Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[suzpyoung]

I rent a property owned by my aunt. Am I protected by the RTFA even if I don't own the property?

 

[RaZ]

I rent a property owned by my aunt. Am I protected by the RTFA even if I don't own the property?

There is nothing in the wording that says you must own property in order to be protected.

Many farming operations exist on rented or leased property.

 

[wingless]

suzpyoung, I don't recall seeing any language in the law or in the court cases to suggest that you have to own the property you're farming on to be protected by RTF.

 

[cowcreekgeek]

I rent a property owned by my aunt. Am I protected by the RTFA even if I don't own the property?

Generally, there is no difference between ownership or leasing, when it comes to *any* right, whether it be a personal residence or where one operates a business ... we've all seen the landlord's that overstepped their legal bounds on the various TV 'court' cases, presuming to have the right to enter w/o warning outside of emergencies 'n such. Even the meter base is your property, 'til you no longer lease. Not that all that is of any concern, but just makin' the point.

A wonderful bonus, when it comes to leased land(s) for farming operations ... any exemptions one can obtain from property taxes, of course, go to the land owner, provided you meet (most usually) your County's requirements. But, if you should choose to move your operation to another location, or expand upon it by entering other areas? The protections *both* follow you *and* remain behind w/ the land(s) previously used:

• If you relocate your commercial farming operation, you can exercise your right to farm as a previously existing business.
• If your Aunt should wish to continue, or to allow any other to continue, or choose to sell the property to anybody else that might want to? They qualify for the protections your previous efforts have established for this location, essentially, as if you were still there. And, even if there's been a lapse of some period of time (although I don't recall what, if any, limitation of time is w/in the Code, but only that it's been specifically addressed ~'-)

This, I believe, is perhaps the best way to spawn additional commercial farming operations, by basically rotating one family into an existing operation, and then another once they've relocated, and then another ... or even multiple operations from w/in the same tract(s) of land.

 

[suzpyoung]

Thank you SO MUCH for the feedback, folks! I'm waiting for a letter from the township that is telling me their attorneys have concluded I'm not protected by RFTA. For the life of me I can't imagine why when I meet all the criteria established in the act along with GAAMPs. I'm on almost 3 acres zoned residential and sell my eggs, but from what I'm reading zoning doesn't matter. So I thought maybe it's because I rent. Thanks again....the comments are sincerely appreciated.

 

[wingless]

DaneGirl and suzpyoung, I really do think the best two documents to hand to your local officials are the ones described below. The first is terrific because it is comprehensive, clear, and credible since it was written by professors at MSU. And the second is terrific because it is the most recent court decision available (December 2012), and reinforces the view that the law protects all farming operations that are commercial and that follow the GAAMPS.

Good luck!

If I were in your situation I would give my township ordinance officer two documents that support the view that under those conditions you are protected by RTF regardless of local regulations. One is this Tech Bulletin written by a couple of professors at MSU; note especially the very clear flow chart on page 2: http://www.animalagteam.msu.edu/uploads/files/20/Tech Bullitin Land Use.pdf

The second is the very recent court decision in Marquette (Forsyth Township v Buchler), which is the first link on this page: http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-courts/

 

[wingless]

Michigan State is offering their annual Agriculture and Natural Resources (ANR) week activities, including a workshop on Small Flock Poultry, and another on becoming certified to perform Pullorum testing.

Link is here: http://anrweek.canr.msu.edu/anrweek/daily_schedule

 

[suzpyoung]

Thank you, Wingless. Believe it or not, I gave the township the link to the MSU Land Use document along with a link to the actual RTFA. They, in turn, supposedly shared that with their attorneys. A couple days later I get an email saying the attorneys decided I'm not protected and that I will receive a letter by Wednesday. I cannot even begin to imagine what their reasoning is. Nobody even asked me any questions, such as am I selling anything. How do I go about getting my case before a panel as those were in the links you shared?

 

[wingless]

Do you mean the court cases? If you keep chickens and your township disagrees I think they'll take you to court, where you can either agree with them to save yourself time and money, or you can engage in a court battle.

Note that a very common mistake that many of us have made - and that your township or their lawyers might be making right now - is to read the Site Selection GAAMPS and conclude that backyard farmers don't meet those requirements and so aren't protected by RTF.

This is actually not the case, because on page 3 of that document a 'livestock production facility' is defined as having 50 'animal units', which is equivalent to 5,000 chickens; thus most or all of the Site Selection GAAMPS apply only to farming operations that meet the definition of 5,000 or more chickens.

The Buchler case that I provided a link to is important because that point was explicitly made in that case, and the judge agreed that because of the definition of 'livestock production facility' as 50 animal units, those Site Selection GAAMPS did not apply to Randy Buchler's much smaller farming operation. So if your township claims that you aren't covered by RTF because of the Site Selection GAAMPS, I would immediately provide them with a copy of the Forsyth Township v Buchler court ruling.

And as always, you should know that I am not a lawyer and in no way intend for my words to be perceived as legal advice!

Good luck!

 

[wingless]

Actually, suzpyoung, it may also be that your township and their lawyers are going to the MDARD GAAMPS page for the GAAMPS, and are downloading the 2013 Draft Site Selection GAAMPS which are still posted on that website: http://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1567_1599_1605---,00.html

It is very important that your township know and understand that those Draft 2013 Site Selection GAAMPS were NOT approved by the Ag Commission at their meeting in December. If the 2013 Draft Site Selection GAAMPS had been approved (and were legally sound, which I personally think is debatable), then all of us would be subject to the Site Selection GAAMPS because - you guessed it - in that document MDARD proposed to change the definition of 'livestock production facility' from 50 animal units to 1 animal. But those changes didn't win approval from the Ag Commission, so your township should be looking at the 2012 Site Selection GAAMPS instead.

And, even if the Draft 2013 Site Selection GAAMPS had been passed, I think they wouldn't apply to you because you began your operation before those changes to the language in the Site Selection GAAMPS were in place. So that is another argument for your township to look at the 2012 Site Selection GAAMPS rather than the Draft 2013 Site Selection GAAMPS, which the Ag Commission unanimously voted against in December of 2012.

Or at least that is my understanding, and that is what I would do. I am for sure not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.