Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[wingless]

My understanding is that MTRF applies not only to commercial farms, but to any farm; if you go back to page 15, post 141, you'll see that ""Farm" means the land, plants, animals, buildings, structures ... used in the commercial production of farm products." Other posts cite decisions in which "commercial" was defined as selling a single egg. Importantly, zoning laws only come into play if you have more than 50 animal units - and it takes 100 chickens to make a single animal unit as defined by that law.

Earlier this year I tried to understand the subtleties of the legal arguments, and opened documents around the Thomason case in Ypsilanti. I posted on page 36, posts 351 and 356, that the ruling against Thomason appeared to rest on the legal definition of "livestock production facility" - and suggested that the judge appeared not to know that "livestock production facility" is a legal term that means 50 units of animals, or 5000 laying hens. Since Thomason did not have a livestock production facility by this definition, the zoning rules that the judge referred to were irrelevant. If you read just the bold parts of post 356 - which is the text of the actual legal decision - you can see immediately, in the judges own writing, that he did not understand the definition of that term, and that he rested the ruling entirely on that point.

I haven't read "every" Michigan RTF case, but the one that I looked at carefully left me unconvinced that the issue is settled, because - as far as I know - there is no case in which all the relevant arguments have been made, and the community farmer still lost.

 

[Your_neighbor]

Thank you for your clarification. I should have said I have read every case I could find =>at the appeals court or higher<= and have edited my post as such. At the first level the judges sometimes aren't very knowledgeable, as you have figured out for yourself. I found long ago that reading at that level is a waste of time unless you are going in front of that particular judge. If you use cases from higher up the line the judge will usually listen to you.

MRTF only applies to commercial farms but "commercial" has been interpreted so loosely that it is pretty easy to say you are commercial.

Did you mean to say

SITING laws only come into play if you have more than 50 animal units?

 

[wingless]

I thought one of your main arguments was that MTRF applies only to commercial farms, and that your neighbor, at least had violated laws to establish her farm, so MTRF does not apply (post 411)? But here you say that it is easy to get that commercial status? Is there some specific law in Auburn Hills that makes it difficult to get commercial status there?

I did not mean to say that "Siting laws only come into play if you have more than 50 animal units" because I am not knowledgeable enough to make such an uncompromising statement. But let's say that it's true, and go back and read what the judge said in the Thomason case - that the ONLY relevant GAAMP with respect to the backyard chicken case was site selection and odor control for new and existing livestock production facilities. If what you said is true (siting laws are only relevant with 50 or more units) and what he said is true (GAAMP is only relevant with respect to siting laws and odor control) and what I said is true (Thomason did not want 5000 or more chickens), then I don't think the law allows GAMMP siting rules to prevent Thomason from keeping chickens in his back yard. Again, what the judge said is posted on page 36, post 356.

If you know of appeals court cases that speak to this point, I would be very interested in learning about them.

 

[Your_neighbor]

I have looked at post 356. It makes sense to me. Not sure what is causing the confusion but let me try and elaborate a bit.

GAAMP and RTF were never intended for backyard chicken farming. They were intended to prevent nuisance suits against legitimately established commercial farms due to encroaching housing. I am talking mom and pop cattle farms selling to slaughterhouses, big penned chicken farms, nurseries, stuff you see if you go into the country. These are typically large operations that generate significant tax revenue for the state.

If you are a legitimately established commercial farm and follow GAAMP, the state bars local townships and citizens with bothering you about the smells and sounds of running your legitimate business.

If your operation is of significant size, your operations will have a significant effect on the surrounding area (and your neighbors). The state wants to be sure you are using good farming practices in exchange for it's protection. That is what the siting guidelines are all about.

Siting guidelines really shouldn't be applying to LEGITIMATE backyard chicken operations, i.e. people not violating zoning ordinances by establishing a flock. Your flock should be nowhere near the size of a commercial poultry operation.

Since the siting guidelines do not apply, the local ordinances to things like setbacks apply. The Michigan Supreme Court SPECIFICALLY stated this in Padalski vs Troy. If there are not applicable guidelines in GAAMP, local ordinances apply as long as they do not contradict what IS in RTF and GAAMP.

People have been trying to twist RTF and GAAMP to suit their own purposes but that's because they don't understand the laws. Once you understand what it's all about it really has been quite consistently applied by the courts. It almost never applies to illegal farms (See Shelby vs Papesh for a VERY special case) and the courts have explicitly stated this. There really is no gray area. There are simply people who don't (want to?) understand the law.

Hope this helps.

 

[wingless]

Well, the judge in the Thomason case did not argue that GAAMP and RTF were never intended for backyard chicken farming, as you assert - and in fact did not make any of the other arguments that you make.

Again, I am personally very interested in understanding how RTF issues have moved through the courts, and what the outstanding issues are. If you could cite the cases that you're referring to, and even point to the language that supports your views, that would be very helpful. If you don't cite the documents you are referring to - as has been done extensively on this thread, beginning with the very first post - then what you say sounds like your opinion rather than established law.

But if it is established law, I for one am really interested. You have your audience. Go ahead and make your best case - but this time no assertions without evidence, and sourced so we can look at the documents too.

 

[Your_neighbor]

My mistake I thought you were referring to just the process.

The document on the Ypsilanti web site is currently unavailable but I did look into some articles on the Thomason farm in Ypsilanti. There is no way in Hades it has to meet that GAAMP guideline. It's not really an issue of precedents, which come into play when a law is ambiguous or unestablished. The law is clear.

That raises an interesting issue. The guideline should have come up during the hearing, and the Thomason representative should have immediately pointed out it doesn't apply.

later edit: It also raises another interesting question as to why the judge did this. The judge should have known better that to make such a stupid mistake. I read numerous snippets about the Thomason farm when I initially looked into this. I seem to recall reading that Thomason made an agreement with the city about only raising chickens in exchange for the city not shutting him down when they could have. If true then Thomason welched on the deal later when he realized he now had RTFA protection. Some people, like the city representatives who bent the rules to try and help him out, might consider him to be a slimeball for doing that. I rescanned through a half dozen documents just now and couldn't find it but the faulty judgement could have been payback.

Anyhow the Thomasons should win on appeal. After they win the appeal the Thomasons are not free to do as they please. Due to the Supreme Court ruling in Troy vs Papadelis they will have to meet the various requirements of their zoning, such as setback, if a GAAMP guideline does not apply. If they really did welch on a deal with the city, the city probably isn't done with their payback. Their neighbors might have some plans for the Thomasons as well, if they were involved in agreeing to the initial deal. It goes back to what I said in my very first post here. Don't pi$$ off people just to get your way, especially if you are violating laws to get your way. It always comes back around and whacks you in the face. You just might not make the connection between your "bad luck" and what you did to make it happen to you.

 

[wingless]

So we agree that a mistake was made in the Thomason case, and that he has a reasonable chance to win on appeal.

But you then argue, I think, that if the GAAMP rules don't apply, we are in a different legal space, covered in at least in part by the Papadelis v Troy Supreme Court case? And in post 434 you say "If there are not applicable guidelines in GAAMP, local ordinances apply as long as they do not contradict what IS in RTF and GAAMP". Bold added by me.

That sounds to me like backyard farmers are explicitly protected by RTF in Michigan, and that RTF trumps local ordinances. That has been the main point of this thread.

 

[Your_neighbor]

I agree that, based on what I have seen, the judge made a serious error. I have not read the transcript of the actual case to know why the judge did that but it seems an appeal will be a slam dunk for the Thomasons.

"That sounds to me like backyard farmers are explicitly protected by RTF in Michigan, and that RTF trumps local ordinances. "

That's not quite correct. LEGAL COMMERCIAL backyard farmers are explicitly protected by RTFA in Michigan, and RTFA trumps local ordinances WHERE THEY DIRECTLY CONFLICT WITH A PROVISION OF THE RTFA OR PUBLISHED GAAMP. The difference between our statements is what the Supreme court case was all about. The Supreme Court took the case to explicitly make those points. They didn't want to get involved but the RTFA issue was getting out of control. People were starting to make your blanket statement that RTFA trumps all local ordinances. The Supreme Court stepped in and very clearly told all the Michigan courts "No, RTFA does not trump ALL local ordinances."

Here is a site from a key player in that case. It's a straightforward read. These guys contacted Troy and said they should appeal to the Supreme Court. These guys also prepared and submitted a critical brief to the court in that case.

http://www.mml.org/legal/ldf_top25/ldf_25.htm

The part about being a legal farm is also implied by basic theory of law taught in any introductory legal course. You cannot break the law to claim protection from it. All the court decisions I have seen confirm this. This is such a fundamental legal concept that it rarely needs to be mentioned except on threads like this where people have no legal background. If the legislature had wanted to allow backyard farms anywhere they would have made a law saying "Creation of a farm on residential property, subject to the following requirements (blah-blah-blah) shall not be pre-empted by any local ordinance." This would be such an absurd intrusion by the state into municipal affairs/planning that there would have been an immediate uproar.

There are people on the threads who would disagree but the courts are full of people who don't understand law. They are known as the losers in court cases.

 

[wingless]

I live in Ann Arbor, where the backyard chicken ordinance requires that I obtain permission from all adjoining neighbors, in writing; construct the coop at least 10 feet from property lines; construct the coop at least 40 feet from any dwelling; and limit myself to 4 hens. Or something like that. I don't have the document in front of me.

According to your world-view, if I wish to be a legal commercial backyard farmer I am protected by RTF, and do not require permission from my neighbors, as my city ordinance requires. Is that correct?

But I am subject to those local ordinances that do not specifically restrict my right to farm, like city ordinances requiring specific setbacks from property lines - so long as I can still farm. Yes?

However, in some cases, the language of the ordinance may violate RTF in specific cases (e.g., my backyard is extremely shallow, such that there IS no possible placement of a coop that is both 10 feet from all property lines AND 40 feet from any dwelling); in those cases RTF would again trump, and I would be allowed to build a coop that does not conform to the ordinance. Yes?

And, if I wished to not only sell eggs, but also fertilized hatching eggs or birds as part of my commercial operation, then the city could also not restrict me from having roosters.

That is very clarifying.

I have opened some documents on the Troy v Papadelis case, including the 2009 appeals case. It is pretty complicated, but it looks to me like the Supreme Court and then the appeals court went to great lengths to support Papadelis rather than the city of Troy. As far as I can tell, they were allowed to continue their farming operation in a residential area unimpeded. But again, I have just started looking at those documents.

 

[Your_neighbor]

Were you farming there before the ordinance went into effect, and selling your products? If so, you are a non-conforming farm, RTFA protects you, and you can ignore the ordinances where they conflict with GAAMP.

If not, you are not a farm right now. In order to become a farm you cannot break the law. Once you have legally become a farm, if you sell your products, you will be doing commercial farming. RTFA should then protect you, as long as the courts don't think you are trying to play them for fools. The judges get REALLY ticked off when people do that.

You have to follow all the applicable ordinances and become a farm legally. The circuit court of appeals has ruled on that exact issue in Jerome Township vs Milchi (1990), And they explicitly state what I have said. The supreme Court's ruling on Troy vs Padeleski (2007) also has wording in it that directly implies they agree.

From Jerome Township vs Milchi: The appeals court concluded that apiary was a farm operation for purposes of the RTFA, but the RTFA did not apply since the apiary did not exist prior to the 1965 zoning ordinance.

Cannot get any clearer than that!


From the Supreme Court case: ASSUMING that the plaintiff's acquisition of additional land entitled them under the city's zoning ordinance to make agricultural use of the North Parcel...

This is also very clear. They are saying that if this isn't true the Padeleski's automatically lose. The reason that statement is in there is that the court is saying "We are assuming you guys did your homework and they started doing this legally because, if not, you shouldn't even be here!"

If you start farming without following the ordinance, the city has the legal right to shut you down when they find out (usually when a neighbor complains). Being in operation for a long time will not protect you as you never had the right to START farming there. Look at the dates on the Milchi quote above. The city only has to say they didn't know you were illegally farming. If you could PROVE they knew and did nothing, you would have a chance of prevailing in court.

You also can't argue that because there are other operations nearby, you have the right to start up too. Those operations could be legal farms under the ordinances, legal non-conforming farms operating under RTFA protection, or illegal farms that you just told the city about. In the last case the city will typically act to shut them down.