Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[dianaross77]

I think unless the person in trouble brings up the MRFTA, it won't be brought up. The townships either don't know or don't want us to know that it exists. As far as the operating a business from home, that too would overridden by the MRFTA as it is a local ordinance in direct conflict with the MRFTA.

 

[Denninmi]

Quote:
That's what I think, too, which has me puzzled -- there were some comments in another local paper about people "trying to 'bring up' the MRTFA' with this particular township, and it "didn't work" -- I'm going to try to find this reference, it was in either the paper linked above or the Oakland Press.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

In most of the cases where it "didn't work," there was no clear commercial intent. Intent was home use or hobby, and documented evidence that that was how those MRTFA protection viewed their birds/garden/greenhouse/etc.

 

[Denninmi]

I really want to apologize to everyone on the forum if I seem stupid, or obsessed.

I want to clarify my situation -- I am just concerned that the township I live in might come after me. Concerned to the point that I'm having trouble sleeping, which isn't good! Suddenly getting nervous about the noise. I know there isn't an odor issue, I try to keep them clean, and any odor or fly issue is extremely minimal and not close at all to lot lines or roads.

So, here are more questions:

1) "Farm" is a permitted use in my zoning classification, R12.5

The definition of "Farm" in the zoning ordinance says "hereunder shall include a continuous parcel of five (5) acres or more in area".

MRTFA would trump this, right, and say that they can't restrict farming based on lot size?

2) Based on the readings I've done, it seems ambiguous to me whether or not they could restrict placement and construction of pens/coops. What do you think about that issue?

3) "Grandfathering" -- my parents bought the land in 1948. We have 2 acres BUT its two separate owners, my sister owns one of the 2 acres -- it all originally belonged to my uncle, sister bought her chunk in 1985.

So, my township adopted zoning ordinances in 1966, and revised them in 1982. If keeping birds was legal prior to 1966, and it was (several people had free-roaming flocks back in 1970s when I was a kid, and no one said boo, so ASSUMING it was legal), wouldn't we be grandfathered as a non-conforming use? (I realize this is a separate issue from the MRTFA issues, and entails its own "kettle of worms".

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Grandfathering can work different ways. It really depends on how the land was brought under control of the zoning authority, and what if any contractural obligations were agreed to.

Some of the ways it can work is that the non-conforming use lasts forever, regardless of transfer of ownership or ceasation of the non-conforming use for a period of time. This would probably only be done if it was required to get the landowners to agree to annexation. Another way it can work is that it lasts until the property transfers to another; inheritance would probably count as a transfer; purchase certainly would--even if the purchase was from a family member. And a third way is that it can last until the non-conforming use ceases and does not begin again for a stated period of time (one year, five years, etc.) And a fourth is that it can last, but gradually disappears over time: for example, one could be allowed to keep all animals currently owned, but not be allowed to expand or replace them. Or acreage could be farmed, but only the fields currently farmed--no extra acres added.

There are multiple combinations of these that could be enacted; it really depends on the jurisdiction. Note, this has no bearing on RTFA legislation--strictly covering some of the different ways of grandfathering.

 

[RaZ]

I see no need to apologize, we are all here to learn.

As to the other factor, worry to the point of losing sleep doesn't help you, your family or your chickens. Print a copy of the MRTFA and stick it in a folder. Print a copy of your local ordinance and file that too. Print any other documents that support your position.

Being prepared is a good thing.

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
Not stupid, maybe a bit obsessed. But I would rather see someone who puts out the efforts to figure out and understand their rights (even if they have to fight for them) than someone who says, "I want, therefore I will have, regardless of the law."

It seems to me that MRTFA should trump--specifically as court rulings have specifically stated that there is no minimum of land required to be covered by the act. Not sure about the placement and construction of the coops. So long as the requirements are not so stringent as to prevent you from having them at all, placement seems reasonable. If they specifically try to govern coop or pen construntion, probably wouldn't hold water. If they require all buildings over a stated size, or that have electric or plumbing to meet the standards of a building code, it probably would.

 

[MI-CHick]

If the city allows a certain (low) number of hens does the RTF protect someone who needs to have more hens in order to have excess eggs to sell? If so, how does that work? Would someone pay for a permit for x number of hens and then have the extra hens without a permit?

 

[mcbeers]

Quote:
I would think that paying for a permit would be saying you don't agree that MRTFA protects you from needing a permit to begin with. If you believe that the act protects you, the permit is not needed anyway. I am no lawyer, but I would think getting the permit may not hurt you, but may not help your cause. Almost like admitting you are wrong to have the amount of chickens that you want, but they don't want you to have.

 

[dianaross77]

Quote:
I would think that paying for a permit would be saying you don't agree that MRTFA protects you from needing a permit to begin with. If you believe that the act protects you, the permit is not needed anyway. I am no lawyer, but I would think getting the permit may not hurt you, but may not help your cause. Almost like admitting you are wrong to have the amount of chickens that you want, but they don't want you to have.

I agree with mcbeers. If you want to keep enough hens to make yourself a legitimate commercial operation, the permit would be pointless and may even hurt you. The ordinance is a good thing for people who want eggs for personal use without having to worry about qualifying for the MRFTA but if that doesn't work for you, I'd just forget about the permit and prepare to prove the MRFTA protects you.