Update: (City Oppression) Milford tickets 93 year old man for hens

Status
Not open for further replies.
Date sort Score sort
This is an interesting disscussion. But I would like to make an observation.
I don't think this case is about the merits of owning backyard chickens. I thought it was about whether or not it is legal to do so in a specific area/community. In this case, it clearly was not. Citing other cases to make your point is very helpful. I consider it no differant than quoting someone else's post here to make your point.
Perhaps if the wording was changed just slightly? If we substituted "airplanes" for chickens and "airport" for farm. And change Right to farm act to "right to fly your own plane act". Then the discussion would be easier to follow.
There are numerous restrictions on where and when an airport can or cannot operate. That is not to say whether keeping an airplane in your yard is a good or bad thing. Is it legal?
Example(totally made-up):
I live in the suburbs. My neighbor wants to put in a private airport so he can enjoy flying his own plane. My neighborhood is not zoned for airports. It is against the town law to keep and fly airplanes. My neighbor askes the town for permission to build the airport and fly his plane in and out of it. The town says no because it's against the law. My neighbor puts in the airport anyway, and cites the right to fly your own plane act. He argues that since he has land and no immediate neighbors, it is allowed under the law. After an exhaustive search and some research, the answer is still no. The right to fly your own plane act does not apply.
The act states that there must be no immediate neighbors, you must have room for a 1,000 FT. runway, and you can only fly between 10AM and 10PM. The area must also be zoned for commercial development or had an airport previously. None of these criteria were met, so the RTFYOP act doesn't apply. So the town said no and my neighbor has to get rid of his airplane and airport.
I think the point has been missed. We all need to follow rules. No one wants to wake up one morning and find that the neighbor has put chickens, or airplanes, in their backyard. You cannot make an illegal action legal by misquoting or misrepresenting the law.
 
I may be frustrated and not agree with all of Your Neighbor's message for current and future backyard chicken owners as to whether they can obey the letter of the law, but I don't think we should shoot the messenger.

His legal background and hours put in on research and posting here allow all of us to make our own decisions, however much they might be grounded in "wishful thinking." I'm glad he is here to present an opposing view, and I don't consider him an enemy to the cause -- merely a ticked-off homeowner.

I, for one, would be grateful if Your Neighbor would outline the specific steps he is following to challenge his admittedly inconsiderate and clueless chicken-owning neighbor to shut down her operation -- right up through the filing of court papers and the legal resolution to the case.

Information is power, no matter what the outcome.
 
Quote:
I will keep you posted via Private Message. Am getting ready to move on to other "stuff" as I believe I now fully understand the legal issues. Unless someone can come up with some sort of court case conflicting with the precedents I have posted, it appears the response of any court is pretty easy to predict. If one side can post precedents and the other side can't, it is quite a lopsided case, and very easy for the judge. I wonder how many minutes the Milford case took from start to finish. Twenty?

I also intend to talk to the city attorney and city planner about how they could potentially allow chickens without losing control, via the anti-commercial clause. What they choose to do with that information is not my concern, but it only seems fair to let them know about it. I really believe it can be implemented without any abuses. They will be advised of the Milford case outcome and the Ann Arbor statute allowing chickens. Basically they will get a core dump of everything I have learned in the last week.

As for the court papers, I CAN sue to stop her since I have legal standing, but in this case I don't have to. In our city I just have to go to the city enforcement officer. They do the rest.
 
Last edited:
The Ann Arbor Chicken Statute. EXTREMELY well thought out. Multiple protections from RTFA abuse built in. There is a reasonable timing out of permit (5 years). No structure within 10 feet of a property line. Must get all neighbors written permission if not siting at least 40 feet from any neighbor's residential structure. No roosters. Care provisions. Pre-emption provisions. This is a very good ordinance.

http://arborwiki.org/city/Chicken_ordinance
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. I understand the frustration of the backyard chicken owner who has fallen in love with these wonderful creatures and sees the benefits of having them from eggs, pest control, fertilizer, and pets when their municipality does not agree. Thank you, Neighbor, for being consistent and mostly kind in offering the insights that have been discussed here. It has been very helpful.

I am very lucky to have worked a deal with my City, which customarily allows up to 10 chickens. My dilemma was, in studying how I would manage becoming a chicken-parent, and wanting to do it right so as not to create issues in the neighborhood, I accidentally overlooked a major criteria which got me into hot water. Not because I was illegal in having chickens, but because one very hateful and drug-deranged neighbor from two houses away complained. While I obtained written permission from 12 of my surrounding neighbors, I did not ask him (because he scares me) and it ticked him off. He did not complain because there was an actual complaint, he complained because he hates my guts and wanted to make trouble as he has done for the past 12 years. Through his complaints, I learned that I accidentally placed my coop too close to the property line. In my gusto to do things right, I situated my "shed" 5' from the property line. It is built on a concrete slab and may be used for a shed at some point in the future; it is aesthetically pleasing and matches my house. This evil man caused me a lot of heartache and I ended up having to get a 3-year restraining order against him to keep him from killing me. His relatives were nice on the outside and just as evil on the inside, although they did tell the City that my chickens were not a problem for them.

The City has rules, which I thought I followed. 5' is the customary setback for a shed. However, once you put a single bird inside of it, it then becomes illegal. Somehow, I did not see this rule that said a chicken coop must be located 20' from all property lines. Mind you I have no neighbors behind me, only a neighbor's garage and junk-riddled yard next to the coop, the nearest neighbor lives at least 60-70 feet from the coop/run, and the evildoer lived two houses away from me. I was heartbroken and angry about what happened in the next several months. The City cited me for my coop location, but ruled that the chickens were not noisy (I have no roosters). The restraining order came after a number of events by the evil creep some of which include throwing garbage over my fence, tried to poison my dog, beat down my front door demanding I give him items in my back yard which he claimed to be his, tried to commit extortion against me, spit on me when he assaulted me while I was taking out my trash. For a time, this guy moved out of his brother-in-law's house (yes, he's also a 59 year old free-loader, has no job but sucks off the teat of society) while the house was being remodeled.

During the time of the evil man's absence, in addition to obtaining a restraining order (which he refused to follow), I met with the Mayor of my City and shared my dilemma with him. My angle was that my coop0 location was an honest accident and there really is no reason why it can't stay where it is. Also that in these tough times and when all governments are shoving "being green" down our throats, what better way to get back to mother earth than to have grow our own food. I am just trying to survive.

I paid my fine and was required to get rid of all my birds. Then the City went to work. It took one year before the City finally finalized a new ordinance which allowed me to keep my coop where it is. They instituted an ordinance to the existing law which states that upon the approval of the City, they will waive the 20' rule, will not take complaints from anyone regarding its location, and I will pay a $25/year permit fee. This is reasonable to me - even though the Latinos in our area have more than their allotted chickens and let them run loose, and they don't have to pay a permit fee because they all do it, yada yada yada. I am grateful for what my City did for me.

As to the horrible and feckless man who hates me? He had the nerve to MOVE BACK into a small apartment directly behind where he lived before, once again free-loading off his relatives (who moved to Hawaii and rented out their houses)....and did so BEFORE the restraining order was expired. He didn't waste any time calling the City and complaining about my chickens being smelly and noisy. When the City came out to investigate, they found everything in pristine order, no noise, no odor; and after speaking to all my other neighbors, there were no complaints.

In speaking with Animal Control about this and asking why did they investigate me when I have a permit and was under the impression that no one could ever complain again, it made sense to be told that they have to answer noise and smell complaints. The law does not let me be a jerk and not take care of my animals, that's a no brainer. I haven't heard from them since.

Now my question is, Why did the evil one move back here when he knew full well that I had chickens and they weren't going away? Because his life is all about creating havoc and bringing grief to everyone he knows. My birds are not noisy or smelly and he can go to hell.

I wonder if I have any grounds to sue him for harassment and his relatives for knowingly allowing it to happen? I may look into it if I have anymore trouble.

Thanks for listening, good luck to all who are trying to work toward "backyard chicken rights". Working with your municipality does work; try it!
 
Quote:
Are you trying to tell me you don't understand this statement direct from the ruling?

"assuming that the plaintiffs' acquisition of additional land entitled them under the city's zoning ordinance to make agricultural use of the north parcel, a point on which we express no opinion, ..."

The last part is saying the court doesn't want to get involved in the actual argument over with whether or not the required local zoning ordinances were met. By this time the parties were all in agreement that they were, so why did the court make this strange statement? Because they were specifically saying that if they did NOT meet the local zoning ordinances to be a legitimate operation then everything from here on does not apply. You may be confused by this, but no attorney or judge will be.

Surely you can understand how a reasonable person might interpret the judges words to mean exactly what they said ("... a point on which we express no opinion,..."), rather than your assertion ("Nice statement by court in ruling that implies if farm not legally created then their ruling doesn't apply.")

Will I find language that is more clear with respect to the point you're trying to make in the other cases? What words convinced you?

Good morning, everyone.

I am still working through the list of cases that your neighbor claims proves his point that RTFA only applies to farms that are 'legal'. I will reiterate that I have never seen this point made in any of the cases that I have read. Yesterday I stated that I could not find that language in Troy v Papedelis, and your neighbor replied that it it was in the sentence that concluded with "... a point on which we express no opinion...". That is the sentence that your neighbor has interpreted to mean that illegally created farms are not covered by RFTA. But anyone can see that the words from the ruling don't say what he says they do. Do you really still trust him to interpret the law for you?

So let's look at Jerome Township v MI. That is a 1990 case. The MRTFA was ammended in 1999 to say that "... zoning ordinances cannot conflict with the RTFA or Generally Accepted Management Practices (GAAMPS)". I put that part in quotes, to let you know that I am not making it up. You'll find those words in the MSU extension summary of MRTFA cases, so that is THEIR interpretation of what the law means, not mine. That document is here; see the top of page 6. http://web5.msue.msu.edu/lu/pamphlet/Blaw/SelectedPlan&ZoneCourt%20RTFA%201964-2006.pdf

So, the second case that your neighbor claims makes the clear point that illegal farms (by which he means, I think, were created according to city ordinances) are not covered by MRTFA, but neglects to point out that since that case was decided the law has changed, to say that ordinances CANNOT conflict with RTFA. Well, that seems like a relevant point, and I still see exactly zero evidence to support your neighbors assertion.

But on to case 3.
 
Your interpretation of RTFA would allow anyone to create a farm in an industrial zone...or a commercial zone... or anywhere they want After all, that is a very small step from your interpretation. That is just one reason why the courts have not, and probably never will, take your position.

You also do not appear to understand the intent of the legislatures actions in making the amendment. I suggest you look into that. It is enlightening.

Now for the flip side. Where are the case rulings suggesting the interpretation you are making might even possibly be correct? After all, the amendment was made over a decade ago and these cases are coming up all the time. The 1990 position would have been challenged by now, which means it would have been referenced in a court case... and ruling. Searching the internet for "Jerome Township vs Milchi" should bring up SOMETHING. If there is even the remotest possibility that your interpretation of the law is correct, it should be easy to find rulings supporting your position. It would also have to overturn the precedents I have cited. That means it would probably be a Supreme Court case. There is only one Supreme Court case, so it should be easy to check. By strange coincidence, I cited the Supreme Court case in defense of "my" interpretation, so your interpretation isn't looking very likely to be correct, or even legally defensible.

Edit: Ah, what the heck. I already know you won't be able to find one at the Supreme Court level, or even the Appellate level. Let's make this interesting. Can you find one at the trial court level? There are thousands of cases here so it should be easy to find one where your argument was presented. It will probably be one where the defendant represented themself. Most lawyers know better than to make the interpretation you are making. In fact, it seems like almost every backyard chicken farmer is trying to make your interpretation when they go to court. Why are they all losing?

You are free to believe whatever you want. There are people who still believe we never went to the moon, despite the fact that we daily measure the distance to the moon to a precision of inches using lasers and reflectors left on the surface by the astronauts. I am simply asking if your opinions have any basis in fact (removed by Staff--First rule of BYC* Be friendly and courteous to all members at all times.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wbanka and others,

This may help clarify the issue. these articles and legal opinions, all saying the same thing I am saying, are all over the internet.

http://web5.msue.msu.edu/lu/pamphlet/AgrHandBook/PlnZanimalAg30-Ch3.pdf

The preemption of local zoning ordinances
that conflict with the RTFA and GAAMPs
limits local governments from using zoning
ordinances that address management
practices that are addressed in the GAAMPs.
Local governments may still establish
agricultural zones, but where, in the
agricultural zone, a livestock production
facility may be constructed or expanded is
addressed in the site selection

In other words, you cannot establish a farm where the city doesn't want one!! There is also this one, bolded in the original document

A county or township considering the
adoption of any complex or sophisticated
form of regulation of animal agriculture
(or any other complex use) ought to study
carefully the issue of enforcement before
acting.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
    • Like
    • Love
UNDERSTANDING ROOSTER BEHAVIOR and ROOSTER SOCIALIZATION
Replies
7
Views
5K
My Very First 6 Chickens
My Very First 6 Chickens
The Roswell Chickenman
The Real Facts About The City Of Roswell Chicken Man And His Battle !
2
Replies
14
Views
12K
Chook-A-Holic
Chook-A-Holic

New posts New threads Active threads

Back
Top Bottom