HELP!!
I just got a letter from Grand Rapids Township..here it goes:
The RTFA applies to farm operations producing a product intended to be marketed and sold at a proft. Producing an agricultural product "useful to human beings" is not enough; the produc must be sold on a commercial basis. Michigan courts have found that no particular level of annual gross is required, and that annual gross sales of as little as $3500 provide a sufficient level of commerical activity for RTFA protection. However, even if a small-scale operation is commercial in nature, the RTFA does not preempt local zoning or other control unless the local regulations are contrary to GAAMP. The Michigan Dept of Agriculture has adopted GAAMP for "site selection and odor control for new and expanding livestonck production facilities", which covers poultry. The site selection GAAMP does not apply to operations which involve fewer that 50 animal units (5000 poultry). Because GAAMP does not apply to small scale operations like yours, it does not preempt the township's ten-acre minimum lot requirement in your situation. Producers with less that 50 animal units do have the option of requesting siting verification from the michigan dept of agriculture. If a requuet is made, the GAAMP states "the review and verification process will use criteria applicable to a 50 animal unit facility - refer to pg 13. Table 4 places the maximum number of non-farm residences at 13 within a quarter mile radius for a 50 animal facility and we estimate there are at least 50 non farm residences with a quarter mile of your property. In addition, your property is not large enough to meet the 250-foot property setback required by the GAAMPs. Therefore the RTFA does not preempt the ten acre minimum lot size requirement for small scale operations, such as yours, and you may not raise chickens on your property. Please removve the chickens from the property by June 12, 2013.
I need some help here...or am i up the creek?
On the point in red about the level of commercial activity that is required, the first part of the sentence says that no particular level of gross sales is required. This is from the Papesh case, on appeal, and everything I have read concludes that
there is no minimum level of sales required to meet the commercial requirement of the RTF act. If you'd like to read that court case or provide it to your township you can find that case (
Shelby Charter Township v Papesh (2005)) here:
http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-courts/
On the point in blue about the Site Selection and Odor Control for Livestock Production Facility GAAMPs, your township is correct in saying that that document does not apply to you since (presumably) you have fewer than 5000 chickens. Since it does not apply to you, I see no reason why you should request siting verification, which is not a GAAMP, and therefore is not required for RTF protection. Did you? To my knowledge there is nothing that compels you to do that.
I will note again that two cases were decided in the last 6 months that came to the conclusion that the Site Selection and Odor Control for Livestock Production Facility GAAMPs do NOT apply to farms with less than 50 animals, and because those GAAMPs don't apply, that those two small farming operations in residential areas were compliant with all applicable GAAMPs; those two operations were therefore permitted to keep their chickens despite local regulations, because they simply do not apply. Those two cases are
City of Garden City v Santieu (2013) and
Forsyth Township v Buchler (2012), which can be found on the same website:
http://sustainablefarmpolicy.org/the-courts/
Finally, if you back and read the posts over the past couple of weeks you'll see that I recently attended a meeting on Right to Farm that was given by folks at MSU-Extension who are experts on zoning, and especially on this particular point where zoning meets Right to Farm. They have been studying and writing about these issues for years, and the take-away message that I got was that there are two small openings where local zoning officials might have some room to regulate farming operations that meet RTF requirements: cities with over 100,000 residents, because of the 2012 GAAMPS (but even here they questioned whether this change to the GAAMPs was legitimate), and possibly in the regulation of farm buildings (because of the 2007 Papadelis case, but apparently not in consideration of the 2009 Papadelis ruling). The upshot is that state-level zoning experts are telling local zoning officials that Right to Farm really does protect people who meet RTF criteria from local regulations. You might try going to the MSUE Land Use page, and posting your situation there, and asking them how they interpret your situation:
http://lu.msue.msu.edu
Good Luck.
