Update: (City Oppression) Milford tickets 93 year old man for hens

[Sonoran Silkies]

Quote:
He is under no obligation to ask for permission. It's likely if he had asked permission they would have tried to fight him. The townships don't want people to know about the MRTFA. When people bring it up, they get bullied and told "Well it doesn't work in your case." They are blatantly disregarding the law to suit their purposes. I really don't understand all this talk about changing ordinances in Michigan (when coming from MI residents who already know about the MRTFA not Chemguy). We shouldn't have to. We should be able to take advantage of the statewide protection the MRTFA allows us without fear of legal battles. I didn't let my township know about my plans. It would've been inviting them to try and shut me down. It's really sad.

Sonoran Silkies and dianaross77,

I am deeply puzzled by your statements. I have directly cited both Appeals Court rulings and Supreme Court rulings that say you have to create your farm legally (and be commercial) BEFORE you can use RTFA, which appears to directly contradict your claims. The wording in the rulings is clear and unambiguous. I can not find a single case that supports your position and I believe I have now looked at every upper court ruling that pertains to RTFA. Can you please help me out and point me to some cases that support your statements? I really want to understand your side of the legal story. And please, I am only interested in court cases. Since precedent has already been clearly established, opinions of "experts" on the subject mean nothing. No offense intended to the experts but that's just how things work.

Many Thanks!

FWIW, I definitely support farming of all sorts where it is allowed.

I do realize that you believe that a farm can only be legal if there are no ordinances disallowing it when it was first created. However, I have not read any court ruling that actually stated that the farm must be created legally for RTFA to apply. I do agree that the act requires a commercial intent. However, the ruling conflicts with one of the earlier rulings that specifically stated that the size of the farm was irrelevant. I don't have time now to go back and re-read them. The ruling in this case dismissed GAAMPS saying that they had nothing other than the word of the gentleman that he was following GAAMPS. It really sounds like he needed to have done his own due-diligence and gotten written verification from those who administer GAAMPS that he is indeed following them.


Your-neighbor, let's follow your line of reasoning. A homeowner puts in a vegetable garden for his own family's use. He has extra veggies which he shares with his neighbors. He's a very good gardener, and the neighbors RAVE over his produce. So, the next year he enlargens his garden and grows more veggies. A farmer's market opens in a nearby shopping center, so he decides to sell some of his extra produce, not just give it away to friends. Is his garden now a farm? It's commercial in that he is selling his produce. Last I heard, having a vegetable garden is legal practically everywhere. Assuming that he is now a farm, and that he follows GAAMPS, he can add different types of farm products to his venture.

 

[The Chicken Lady]

Laws and ordinances topics can get pretty heated because there are passionate people on both sides of the fence. I was asked to review this thread and have done so, reading each and every post and editing here and there.

Personally, whatever Your_neighbor's intentions for being a member of BYC may be, I think his review of the legal cases as pertaining to the original post is excellent. In my understanding, courts look at past decisions to help make new decisions (precedent, right?), so looking back makes sense. Your_neighbor has provided some helpful examples of court cases that may, unfortunately, hurt the case of the individual in the original post. I don't see Your_neighbor as being rude/triumphant/unhelpful to/against chicken owners in this thread; he's just stating the facts as they are with the past legal cases, as unfortunate as they may be for the court case(s) being discussed.

I think everyone in this thread has done a good job so far of discussing the issue reasonably 99.9% of the time.

Keep it up!

 

[Your_neighbor]

Quote:
All laws and anything else aside, most people who have chickens in their backyards, will not have smell issues or noise issues, certainly not any worse than most dog owners. Especially if they are following GAAMPS. Most municipalities already have laws against excessive noise or smells. You don't need to ban chickens for those reasons alone. Should we ban barking dogs, and dogs who poop in people's yards too, based just on those two factors?

I would agree with you except for one critical detail. Dogs are not farm animals, thus no RTFA, thus the city can regulate and enforce problems with dogs. We have ordinances for what dogs can do and the city agressively enforces them. Everyone here has dogs.

As I have said before, this is all the Legislature's fault. They set up RTFA such that most cities will never allow farm animals in heavily urbanized areas. You are all very highly motivated. Write your congressman and get the law changed. If your municipality can regulate chicken coop placement, smells, and noise, they are MUCH more likely to allow chickens where they can't be now. The reason is simple. Without RTFA applying the city can enforce violations to it's ordinances.

I really am for small amounts of chickens if their smells and noises can be controlled. My current helping of the city is because I understand that the only way to control a farming problem is to enforce the initial zoning ordinance. Otherwise RTFA applies and the neighbors are SOL. I have no intention of getting up at 4 AM every morning from now on so I am going to make sure her farm is shut down.

 

[Your_neighbor]

"However, the ruling conflicts with one of the earlier rulings that specifically stated that the size of the farm was irrelevant. "

I think I know the case you are talking about. It may be Shelby vs Papesh, which is an outstanding case to understand. Of all the ones I read this one was by far the most interesting. I found and printed off the entire case. It's right next to me.

The farm didn't meet an ordinance that it be a certain size. The ordinance was in effect at the time farming started so the farm technically did not qualify for RTFA protection but the judge said the farm could continue. There were very unusual circumstances in that case.

1. The property had two chicken coops on it when the owners purchased it.
2. The zoning allowed farming if the acreage was a certain minimum
3. property was too small for farming at the time it was acquired.
4. The area was rural at the time of purchase, and there were numerous farms around
5. The new owners started farming immediately, and farmed for several years before any problems arose
6. The Papesh's farming clearly had commercial intent
7. The Papesh's were following GAAMP

The Papesh's won because the area was rural at the time they started, there were coops on the farm, and the Papesh's had no reason to suspect they were not buying a legal farm. The court "modified" their interpretation of RTFA to not require both conditions 1 and 2 of section 3 apply in this case. Their reasoning was that the Papesh's had demonstrated that any reasonable person buying a property with chicken coops on it, in a rural area, with other farms around, was in fact buying a legal farm.

Fascinating case...

 

[they'reHISchickens]

I have an undersized ( 3 acre) property also in a farming area. There are farm fields all around me including some that originally belonged to my parents. ( We built on a bad hill of the farm.) We had dairy heifers here for 20 years in plain sight- but were careful not to overgraze or overpopulate. Now we have 30-50 chickens. Our township advertizes itself as a farming area. Am I legal? I don't think so, but I am trying to keep a history of continual *agricultural use* of the land just in case the question ever comes up. I'll never get the minimum 10 acres and I'll for sure never make a profit. But just in case I want to keep a milk cow in my old age, I don't want anyone saying I can't! ( Yes, we had one of those here for 2 years, too.) One never knows when the farms around us will be sold for development to people who want the country life... but really don't!

 

[Sonoran Silkies]

Here is a case where there was no previously "legally created" farm, but the courts ruled that MRTFA applied.

From http://web5.msue.msu.edu/lu/pamphlet/Blaw/SelectedPlan&ZoneCourt%20RTFA%201964-2006.pdf

2004
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished11 No.
246596 (2004))
Case Name: Village of Rothbury v. Double JJ Resort
Ranch (Oceana County)
Defendant owns residentially-zoned land in the
Village. Plaintiff sued to enjoin agricultural and
commercial activities on the land. Trial court
determined that defendant’s pumpkin patch and corn
harvested to feed defendant’s horses were exempt from
zoning because they complied with Generally Accepted
Agricultural Management Practices (GAAMPs) but the
use of the corn field as a maze available to the public
and the rental of horses for recreational riding were not
protected.
Court of Appeals concluded that a riding stable is a
farm operation and horse riding is a farm product so
Right to Farm Act (RTFA) exempts them from local
zoning. Court of Appeals also concluded that the corn
maze is a farm product under RTFA and exempt from
zoning laws. Court discussed raising of corn as an
agricultural product, not just for consumption but also
for pleasure. Also corn was rotated with other crops.
GAAMPs address raising corn and crop rotations.
“Because 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.”

 

[they'reHISchickens]

RE: the legislatures of this country:
Legislatures are populated by a majority of lawyers. Lawyers are taught in school to write as much as possible to allow as much interpretation as possible and never in plain English. ( One was heard to say that they were graded by how many words they used!)
With less than 2% of our population actively involved in farming- and those that are, are busier than busy--the lobbyists for corporate farming and other big money interests have a field day influencing the legislatures to pass laws favoring corporate farms. The family farm is going out of existence. The family farms that are surviving are corporate family farms with 2-3 generations working and living off the income. To generate that much income they are milking 500+ cows, tens of thousands of chickens, and farming a thousand acres. If they have small families and not enough man/womanpower, they are hiring workers to help them-often South Americans. This is in eastern Pennsylvania.
I understand in the west, dairies are thousands of cows milked 3 x a day around the clock by immigrant labor and cows are burned out in 2-3 years. They call them family farms because a family owns/manages them.
The legislatures, encouraged by lobbyists under the guise of protecting the public, are very slowly and carefully writing laws to limit the ability of the average American to grow/produce their own food. And as fewer and fewer produce their food, fewer KNOW HOW to do it. Evidence is clear from how often even the most basic questions are asked here. At least on BYC, people can relearn some of the lost art.
Some day we will probably need that knowledge.
And now I have to go feed that Holstein calf I am *calf-sitting* while mama is at the fair.

She's a doll!!

 

[mcbeers]

Quote:
All laws and anything else aside, most people who have chickens in their backyards, will not have smell issues or noise issues, certainly not any worse than most dog owners. Especially if they are following GAAMPS. Most municipalities already have laws against excessive noise or smells. You don't need to ban chickens for those reasons alone. Should we ban barking dogs, and dogs who poop in people's yards too, based just on those two factors?

I would agree with you except for one critical detail. Dogs are not farm animals, thus no RTFA, thus the city can regulate and enforce problems with dogs. We have ordinances for what dogs can do and the city agressively enforces them. Everyone here has dogs.

As I have said before, this is all the Legislature's fault. They set up RTFA such that most cities will never allow farm animals in heavily urbanized areas. You are all very highly motivated. Write your congressman and get the law changed. If your municipality can regulate chicken coop placement, smells, and noise, they are MUCH more likely to allow chickens where they can't be now. The reason is simple. Without RTFA applying the city can enforce violations to it's ordinances.

I really am for small amounts of chickens if their smells and noises can be controlled. My current helping of the city is because I understand that the only way to control a farming problem is to enforce the initial zoning ordinance. Otherwise RTFA applies and the neighbors are SOL. I have no intention of getting up at 4 AM every morning from now on so I am going to make sure her farm is shut down.

Dogs are not farm animals? Define farm animal? Dogs can have an integral part of a farm. Ever heard of sheep dogs, herding dogs? Some municipalities will actually say chickens, or fowl... My point does not change though. I said all laws aside. That is not putting laws aside. How are reasonably quiet chickens whose waste is taken care of properly any worse than yapping dogs? I'm just saying this because as you have yourself pointed out, laws are meant to protect people. Who are these laws protecting if the chicken owners are reasonable owners who take care of the smell. Most chickens are not terribly noisy. Many cities have noise ordinances between certain hours of the night that would apply for those reasons. So who are these chicken owners hurting?

 

[Your_neighbor]

Quote:
Nice try but no dice. I researched that case extensively. Resort in operation since 1937. Non conforming farm and definitely commercial, because functioning LONG before ordinance created. RTFA applies
m

 

[Your_neighbor]

"Dogs are not farm animals? Define farm animal? Dogs can have an integral part of a farm. Ever heard of sheep dogs, herding dogs? "

Are you raising these dogs for sale? If so, you are a farm. If not then you aren't a farm. People with pet dogs typically aren't selling the animals or their "products".

If you start raising dogs for sale where it isn't allowed, the city will come down on you like an anvil.