Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[Chickenmaven]

From what I have read, the real *sticky* spot with MRTFA is that it cedes certain rights to GAAMP (some rules for agriculture management). One GAAMP rule - that passed in 2000 - relates to site selection. My understanding is that farms established prior to this passage will not fall under the GAAMP stating that residential areas are unacceptable. So, if my farm was set up in 1999 and my friend's was set up in 2001, I have protection, but she does not.

Something I read on the State of MI website that I found confusing was language about GAAMP being "voluntary." tHE WEBSITE STATES:

The Michigan Right to Farm Act, P.A. 93, was enacted in 1981 to provide farmers with protection from nuisance lawsuits. This state statute authorizes the Michigan Commission of Agriculture to develop and adopt Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs) for farms and farm operations in Michigan. These voluntary practices are based on available technology and scientific research to promote sound environmental stewardship and help maintain a farmer's right to farm.

How can there be anything voluntary about rules that are enfoRced by a State agency?

 

[shadygrovefarm]

I was just reading through some of the definitions set forth in the GAAMPS and one of them is as follows:
Livestock Production Facilities - Includes all facilities where farm animals as defined in
the Right to Farm Act are confined with a capacity of 50 animal units or greater and/or
the associated manure storage facilities. Sites such as loafing areas, confinement
areas, or feedlots, which have livestock densities, that preclude a predominance of
desirable forage species, are considered part of a livestock facility. Pasture lands are
excluded.
We have equivelant to approx. 1.5 animal units ( ~80 laying hens and 5 shetland sheep - 2 of which are lambs). So, technically we wouldn't even be considered a Livestock Production Facility. We do, however, sell our eggs at the local farmers market that we started this year and we also sell them to the local food co-op. I have also spoken with a representative of the Michigan Dept. of Agriculture who says we are, in his opinion, not doing anything wrong and that we have plenty of space for what we are doing. Just looking for some feedback I guess...

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Have you read through this whole thread? And checked out the links for the actual statutes and law cases?

As I read them, the statute completely overrides ALL zoning ordinances; case law determined that there is NO minimum property size to be considered a farm.

In your appear, you need to provide the exact references and copies of them to each person who will be hearing the appeal; and you also need to demand that your filing fees for the initial hearing and your appeal be returned to you as they do not have jurisdiction IAW with state law. Hire an attorney.

 

[shadygrovefarm]

I have read through the whole thread, including the RTFA, but have not clicked on ALL the links yet. The "iffy" parts with the RTFA and the GAAMP's are dealing with "site selection" and the parts where it says that if there are zoning laws against new or expanding farms, then they might be able to enforce them. However, the way I am reading the GAAMP's, it sounds like it only pertains to farms with a minimum of 50 animals units. As I stated before, we have less than 1.5 animal units. I am currently dealing with some gentlemen from the MSU extension office here in the U.P., one of which is a District Livestock Educator, to obtain more knowledge and information to try and help us.
I am also working on trying to get the LLC in place. I didn't have any luck in pulling up an application on line however. I am going to try one more time and if doesn't work, I will call them. Thank you all for any information regarding this matter. We are very passionate about our lifestyle and won't give up!

 

[shadygrovefarm]

Well, I just spoke with a County Extension Director here in the U.P. and he said it doesn't look good for us. The only way the RTFA would protect us is if the zoning ordinance was put in place after we already had our animals. Because we are zoned lake residential and agricultural activity is not a permitted use or a conditional use per the zoning. However, we are not going to give up. If we can somehow change what the zoning says pertaining to agricultural activity in a lake residential area, then we will have progress. Time to rewrite some zoning and present it to the board I guess. We have lots and lots of support from the community!!

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Re-read posts #54, #75 & #78, and check out the legal rulings and findings in the links in #54. Your County Extension Agent is incorrect. His advise directly conflicts with a court ruling. As for GAAMPS, you need to review the current rules, but the ruling I partially quoted below includes definitions from the RTFA that protect you regardless of hte number of animals or size of farm (read the whole link--I only included part of it).

It may be that GAAMPS is required by law for larger farming operations such as the 50 units you mention; however that does not mean it cannot be voluntarily followed on smaller operations, which then become protected under the RTFA.

As for forming an LLC, look under your state's Corporation Division: http://www.michigan.gov/dleg/0,1607,7-154-35299_36737---,00.html


Specifically, from the first link: (bold added to show applicability)

B. Preemption

Defendants argue that if their poultry operation is commercial in nature and in compliance with the relevant GAAMPs, the RTFA preempts plaintiff's ordinance. Plaintiff argues to the contrary that irrespective of the farm's commercial nature or compliance with the GAAMPs, the RTFA is inapplicable because at the time defendants initiated their poultry operation, farming was prohibited on property less than three acres.

State law preempts a municipal ordinance where the ordinance directly conflicts with a state statute or the statute completely occupies the field that the ordinance attempts to regulate. Rental Prop Owners Ass'n of Kent Co v Grand Rapids, 455 Mich 246, 257; 566 NW2d 514 (1997). A direct conflict exists when the ordinance permits what the statute prohibits or the ordinance prohibits what the statute permits. People v Llewellyn, 401 Mich 314, 322 n 4; 257 NW2d 902 (1977).

The RTFA, specifically MCL 286.474(6) provides:

Beginning June 1, 2000, except as otherwise provided in this section, it is the express legislative intent that this act preempt any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that purports to extend or revise in any manner the provisions of this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a local unit of government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that conflicts in any manner with this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act. [Emphasis added.]

The language of the statute is unambiguous and clearly states that a local ordinance is preempted when it purports to extend or revise the RTFA or GAAMPs. It further plainly states that a local unit of government shall not enforce an ordinance that conflicts in any manner with the RTFA or GAAMPs. It is undisputed that plaintiff's Ordinance No. 212.9 § 9.10(A), which was in force when defendants bought the property in 1995, prohibited raising poultry on a parcel smaller than three acres. It is also undisputed that the property did not exceed 1.074 acres. The relevant GAAMPs provide for the proper management practices for poultry farming, including, but not limited, to facilities, manure management and care of chickens and turkeys. Plaintiff has not produced, and we are unable to find, any GAAMP that limits poultry farming to property consisting of more than three acres. As we concluded above, if defendants' farm is commercial in nature and in compliance with the GAAMPs, it is a farm operation protected by the RTFA. The ordinance conflicts with the RTFA to the extent that it allows plaintiff to preclude a protected farm operation by limiting the size of a farm.

Further, as we previously noted, MCL 286.474(6) expressly provides "a local unit of government shall not . . . enforce an ordinancethat conflicts in any manner with this act . . .". Emphasis added, MCL 286.474(6). We cannot imagine any clearer expression of legislative intent. The plain language of the RTFA precludes enforcement of an ordinance that conflicts with the RTFA.​

 

[AskelFarm]

We also own a farm in the U.P.


Here is sect 6 of Michigan Right to arm Act.


(6) Beginning June 1, 2000, except as otherwise provided in this section, it is the express legislative intent that this act preempt any local ordinance, regulation, or resolution that purports to extend or revise in any manner the provisions of this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act. Except as otherwise provided in this section, a local unit of government shall not enact, maintain, or enforce an ordinance, regulation, or resolution that conflicts in any manner with this act or generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under this act.

Now, you should print out an entire copy of the Act and forward it to your local authority. Include a nice note asking them to drop their attempt to enforce a local ordinance that is in conflict with STATE law. Also request that all monies your have spent so far be refunded.

If they see the 'error' of their ways fine. If not you will have to, unfortunately hire a lawyer. But you can also sue to recover his costs as well.

Here is a link to the ACT, and a link to GAAPMS. These are your guidelines for your farm responsibility. Read and understand both!!!

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ph...mcl-act-93-of-1981&queryid=8769063&highlight=

http://www.michigan.gov/mda/0,1607,7-125-1566_2311_2313-13052--,00.html

Or, just google Michigan Right to Farm Act

The law is written in such a manner as it is very clear and straight forward. Sleep easy tonight folks, for once the law is on your side!

I am not a lawyer.....I am a farmer, but even I understand this act.

[email protected]

 

[shadygrovefarm]

Who is this Destiny Mike and how do I get ahold of him? It sounds like he might have some great, helpful info. I was contacted by the zoning office again today and was told that I can't appeal the hearing decisioin due to the fact that the zoning staff made a recommendation to the board against us. So, now it just goes in front of the Township Board in 2 weeks for them to review the case, hear public comment and then make a decision based on what they have read and hear. I need as much ammo as I can get for this meeting. I forwarded on some RTFA info to the township supervisor and he spoke with the township atty. and it seems as though they were a bit nicer to me on the phone today. They actually said something about the possibility of a 1 year reprieve (sp?) to allow a chance for the zoning ordinance to be re-written to try and make it work for our small community. But, I still want to present them with as much knowledge/facts as possible. Thanks to all of you for your input/advice/etc...It is great to see that there are so many of us that care about our WAY OF LIFE!!!! Peace.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Contact your state agriculture department, as well as your state legislators. Send copies of (and online links as well) the RTFA and court decisions. In the copies you provide, highlight the pertinent sections that explicitly say that zoning code that conflicts with the act does NOT override these rights, but rather is unenforceable. Also highlight the portion of the act that explicitly grants legal fees to the prevailing party, and state that you wish to have the fees you have already paid returned in full. It might be wise to have an attorney draft the letter. (of course that fee needs to be tacked on to your request as well.)

 

[shadygrovefarm]

I recently came across some info in the Traverse City Record-Eagle. They have passes an ordinance to allow chickens in the city, up to 4 hens but no roosters! (Ann Arbor also allows it). "City Attorney Karrie Zeits researched and discovered the Michigan Right to Farm Act prohibits cities from banning commercial farming, including raising chickens, she said." "A city resident need only sell one egg to qualify as commercial, Zeits said." This is right from the article on June 5, 2009.

http://www.record-eagle.com/archivesearch/local_story_156225644.html