Michigan Right to Farm Law, what does it mean?

[Riverdale]

Unfortunately this was all done completely legally.
There was indeed a vote, and "spot zoning" is the reasoning for re zoning me as well as the neighboring property owners. They had to change all of us or it would be considered "spot zoning"
Since it was a subdivision going in, they zoned for "densely populated residential" which the keeping of animals is not allowed.
As I said, the deal fell through, and to my knowledge the smallest parcel near us is 2 acres, and the largest is over 1,000 acres. Not what I would consider densely populated, but this is the situation... I asked to be changed back to Ag, but they said they would have to do another vote, and in their words "it will never happen"
The township also taxes residential higher then Ag, go figure.

I am sorry. Personally, my next course wold be to sue, (or threaten to) to restore the zoning as it was.

Another vote or $25,000,000.

But then again, I am an evil, vidicitive b@$t@rd

 

[wingless]

I no longer live on the farm, nor have I in decade. But I was there when the original was drafted.

Got a question for all the "chicken rebels"

I buy contiguous property upwind of you. I raise hogs. Alot of them.
How would you feel? And, hey, it's RTF, right?

We need to remember is what is good for the goose is good for the gander

Or better yet, "do unto others as they would have them do to you" {paraphrase, I'm not real religoous]

Riverdale, RTF is used routinely to protect CAFOs in Michigan. There is one old family farm that I know of in Lenawee County that is now surrounded by CAFOs, and is expected to tolerate the smell of 90 million gallons of liquid manure on any given day. That is what RTF has done in Michigan. If I could personally change RTF to change that, I would, even if it meant that my own rights were also weakened.

But this is what our law currently protects. In that context, if I use that same law to raise a small number of chickens to provide my family with meat and eggs that is NOT grown on a factory farm, and if I do it with respect for my neighbor's rights to also enjoy their property, then where is the harm? It is literally impossible for me to create the level of nuisance to any one of my neighbors that the CAFOs create to theirs. So why should the law protect the great CAFO nuisance, and not the miniscule (or non-existant) backyard chicken nuisance?

Is there a place for greater regulations in more dense areas, such that large hog farms cannot be built there? Absolutely. The Site Selection GAAMP currently only really deals with large farms of 50 animal units or more, but it could be developed to deal with smaller operations in more dense areas to deal with these kinds of issues. Instead, MDARD is trying to avoid the entire matter by creating a new Category 4 in the 2014 Site Selection GAAMP, and then making it impossible to meet Siting requirements under any circumstances. This is another discussion, but my point is that we have the framework to reasonably regulate agriculture in dense areas, so that folks who are willing to engage in reasonable practices can engage in agriculture wherever they live - but that folks unwilling to meet those requirements instead have to accept local regulations. What we don't have is an agricultural agency willing to do the work to keep these opportunities open - despite the fact that our state RTF law protects those rights.

 

[Riverdale]

Riverdale, RTF is used routinely to protect CAFOs in Michigan. There is one old family farm that I know of in Lenawee County that is now surrounded by CAFOs, and is expected to tolerate the smell of 90 million gallons of liquid manure on any given day. That is what RTF has done in Michigan. If I could personally change RTF to change that, I would, even if it meant that my own rights were also weakened.

But this is what our law currently protects. In that context, if I use that same law to raise a small number of chickens to provide my family with meat and eggs that is NOT grown on a factory farm, and if I do it with respect for my neighbor's rights to also enjoy their property, then where is the harm? It is literally impossible for me to create the level of nuisance to any one of my neighbors that the CAFOs create to theirs. So why should the law protect the great CAFO nuisance, and not the miniscule (or non-existant) backyard chicken nuisance?

Is there a place for greater regulations in more dense areas, such that large hog farms cannot be built there? Absolutely. The Site Selection GAAMP currently only really deals with large farms of 50 animal units or more, but it could be developed to deal with smaller operations in more dense areas to deal with these kinds of issues. Instead, MDARD is trying to avoid the entire matter by creating a new Category 4 in the 2014 Site Selection GAAMP, and then making it impossible to meet Siting requirements under any circumstances. This is another discussion, but my point is that we have the framework to reasonably regulate agriculture in dense areas, so that folks who are willing to engage in reasonable practices can engage in agriculture wherever they live - but that folks unwilling to meet those requirements instead have to accept local regulations. What we don't have is an agricultural agency willing to do the work to keep these opportunities open - despite the fact that our state RTF law protects those rights.

Just about any mall lawyer could find a hole in your argument

Do unto others

In other words, if you want to have critters, live someplaced they are welcome
If you want critters, but the place will not allow, MOVE

One question, would you want to live next to you? Prolly not. Over 50+ years, I find that the most vocal neighbors are the worse
Yet too many poop intheir "own nest"

 

[wingless]

Just about any mall lawyer could find a hole in your argument

Do unto others

In other words, if you want to have critters, live someplaced they are welcome
If you want critters, but the place will not allow, MOVE

One question, would you want to live next to you? Prolly not. Over 50+ years, I find that the most vocal neighbors are the worse
Yet too many poop intheir "own nest"

Since the last amendment to the Michigan RTF in 1999, the Appeals Court has four times heard cases involving farm operations in residentially zoned areas: Padgett v Mason County (2003): Village of Rothbury v Double JJ Resort Ranch (2004); Papesh v Shelby Charter Twp (2005); and Papadelis v Troy (2006).

In 3 of 4 of those cases (Double JJ Resort Ranch, Papesh, and Papadelis), the 3-judge Appeals Court ruled that the residentially-zoned farm was protected by RTF. The 4th case was a split decision, with two of the judges ruling that the farm was not protected, and the third judge, Bill Schuette, ruling that it was. Bill Schuette also ruled in the Double JJ Resort Ranch case, so Schuette has TWICE as an appeals court judge ruled that farms in residentially zoned areas are protected by RTF.

So that is the legal argument. Right to Farm has been interpreted by the courts to protect everyone in the state, regardless of zoning, so folks who make this argument are easily within their legal rights. If you want to find a "mall lawyer" to discount the reasoning of these Appeals Court judges, I wish you luck.

If you instead want to make a policy argument that people in residential areas should not keep small numbers of small livestock because it is unneighborly, I think you should know that it is quite easy to keep a small backyard flock without being a nuisance to neighbors, and that many people already do so.

Is it possible for chickens to be a nuisance in a residential area? Yes. And when that happens I think there should be a mechanism to deal with it, just as there should be a mechanism to deal with it in rural areas. But the occasional real nuisance should not prevent all of the folks who want to be good neighbors AND want to keep a small number of small livestock from doing so.

Especially since our Right to Farm law already provides that right to every citizen in Michigan, regardless of how they are zoned.

 

[eldenbrady]

I keep hearing this "if you want animals move statement."

Two problems:

1. I did move and then the place I moved to changed the rules to outlaw animals. How many times do you expect someone to move?

2. Look around at cost of housing. The places with low housing cost almost without exception do not allow animals (maybe we could make the argument that allowing them increases property values). Living in the county is expensive and the assumption that anyone can just chose to move there ignores financial realities.

 

[RTFchickens]

This also assumes that owning large amounts of property would allow you to keep animals on that property.
I often think there is little logic going into these township rules.
On my 50+ acres, I'm not "allowed" to keep ONE chicken. But if I pay $300 for a variance, they will allow it.
I call that EXTORTION!

 

[Living the Simple Life]

Quote: It is really easy to say "move" however, since I am living on the farm my grandparents purchased in 1931 (to be a centennial farm before too long!) and the zoning has been changed by the township to residential.....why should I have to leave my family's property in order to raise animals or crops, the same thing that has happened on the property for 85 years. Yes, there was a period of dormancy (my 96 yo grandmother chose to discontinue her agricultural activities) however, the immediate neighbors on both sides have lived there since there were animals and crops. As we are a deep rectangular property, there are no houses on either side of the farm/pasture where animals and garden reside. My animals are MUCH quieter than any of the dogs in the area (including the one directly next door with separation anxiety who parts non-stop for 10-12 hours per day). My animals are also well cared for and create virtually no odors.

Again, it is not merely as simple as "move"....

 

[Riverdale]

It is really easy to say "move" however, since I am living on the farm my grandparents purchased in 1931 (to be a centennial farm before too long!) and the zoning has been changed by the township to residential.....why should I have to leave my family's property in order to raise animals or crops, the same thing that has happened on the property for 85 years. Yes, there was a period of dormancy (my 96 yo grandmother chose to discontinue her agricultural activities) however, the immediate neighbors on both sides have lived there since there were animals and crops. As we are a deep rectangular property, there are no houses on either side of the farm/pasture where animals and garden reside. My animals are MUCH quieter than any of the dogs in the area (including the one directly next door with separation anxiety who parts non-stop for 10-12 hours per day). My animals are also well cared for and create virtually no odors.

Again, it is not merely as simple as "move"....

I was refering to the people who move into an HOA (for example) then 'complain' about the rules.

Your situation isfar different, and I apologize if I was not clear enough.

 

[chickengeorgeto]

Ok, I read the WHO and EPA reports and studies. This is the biggest load of chicken poo! Really?! What doesn't cause cancer? Apparently, it would be safer to eat only plants and air! Midland has taken this way too far. I suppose you might bring in several tons of contaminated feed, roll around in it daily and eat it by the bowl full!
these studies are based on toxic spills into feed grains that were passed along in the food chain. How dare you!
I would rather roll around in chicken poop all day and then eat eggs for dinner than believe what these alarmist groups are pushing! You know, my grandmother grew up in PA, exposed to oil, coal and steel, mining, production etc. She lived in a rural area, born in 1915 and moved to Buffalo NY in her 20's. She moved to Santa Monica CA in her 40's. She smoked until she was 79, she ate lots of chicken, beef, liver and pork and, worked at a newspaper the last 20 years of her career. Finally at age 97 she developed kidney cancer and passed at 98. It must have been dioxins!!!
Don't breathe, it causes cancer!

The most dangerous cancer causing thing in the world is living. If something else fails to kill you then cancer is Mother Natures back up plan.

 

[justplainbatty]

It is really easy to say "move" however, since I am living on the farm my grandparents purchased in 1931 (to be a centennial farm before too long!) and the zoning has been changed by the township to residential.....why should I have to leave my family's property in order to raise animals or crops, the same thing that has happened on the property for 85 years. Yes, there was a period of dormancy (my 96 yo grandmother chose to discontinue her agricultural activities) however, the immediate neighbors on both sides have lived there since there were animals and crops. As we are a deep rectangular property, there are no houses on either side of the farm/pasture where animals and garden reside. My animals are MUCH quieter than any of the dogs in the area (including the one directly next door with separation anxiety who parts non-stop for 10-12 hours per day). My animals are also well cared for and create virtually no odors.

Again, it is not merely as simple as "move"....

Wow! I haven't been reading this thread for a while but you really are getting screwed here. I had a problem with the township I lived in before and it was a nightmare. You should be grandfathered in even if you have let the ground go fallow for some years. The soil is resting and that should not make you ineligible to farm and have livestock, especially if you intend to farm again. For example, simple cover crops for your live stock, oat, clover, etc. There is a charter for each township with long term plans of land development and usage. I would look into that, they may be legally in the wrong here, they really don't care, it's all about the money and who is in office(their personal agenda). I would highly recommend an AG lawyer for this one. Fight this to the death!!