Has anyone ever tried to get a emergency injunction for their hens?

[starrwalker]

Can't apply for an appeal,when the "case" was never in court only "tried "before Town Hall. The town has come to the conclusion that they need to rethink the entire animal ordinance. I have already asked for a text change to the section pertaining to hens and was denied 1x they will however have to reword this section durring the change of the entire ordinance which is our next and only chance at the town allowing hens. I was hoping that a court ordered injunction might allow us to hold onto the hens untill untill changes have been made.

 

[Judy]

farrier! :

These guys get voted in and sometimes a majority opinion will change their minds.

This is a good point. At least the mayor must have been elected -- what about the town council? Your petition is 200 out of what population size?

Is it Michigan or Wisconsin, I forget, has a right to farm law that makes any local ordinances like this invalid. I personally feel it is a violation of our civil rights to outlaw chickens. And your case is certainly a good example of why I feel this way. Have you considered or do you have an attorney?

Glad the media is involved, anyway, that might help.

Good luck!​

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Why will they have to reword the section when they rewrite the code? If it is because it is unclear, then your case against their mandatge is stronger. If it is because it doesn't specifically mention chickens, the same.

If they have said they are going to re-address and rewrite the entire animal ordinance, then it sounds to me like you have a perfect case for an injunction. You are also upping the ante by having a court of law review the case.

 

[starrwalker]

We live in NC - I think the mayor would be on our side however she has said to me many times that this is an election year for her and 2 other council members - and she feels this is affecting the outcome -
The population in our town is a little over 4,000 people -

We don't have an attorney - & can't really afford to hire one for chickens -
however would love to hear the advice one would give -

This is our actual ordinance -

' 91.15 KEEPING OF CERTAIN ANIMALS PROHIBITED; EXCEPTIONS.
(A) It shall be unlawful for any person to keep any horse, mule, donkey, pony, hog, cattle, sheep,
chicken, turkey, goat or pig within the municipal limits of the town except on a residentially zoned parcel
or tract of land two acres or greater in size. However, horses may be allowed on a residentially zoned
parcel or tract one and one-half acres or greater in size. The list of animals provided above is not to be
deemed all-inclusive.
(Ord. passed 6-26-95)

See any loopholes?
we could always find a home for our hens and get an emu - l but I have a feeling that would fall under the" not all inclusive" part.

 

[txredneckmedic]

loophole....acquire more than 2 acres

 

[starrwalker]

or I could just purchase 1 acre to go with my 1/2 and get a horse -
it seems funny a horse needs less room than a chicken

 

[Judy]

What you need is a lawyer who lives in town and has chickens....

 

[mom2chicksandpups]

It certainly won't hurt to try. I would go for it if I were you.

Good luck!

 

[starrwalker]

How could I use the NC right to farm act in my favor?

Just looked it up and it seems to apply - we haven't really "sold "many friuts, veggis , or eggs but neighbors will give the kids a few bucks for extra eggs every now & then - is there a dollar limit on being a agriculutral operation? What about size we own 1/2 acre is our land to small?We've "been in operation for over a year now" Here
is the actual text for those who don't mind reading -

- its a bit of a read but if anyone eles lives in NC and has problems it may help




§ 106‑701. When agricultural and forestry operation, etc., not constituted nuisance by changed conditions in locality.

(a) No agricultural or forestry operation or any of its appurtenances shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the locality thereof after the same has been in operation for more than one year, when such operation was not a nuisance at the time the operation began; provided, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent or improper operation of any such agricultural or forestry operation or its appurtenances.

(b) For the purposes of this Article, "agricultural operation" includes, without limitation, any facility for the production for commercial purposes of crops, livestock, poultry, livestock products, or poultry products.

(b1) For the purposes of this Article, "forestry operation" shall mean those activities involved in the growing, managing, and harvesting of trees, but not sawmill operations.

(c) The provisions of subsection (a) shall not affect or defeat the right of any person, firm, or corporation to recover damages for any injuries or damages sustained by him on account of any pollution of, or change in condition of, the waters of any stream or on the account of any overflow of lands of any such person, firm, or corporation.

(d) Any and all ordinances of any unit of local government now in effect or hereafter adopted that would make the operation of any such agricultural or forestry operation or its appurtenances a nuisance or providing for abatement thereof as a nuisance in the circumstance set forth in this section are and shall be null and void; provided, however, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent or improper operation of any such agricultural or forestry operation or any of its appurtenances. Provided further, that the provisions shall not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural or forestry operation located within the corporate limits of any city at the time of enactment hereof.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

(d) Any and all ordinances of any unit of local government now in effect or hereafter adopted that would make the operation of any such agricultural or forestry operation or its appurtenances a nuisance or providing for abatement thereof as a nuisance in the circumstance set forth in this section are and shall be null and void; provided, however, that the provisions of this subsection shall not apply whenever a nuisance results from the negligent or improper operation of any such agricultural or forestry operation or any of its appurtenances. Provided further, that the provisions shall not apply whenever a nuisance results from an agricultural or forestry operation located within the corporate limits of any city at the time of enactment hereof.

That very last sentence seems to deny you protection unless 1) you are outside city limits or 2) the law/ordinance/rule disallowing poultry went into affect AFTER the law you quoted.​