Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[wingless]

Just in case you haven't seen this Williamstown Township case: http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/Family-Fights-To-Keep-Farm-Animals-199643751.html

Edited to add her Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/sweetpeasfarmandrabbitry

Thanks AngelaTC.

I keep thinking about this case - and other individual cases around the state - and wondering what action we can take to actually help. It sounds like she has received enough donations to mount a good court case - and in the courtroom, this seems like only thing that matters.

I guess the one thing that would really help her court case is if she had a GAAMPS inspection, and was shown to be compliant with the GAAMPS. As far as I know, MDARD will find a reason to not inspect her operation - or any operation that is not in a rural area, or not in the lower peninsula. But I think the law states that MDARD is required to provide an inspection, for any farm operation that has received a complaint. So if she (or anyone) requested a GAAMPS inspection and was refused, I think the matter could be brought up to the Agriculture Commission, to get clarity on MDARDs position with respect to providing these inspections - and hopefully, to get MDARD to start providing GAAMPS inspections to any farming operation involved in a dispute with their city or township.

 

[AngelaTC]

I guess the one thing that would really help her court case is if she had a GAAMPS inspection, and was shown to be compliant with the GAAMPS. As far as I know, MDARD will find a reason to not inspect her operation - or any operation that is not in a rural area, or not in the lower peninsula. But I think the law states that MDARD is required to provide an inspection, for any farm operation that has received a complaint. So if she (or anyone) requested a GAAMPS inspection and was refused, I think the matter could be brought up to the Agriculture Commission, to get clarity on MDARDs position with respect to providing these inspections - and hopefully, to get MDARD to start providing GAAMPS inspections to any farming operation involved in a dispute with their city or township.

I had a brief conversation with her on Facebook. She told me this thread originally gave her the hope that her farm wasn't a lost cause. So if she (and her lawyer) has read it all the way through, they should have that base covered. Reading her page, she's a really upbeat person, and is using her platform to help spread the message about other regulations affecting other farmers. I am really rooting for her.

 

[CaraBear]

Well, it's Chick Days at TSC again...so this year, I took my kids and the hubby, and checked them out of course, they're very cute right now...and tempting...

and my second daughter doesn't understand why I can't get the state to tell my city that it's legal for me to have chickens...so I'm sending another letter!

 

[eldenbrady]

@CATRAY44
If you are growing something (plants, animals, etc) in order to sell it you are protected from nisiance lawsuit and local zoning and other ordinances as long as you follow the state Generally Accepted Agricural Managem Practices (GAAMPs) (http://www.michigan.gov/mdard/0,4610,7-125-1567_1599_1605---,00.html).

If you are in a homeowners association that is another matter. It is untested if right to farm pre-empts homeowner association rules.

 

[eldenbrady]

Who is heading up the ordinance change in Albion? We moved over two years ago and tis been over a year since I was last there.

 

[tjbeckman]

Sorry if this has already been presented but I wondered if anyone else had read up on this? I find it interesting. For me, the most important ones involve someone in a village, as that is where I live. I would think that I would then possibly be covered by case law due to the 2004 Court of Appeals ruling of Village of Rothbury vs. Double JJ Ranch. What are your thoughts?
http://lu.msue.msu.edu/pamphlet/Blaw/SelectedPlan&ZoneCourt RTFA 1964-2006.pdf

 

[wingless]

Sorry if this has already been presented but I wondered if anyone else had read up on this? I find it interesting. For me, the most important ones involve someone in a village, as that is where I live. I would think that I would then possibly be covered by case law due to the 2004 Court of Appeals ruling of Village of Rothbury vs. Double JJ Ranch. What are your thoughts?
http://lu.msue.msu.edu/pamphlet/Blaw/SelectedPlan&ZoneCourt RTFA 1964-2006.pdf

Actually, if you read the RTF law you'll see that it does not have different provisions that depend on where you live - so it doesn't matter if you're in a city, a village, or a rural area. Similarly, the law doesn't put an acreage limit to qualify as a "farm", and doesn't put a number on what it means to be "commercial".

The upshot is that everyone in Michigan is protected by Right to Farm, so long as you meet the criteria that the law does require for RTF protection: you have a farm, it is commercial, you comply with the GAAMPS.

So yes, I think this court case supports the view that RTF protects you, but so do all the other RTF cases on the books - or in that great article that you cited.

But please note that I am not a lawyer, and this is just my opinion.

 

[tjbeckman]

Now here is my next issue...Correct me if I am wrong but if I move into an area that is residental, then I have to follow ordanences that are already in place since the land was not used as a farm prior? Also, would I have a leg to stand on and argue if I pointed out that many of my neighbors have gardens that could also be considered farms?

 

[wingless]

Now here is my next issue...Correct me if I am wrong but if I move into an area that is residental, then I have to follow ordanences that are already in place since the land was not used as a farm prior? Also, would I have a leg to stand on and argue if I pointed out that many of my neighbors have gardens that could also be considered farms?

First, on the question of whether it matters that the land was not previously used as a farm. If you look at page 9 of the document that you referenced earlier today, you'll see this quote from the ruling on the Papadelis v Troy case:

"A farm operation that conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices is entitle to the protection provided by the RTFA without regard to the historic use of the property in question."

So historic use is not an issue in Right to Farm protection.

My view of ordinances is that they almost always apply. The important exception to that rule is what this thread is all about. For the specific subset of people with commercial farming operations that follow the GAAMPS, Right to Farm supercedes all ordinances and local regulations, for the part of their farm operation that is commercial. If you meet RTF criteria, you do not have to also meet ordinances for the part of your operation that is commercial.

Again, this is just my opinion, based on my own reading of the law and court cases.

 

[RaZ]

I apologize for the late notice. I wanted to let any interested party know that my "criminal" chicken case trial commences tomorrow, April 11, 2013. A jury trial (case number 12GC1470) will be heard in the 21st District Court, Garden City, Michigan, before the Honorable Richard L. Hammer, Jr.

Interested observers should note that the scheduled start time is 8:30 am. - Thank you.