Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[wingless]

Here is the City of Troy Ordinace regarding housing of chickens

90.70.20 Permit Application Process. An applicant for a domestic, dangerous or wild animal permit shall: ...
(f) in the case of domestic animals, demonstrate to the Housing and Zoning Inspector that the lot or parcel that animals will be kept on is three-quarters (¾) of one (1) acre or larger. This requirement may be waived by the Animal Control Appeal Board if the applicant can demonstrate circumstances that allow for waiver pursuant to regulations promulgated by the Animal Control Appeal Board. Waivers will not be granted for animals that are loud or likely to be detrimental to the neighborhood.


Isnt this non-compliant with the MRTFA? What does GAAMPS say about land requirements for less than 5000 hens?

Mahalo, the language you quote from the City of Troy Ordinance is indeed non-compliant with MRTFA, and so should not be enforceable for anyone who meets RTF criteria:

1. Farming operation (chickens)
2. Commercial (sell eggs)
3. Follow generally accepted agricultural management procedures (GAAMPS)

Note that the ordinance would still apply for the people of Troy who fail to meet any one of the 3 RTF criteria.

However, a battle is currently raging over the language of the GAAMPS, which MDARD has proposed should be changed such that people who farm on property that is not zoned agricultural will be subject to local regulations. This new language will affect about 80 percent of the state (8 million people) - or more, if you consider other outcomes of the proposed language in rural areas.

The proposed changes were made public this last summer, but require the approval of the 5-member Agriculture Commission. Many of us here have spent the months since the proposed changes were announced advocating to the Ag Commission that they NOT accept the proposed changes. The actual vote by the Ag Commission is this Wednesday, December 12th, at 9 am, here:

GreenStone Farm Credit Services
Room 112
3515 West Road
East Lansing, MI

If the proposed changes to the GAAMPS are approved by the Ag Commission on Wednesday, you will no longer be clearly protected by RTF; whether the proposed changes can withstand a court challenge is an open question, but it will likely take years to sort all of that out. So RTF in Michigan is at a very clear turning point. If you care about this I strongly encourage you to attend the Ag Commission meeting on Wednesday to express your point of view to the 5 people who will make this decision. Or, if that is not possible, please send them an email at [email protected].

 

[Mahalo]

Thanks Wingless,
It took me several days to read all the posts on this forum. I think I understand the issues, but specifically, the main change in the GAAMPs that I have a concern with (and I assume most BYC people) is the change in the Site Selection and Odor Control for New and Expanding Livestock Production Facilities, and the proposed change in the definition of "Livestock Production Facility". In 2012 GAAMPs there was NO stipulation for people raising less than 50 animal units (5000 chickens) having to comply with site selection criteria. However in the 2013 proposed GAAMPs eliminates the lower limit and now all people intending to raise chickens in their backyard are subject to the site criteria - specifically the setback requirements, which most of us in Troy would not meet.

Unfortuantely, I cant make the DEC 12 meeting; however if there is a letter or petition that I need to sign please let know. My next line of defense is going to be to attempt to change the Troy ordinance.

I'd like to get a list of names in Troy that would help me petition the City of Troy. Can you help?

 

[wingless]

Mahalo, it isn't just the setback requirements that will affect you in Troy; because of the change in the definition of Livestock Production Facility from 50 animal units (5000 chickens) to 1 animal (yes, 1 single chicken) the Site Selection GAAMPS will apply to backyard farmers for the first time. Note that they also made other changes throughout the document that stipulate that the farm operate only in "areas where local zoning allows for agricultural uses." So even if you could meet the setback requirements, you would still need a change in the Troy city ordinance to legally keep chickens, if the Ag Commission approves the proposed changes to the site selection GAAMPS at their meeting next Wednesday.

And yes, it is surprising and even disturbing that MDARD would propose this kind of change, because it absolutely is in direct conflict with the 1999 RTF amendment which specifically prohibits local governments from being more restrictive than RTF, for those who meet the three RTF criteria (have a farming operation, that is commercial, that follows GAAMPS).

There is no letter to the Ag Commission signed by multiple people that I know of. However, it sounds like you're already very knowledgeable about the issues. I think a message written by you will be much more influential than signing your name to someone else's letter, and I hope you do so.

Meanwhile, I will message people I know in Troy to let them know that you are posting here, and hope they will contact you. Good luck.

 

[cowcreekgeek]

Mahalo, it isn't just the setback requirements that will affect you in Troy; because of the change in the definition of Livestock Production Facility from 50 animal units (5000 chickens) to 1 animal (yes, 1 single chicken) the Site Selection GAAMPS will apply to backyard farmers for the first time. Note that they also made other changes throughout the document that stipulate that the farm operate only in "areas where local zoning allows for agricultural uses." So even if you could meet the setback requirements, you would still need a change in the Troy city ordinance to legally keep chickens, if the Ag Commission approves the proposed changes to the site selection GAAMPS at their meeting next Wednesday.

And yes, it is surprising and even disturbing that MDARD would propose this kind of change, because it absolutely is in direct conflict with the 1999 RTF amendment which specifically prohibits local governments from being more restrictive than RTF, for those who meet the three RTF criteria (have a farming operation, that is commercial, that follows GAAMPS).

There is no letter to the Ag Commission signed by multiple people that I know of. However, it sounds like you're already very knowledgeable about the issues. I think a message written by you will be much more influential than signing your name to someone else's letter, and I hope you do so.

Meanwhile, I will message people I know in Troy to let them know that you are posting here, and hope they will contact you. Good luck.

Unfortunately, this is the very manipulations I feared, as they are the one agency in a position to render mute the opinions of the Court, even if the never ammend the Act: They're using the intentions to protect farming operations as the very tool municipalities can use to prevent them w/in five miles of their limits.

I was gonna google for ideas/images, so as to make you an avatar (as everyone oughta have one), but was shocked by the result ... with the rights of literally millions of folks depending upon this issue, googling "Protect the Michigan Right to Farm Act" produced the following result:

​

A sad testament to my belief that there are far too few willing to fight for freedoms, however, you can take great pride in the fact that you have, no matter the outcome ...

 

[WashtenawFarmer]

Mahalo, it isn't just the setback requirements that will affect you in Troy; because of the change in the definition of Livestock Production Facility from 50 animal units (5000 chickens) to 1 animal (yes, 1 single chicken) the Site Selection GAAMPS will apply to backyard farmers for the first time.

Actually, so little thought was given by MDARD to how the new Site Selection GAAMPS are written that they apply to "0-500" animal units. Which makes no sense, of course. It's an example of how shoddily and carelessly this was done.

I asked for copies of all due diligence/background research done by MDARD and the Site Selection GAAMPS Committee on which they based their decision to change the GAAMPS on November 4th. MDARD came up with something completely irrelevant to my request, so I asked again last week. Of course, there is no way I will have the information in time for the Wednesday Ag Commission Meeting, and I'm beginning to think that's not an accident on MDARD's part. I'm also beginning to suspect that no such research was done, which would invalidate their recommendations completely.

 

[tndalexander]

I do understand your frustration, and certainly wouldn't be tolerant of anybody stompin' all over my rights, but it'd be best to remain as calm and as respectful as they'll allow you to ... they were mistaken, in that they make the laws of the city, but that those are to not conflict with those of the State and Federal governments.

OK, ok ... I was gonna try 'n suggest bein' nice, and not callin' their officers idiots, but ... nooses instead of nets? Really!? Idiots.

Anyhow ... if they weren't, and they do choose to press this matter, you may still not be protected by the MRFA, unless you meet the test of being a commercial farming operation, and conform to the acceptable standards required under this Act.

And, never think that cities fear lengthy/costly Court cases ... it ain't their money; it's yours (and anybody else's that lives there ~'-)

And, never think that cities ain't gonna come back, once they've got their proverbial ducks in a row, and on some day when your literal chickens ain't ...

Yes I understand what your saying here. Good advice. My mind works on 3 strikes your out mode. So I say something humble & kind 1X wait for a reply, give more info 2nd time then 3rdX I am quoting laws & for some reason GAAMPS was what I could not remember on the original post. My neighbors & friends benefit from my free range organic eggs, as well as feather fans made at molting (very pretty) & my roosters offer some colorful pretty feathers that are used to make jewelry. My city is going broke so I find the "deal makers" may not be paid this month or next they seem to be very preoccupied right now about my chickens I am hoping if they see how tight things are for them they will have mercy when making laws to allow others to feed & care for themselves. We have some promising moves happening check out this farm in the heart of the city

 

[cowcreekgeek]

Yes I understand what your saying here. Good advice. My mind works on 3 strikes your out mode. So I say something humble & kind 1X wait for a reply, give more info 2nd time then 3rdX I am quoting laws & for some reason GAAMPS was what I could not remember on the original post. My neighbors & friends benefit from my free range organic eggs, as well as feather fans made at molting (very pretty) & my roosters offer some colorful pretty feathers that are used to make jewelry. My city is going broke so I find the "deal makers" may not be paid this month or next they seem to be very preoccupied right now about my chickens I am hoping if they see how tight things are for them they will have mercy when making laws to allow others to feed & care for themselves. We have some promising moves happening check out this farm in the heart of the city

Well done video -- esp. the music, and time-lapse. Question the wisdom of bringin' cattle into the mix, when they've clearly no pasture w/in that small plot, but I love seein' so many young adults so involved w/ their operation: That's one of the many benefits that are too often not used to persuade others to support faming operations w/in primarily residential areas. Everybody hopin' to change minds should ask to borrow the part where they're all painting/improving, and the planting ... who could be so selfish as to say no to that?

Now, the post you quoted was typed when I was of the belief that both requirements were to be met, but the Court has expressed opinion, and established precendents, that require only either one to be ... and, it appears the opposition is gonna go the very direction I suspected they would, as to render moot the protections of this Act, by simply including w/in the GAAMPs a requirement for all to comply w/ local zoning 'n such ... as if it's of any real concern to chickens that live in such places ... clearly, they coulda provisioned for some reasonable exceptions/exemptions. But, they won't. Ever.

That's why I've been encouraging everyone to get proof on paper, prior to the other side gettin' a grip on it ... they'll absolutely stop the backyard farming concept, for those that hope to do so later, but they're not likely to ever stop those that have proven to exist prior to these changes to the GAAMPs, or the later 'corrective' revisions to the Act itself (which, no doubt, will eventually come )-;~

 

[wingless]

Hey everyone!

RaZ, jphillips, WashtenawFarmer, me, and one more (non-BYCer?) attended the Ag Commission meeting this morning, where all proposed changes to the 2013 GAAMPS passed EXCEPT for the Site Selection GAAMPS, which were sent back to that Committee for further work.

Congrats to everyone who spoke, wrote, listened, crossed fingers or otherwise contributed to the effort!

 

[MichAttorney]

Although I couldn't be there, I had emailed my comments to several of the members of the Commission and had given them to Wingless to take to the Commission and present them in person just to make sure they were in the public record.

I just got off the phone with Wingless and we had a great conversation. I was very glad to hear that it went well today and that the Commissioners were very happy with the spirit and enthusiasm of the group who are advocating for our little slice of farming life. It just shows the power that a polite, respectful, thoughtful group of individuals can have on policy. It's all very encouraging. Little did I think I would be involved in something like this and I gotta say, it sure is fun.

Well, on to the next step and to get more involved in the process.

 

[MichAttorney]

A question has been brought up about the preamble to the GAAMPS which say the following:


Quote:
I don't read this as a problem at all!!!

The GAAMP first starts off by say "This GAAMP does not apply in municipalties with a population of 100,000 or more [if: zoning ordinance, various conditions]"

Ok, the GAAMP does not apply means there is no GAAMP applicable in a city with a population of 100,000 or more. What it does not say is that "if the GAAMP does not apply, follow local zoning ordinance." It merely says, quite clearly, that if there is not a certain type of ordinance, then the GAAMP does not apply.

So, if the GAAMP does not apply - you don't have to follow it. Remember, I have to comply with applicable GAAMPs - if there isn't one, I can't be faulted for not following it. You're not going to tell me that I can't have chickens because I didn't meet the GAAMP applicable to cranberry operations are you?

But, the alternative is for the GAAMP to apply - but for small farmers like us, you're still fine because under the 2012 version of the Site Selection GAAMP, a "livestock production facility" is limited to a farming operation of 50 animal units or greater. And the Papesh decision makes it pretty clear that they thought that the GAAMP would not apply if you didn't meet the definition of a "livestock production facility."

Here's what Papesh said ...


Quote:
What you have to know is that the Court, by this point, had already pointed out that there was a fact issue which needed to be resolved because they weren't sure if the farm was running a commercial operation at that time, some statements in various affidavits seemed to indicate yes, but it was unclear to the court, so they were already going to send it back on the commercial issue. The quote above is just more added reason to throw it back down to the lower court.

But I can tell you this, all indications are from this quote is that if the GAAMPS did not apply, then the Papeshes could not have been said to violate anything! The Court was just not clear on the record before them (usually meaning there was not enough factual or legal groundwork laid to lead to summary judgment).

My $0.02.