I have now finished reviewing EVERY michigan RTF case I could find here and/or online that was at the appeals court or higher. I used the judges opinions rather than a professor or a lawyer. If I have to argue before a judge and have access to his written down thought process, why would I care what some lawyer or professor thinks?
IN NO CASE did someone successfully argue RTF allowed formation of a farm that violated a zoning ordinance. For an example of this failure, see Jerome Township vs Milchi (1990).
In Padgett v mason County (2003) The Court of Appeals went so far as to explicitly state: "THE PURPOSE OF THE RTFA IS TO PROTECT FARMERS FROM NUISANCE SUITS, NOT TO MAKE FARMS EXEMPT FROM ZONING"
IN EVERY CASE where a size zoning restriction was overturned, the entity was either a legitimate farm by current standards or a non conforming commercial farm established before the ordinance was enacted. In all cases but Shelby (discussed below) those farms were legitimately created.
In other words, no one has successfully used RTF to argue that their farm, ESTABLISHED in direct contradiction to zoning laws allowing farming, was legal.
In addition from the July 2011 meeting minutes of the Michigan commission of Agriculture and Rural Development:
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdard/June_15_2011_MINUTES_358790_7.pdf
"Director Creagh advised the intent of Right to Farm was to solve nuisance problems for farm communities as urban residents moved into the agricultural areas."
This guy is a big cheese. There are other statements similar to this by other key state officials. NO one even suggests the intent of RTF is to allow farming to start in urban areas where zoning officials do not want farms.
So no precedent and no intent to allow commercial farms to form in urban areas regardless of zoning ordinances.
As the title to this thread says, what does it mean? It means you are protected by RTF if you are a legal farm, or were when you were created, as long as you follow GAAMP. The two special cases, Shelby and Troy, had special circumstances that allowed the intent of the law to determine that they should have RTF protection, and that is why the court of appeals interpreted the rule differently than in all the other cases. in Shelby Township vs Papesh the Papesh''s bought an existing (but illegally created) farm but were in a rural area at the time. They had farmed for several years in that rural area thinking they were legal, and with no problems. Telly's Nursery in Troy had operated an unambiguously commercial operation for 25 years, and used a loophole in a poorly written zoning ordinance to get around the intent of the ordinance (they had an additional residential property too small for farming so they bought the property adjacent to theirs in order to get their total up to the 5 acre minimum limit to allow farming on it). Pretty clever but it is unlikely that any townships are still that sloppy with their wording. If you weren't and aren't legal, good luck trying to start a farm in an urban area. If the zoning doesn't explicitly allow you to start a farm without violating an ordinance, the RTF will not protect you from lawsuits or zoning enforcement officials even if you follow GAAMP.
Note that even if you enjoy RTF protection, it does NOT exempt you from meeting such requirements as zoning ordinance setbacks for structures. See the Supreme Court ruling (there is only one supreme court ruling) on Troy vs Papadelis for more details. For example, in almost every municipality you can not put your chicken coop at a property line. If you do the zoning enforcement official and/or your neighbor can force you to move it.
Happy farming!
