeeping moreso than chickens. The problem I see with the cases you reference, none of them apply to folks with less than 1 acre. All those cases are formiddable and good candidates for RTF protection mainly because of lot size. In the most significant applications of most urban farmers/backyarders, there is not much application for one with a 1/16th acre parcel?

That is where I think the combination of proactive inspection and RTF application, along with proposal to your local city officials is helpful.

 

[faerie77girl]

Thank you so so much!

 

[wingless]

Excellent thoughts wingless. I have spoken to Wayne, but regarding beekeeping moreso than chickens. The problem I see with the cases you reference, none of them apply to folks with less than 1 acre. All those cases are formiddable and good candidates for RTF protection mainly because of lot size. In the most significant applications of most urban farmers/backyarders, there is not much application for one with a 1/16th acre parcel?

That is where I think the combination of proactive inspection and RTF application, along with proposal to your local city officials is helpful.

I have never heard anyone, including folks from MDARD, claim that RTF only applies to people with more than one acre. The RTF law just does not say that.

MDARD does like to claim that it does not apply in non-rural areas, and/or that it does not apply in areas not zoned agricultural. The Buchler, Papadelis, and Papesh cases all challenged this view, were all decided since the last amendment in 1999, and all won - that is, those folks all currently have farming operations in their non-agricuturally zoned areas, despite the fact that their cities or townships brought lawsuits against them. They all claimed RTF protection and won.

I have asked MDARD for a proactive GAAMPS inspection, and they said that I should speak to my city - which is of course inappropriate since GAAMPS are state regulations, not local. Did they agree to come out and inspect your operation? If so, please let us know because I think there are a lot of people who would like to be certified as being GAAMPS compliant but just can't get a response from MDARD.

 

[thegospelisgood]

I received a phone call from Dept. of AG today. They have scheduled a preemptive inspection (in relation to an Apiary) after I submitted a management plan/schematic. They will visit m R-1 zoned home on 4/3.

 

[wingless]

Wow. A GAAMPS inspection, or a MAEAP inspection?

And you submitted a management plan - as in a business management plan, or an animal management plan? I would love to get a GAAMPS inspection myself, so any details you can share would be very much appreciated.

 

[thegospelisgood]

To my understanding, it is a GAAMPS inspection. A proactive inspection. Somebody from Wayne's office. I just drew a schematic of potential hive placement and land layout, emailed it to Wayne. No response. I followed up again, and got a phone call next day.