Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[VikkiP]

I posted some Shelby Township specific notes on another thread that may be helpful in general for those starting a petition:

https://www.backyardchickens.com/t/657776/how-to-get-chicken-laws-changed-in-shelby-township-mi/10

 

[MI-CHick]

Thank you VikkiP for all your help.

 

[CaraBear]

VikkiP - thank you so much for your thoughts.

Okay, so after a day or two of thinking (aka steaming and arguing in my head with the city attorney), I think i'm able to gather my thoughts....

First, I am completely dismayed that the city attorney found the case law and precedents set by current MRFTA to be so irrelevant that he did not address them in any way in his return letter to me. Is it just me, or isnt that THE WHOLE POINT. A judge has rendered their interpretation of the law - and the city is clearly totally ignoring that. I would have thought that the attorney would have been instructed to at least check out those cases and my reasoning and then address them - rather than state that he wasn't even going to try.

Second - to point out to me that there was an attempt to change the ordinance and that it didn't pass - DUH - did you READ my letter?? I opened with that information! It's why I'm resorting to MRTFA protection!

vikkip - in reference to the home occupation - I'm going to have a small flock of 6-10 birds.... I have four children, and we eat a lot of eggs ....we won't have many eggs to sell and I literally think that I will be hand delivering them to friends when we gather at social events. I think, given that, I don't need to worry about that ordinance or the GAAMPS associated with a farm market - correct?

So my question to you all is - do I send a response to the city attorney with a copy of the MRFTA and more case law and do the same thing he did to me and basically say "I'm not going to address each of your ordinance citations because none off them are relevant...." and wait for a further response.....or do I see if I can find a lawyer that will send that letter on my behalf - as the city basically indicated they intend to disregard state law and threatened fines and jail time??


Also - as an FYI - here's the local paper article that ran the day after the ordinance was voted down
http://www.ourmidland.com/news/article_f8c8fca6-ff13-11e0-8436-001cc4c03286.html

To me, it's a matter of misinformation and snootiness.....

It just doesn't seem like a small flock of chickens should be such an unreasonable request.....

 

[wingless]

Hi CaraBear -

Not sure if you read the newspaper article posted by shadygrovefarm (Post #596), but one sentence of that article reads:


The Buchlers aren't the only ones who believe the Right to Farm Act protects them - the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund supports their efforts, and the organization is paying for the Buchlers to be represented by Ann Arbor attorney Stephen Bemis and Marquette attorney Michelle Halley.

So if you are looking for a knowledgeable MRTFA lawyer, Stephen Bemis from Ann Arbor is one of them. Note also that the Farm to Consumer Legal Defense Fund is paying for his MRTFA work.

And if you go back even further in this thread, to Post #463, a BYCer named eldenbrady is another lawyer interested in these issues. He is in Muskegon, and his contact information is in his signature line.

 

[VikkiP]

It is encouraging to know that legal defense is now available. My attorney in our successful case, Geoffrey Harrison of Lansing, waged a pitched battle over several years and of course was successful in the end.

We sought legal aid from the Macomb County Farm Bureau, and we're met with "too bad, you are not a real farm". This was widely reported in various media interviews with the president of the chapter. Likewise the Michigan Farm Bureau legal defense fund said "you have no chance of winning so we won't support you". Obviously our outcome was not that dire, but it was costly and protracted.

However, MiCOA ordered that we be reimbursed for some of our legal expenses so we were not bankrupted.

 

[thewaggonerfami]

We got a letter from the Village (and to be clear we are "in town" on a 1/3 of an acre double lot in a VERY rural area. We live a 1/2 block from the elevator and there are more combines going down the main street we live on than cars most summer days. My teens go "Cruising" on tractors with their friends and my college student got a call from her girlfriend to go chase down someone's miniature donkeys behind the gas station that got loose from someone's house.) that we are in violation of "Domestic Animal Ordinace #13" which is basically that you can have cats, dogs, and parakeets and nothing else. Domestic Fowl are specifically named as not allowed.

This is my response letter that I am delivering in person Monday morning. Thanks to Carabear and others in this thread whose work I have used. Before we got the chickens, I read this entire thread to know that we could have them.
June 7, 2012

Dear Village Council,

Re: Domestic Animals Ordinace #13

You are in error. I am not in violation of Domestic Animal Ordinance #13. I am under the protection of the Michigan Right to Farm Act. http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-93-of-1981 Under the Michigan Right to Farm Act, I may keep chickens as long as they are kept under the provisions of GAAMP (which is generally accepted farming practices) http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mda/2010SITESELECTION-Draft_287011_7.pdf We follow the provisions of GAAMP as it applies to our farm operation.

The Michigan RTFA precedes and supersedes all local zoning and that is specifically spelled out in section 6 which I have highlighted in the attached copy of the Michigan RTFA and the text of which is included in this letter. The local ordinance is void as it applies to farmers operating within the scope of the Michigan Right To Farm Act. Which I am. The Michigan RTFA also protects our farm from nuisance complaints. Our farm has over the years sold produce and rabbits, and we are now branching out into selling eggs, manure, and specialty breed chicks. I already have pre-orders for my eggs.

Furthermore, there is substantial case law to support this. It has gone to the Supreme Court and the basic outcome is that the court says that city and local ordinances cannot trump state law.

These court rulings are highlighted in the attached resource “Land Use Planning and the Right to Farm Act”, http://www.animalagteam.msu.edu/uploads/files/20/Tech Bullitin Land Use.pdf
While I am going to attach the more pertinent documents, I will summarize some of the highlights of the RTFA and some of the case law that supports it as highlighted on page 6 of the attached resource. The Michigan Right to Farm Act was amended in 1999 to read:
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.
This amendment was upheld in the following court cases:

• Milan Twp. V. Jaworski – concluding that a Milan Twp. Ordinance that limited hunting preserves to areas that are zoned agricultural conflicted with the RTFA “to the extent that it allows the township board to preclude this protected farm operation.”
• Village of Rothbury v. Double JJ Resort Ranch – concluding that “an ordinance provision that only permits single family dwellings, playgrounds, and parks would prohibit farming operations, the ordinance provision conflicts with the RTFA and is unenforceable.”
• Charter Township of Shelby v. Papesh – concluding that “…the RTFA no longer allows township zoning ordinances to preclude farming activity that would otherwise be protected by the RTFA. Rather, any township ordinance, including a zoning ordinance, is unenforceable to the extent that it would prohibit conduct protected by the RTFA.” There has been no violation of theDomestic Animals Ordinance #13
• Papadelis v. City of Troy – concluding that a zoning ordinance “…limiting such activity to parcels with an area no less than five acres is preempted by the RTFA and is not enforceable.”

I meet the RTFA’s definition of a farm and am protected under the RTFA. I am following the RTFA and The State of Michigan law’s requirements for keeping chickens. In summary of those definitions:

• There is no minimum land amount to be considered a farm, even lots as small as 1/10 of an acre are protected.
• There must only be an intent to sell farm products in order to be considered a farm. There is no minimum level of sales that must be reached before the RTFA [right to farm act] is applicable. Charter Tp. of Shelby v. Papesh, 267 Mich.App. 92, 101, 704 N.W.2d 92, 99 (2005) speaks to this. (the case was actually about chickens too).
• The only requirement for zonings in the GAAMPs is if you have more than 50 animal units. For chickens that would be 5000 laying hens.
• I follow the acceptable farming practice for laying hens under GAAMP

Referenced Documents
1.) Michigan Right to Farm Act (Act 93 of 1981) http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-Act-93-of-1981
2.) Michigan Department of Agriculture's Generally Accepted Agriculture and Management Practices for the Care of Farm Animals http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mda/2010SITESELECTION-Draft_287011_7.pdf
3.) Michigan Department of Agriculture's Generally Accepted Agriculture and Management Practices for Manure Management and Utilization
4) “Land Use Planning and the Right to Farm Act”, http://www.animalagteam.msu.edu/uploads/files/20/Tech Bullitin Land Use.pdf

As we are operating within the law, and our chickens and farm meets the definitions under the RTFA and follows GAAMP, D********’s Domestic Animals Ordinance #13 does not apply to us, and is null and void. We request written acknowledgement of this fact within our 7 day time period that no further action will be taken and acknowledgement of our protection under the RTFA.

Furthermore we request that the Village of D**********'s Village Council rewrite and amend Domestic Animals Ordinance #13 to correctly reflect the Michigan RTFA. We would be willing to be resource people for this.

Thank you for clearing up this matter,

 

[thewaggonerfami]

Also, I am working on my chicken notebook. If anyone has what they have in theirs that they would be willing to share, my email is thewaggonerfamily at gmail dot com. I tried emailing some people who psted they were willing to share and either they don't come here anymore or they didn't respond or had full mailboxes.

 

[thewaggonerfami]

Well I dropped off me letter and supporting documents. The Village secretary was pretty stunned. She said she would give it to the building inspector, since he deals with it and she will send me a written decision before my 7 days are up. So we shall see...

 

[Stc-Gromit]

St.Charles Just voted down my petition to raise Chickens inside the village. Three months of facts, laws and positive pro chicken documentation and only 2 yes votes. The village lawyer sent in a letter stating the RTFA does not apply to me. I brought a copy of Papadelis vs Troy and Papish vs Shelby. I read Judge Richard Lambs words in the Richardson case in 2001
"
"It is clear that the Michigan legislature preempted local units of government from making ordinances preempting in any manner generally accepted agricultural and management practices developed under the act," he said. "It is my decision that the Right-to-Farm act and its amendments preempts Brady Township from enforcing this ordinance with reference to swine under 55 pounds."
The judge said the law is quite clear - and made reference to charts included in the law - that a swine under 55 pounds does not exist as an animal equivalent unit, and therefore cannot be counted as such."
When members of the council then tried to say that they don't agree with the RTFA I brought up what Judge Lamb said "We need a definition, but that is not this court's function," he said, noting that if townships wish to remedy that lack of definition, they can urge the Agriculture Commission to "fill in the gap." I told them they do not have to like it, but they have to abide by it until they can get it changed. They say if I put Chickens and rabbits on my property then I will be breaking the village law. I tossed it back saying that by refusing me my rights granted by the RTFA and affirmed by Judge Richard Lamb an then by the Michigan court of appeals in Papadelis vs Troy, they are breaking the law.
I will say the village president was for chickens and had positive comments. The village mgr said that after calling our surrounding communities he found several that allowed chickens with minimal problems. The county planning commissioner, who in the last meeting, was quoted as saying "no one is going pro chicken. Most townships and villages are moving in the other direction due to major problems", was now saying that he is not as against urban poultry as he was before.
I'm not done yet. It will just take a little time to show people the positive in urban chickens. Others will always have there head in a hole.
Viva La Chicken

 

[RaZ]

Garden City chicken ordinance made the front page of the local paper.
http://www.hometownlife.com/article...nance?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Garden City|s

I'm not sure whether I am amused or distressed. In addition to spelling and grammatical errors, I was quoted out of context and it seems to me that the article was not all that neutral in how it is written. They neglected to mention that only one (1) spoke against allowing chickens and 7 - 8 people spoke in favour of allowing chickens.

But at least we have a start.