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

[MalissaB]

Hello, I live in the city of Fenton, MI. I have a small flock of laying chickens. I have had chickens for over a year now and my neighbors have never complained. I am very conscientious about the noise and smells. I recently pulled a permit to have my front porch redone, the city came out to inspect the porch and shortly there after I was given notice regarding the city ordinance. I have three children, one of which is autistic. I think it is important to share traditional values with my children and have free range, organic eggs. Organic food is so important especially since I have an autistic child! The children and I have placed a sign in front of our home and we sell the eggs for $3.00 a dozen. I wrote a letter to the city explaining I was protected under MIRTFA and practice GAAMPS. I promptly received a threatening letter from the Fenton City attorney that stated I was not protected under MIRTFA. I then wrote another letter and included the Michigan Court of Appeals Shelby VS Papesh.

I do have a meeting with the Fenton City Manager on Monday to discuss this matter. I hope to avoid court, fines as I am a single mother. However, I do want to keep my chickens as they are also therapy for my autistic son. I was wonder if anyone had any suggestions on how I should handle the meeting on Monday?

Thank you!

 

[cassie]

Quote:
Are you sure the smell is coming from the chickens? I had 35 hens in my barn and there was no detectible odor. None. Even my prissy niece couldn't smell anything. I didn't clean the pen either. I just made sure the litter was dry, added shavings as needed, and threw in a few handfuls of scratch once a day so the hens would keep the bedding stirred up.

 

[Your_neighbor]

"please state explicitly the cases that support your views. I would be glad to read them."

Fair enough as the more basic parts of the logic are not on this particular thread. If you click on my name to get the profile, you can get a list of the posts. All of them that aren't here are on another single thread. My position, which has also consistently been the court's position, is clearly spelled out with all the court precedents supporting it. I even posted the explicit relevant statements from the court. Some of the posts are rather lengthy, but that is because I fully addressed the position to prevent people from wasting everyone's time with ridiculous arguments. Note that no one was ever able to supply a legitimate court precedent that contradicted my (and the court's position). With all due respect, I am confident that you will not have any better luck. Opinions of professors and government officials mean nothing at this point. The precedent is clear and the courts will follow it if the issue is relevant. The intent of RTFA is also clear, and the people who determine if/when it applies all agree. Some here don't. The intent of RTFA is to protect legitimate commercial farming enterprises (hog farms, poultry farms, cattle farms, etc) from harassment by nearby residents and townships who want to restrict operation of those long established and taxpaying operations. Where the farm is clearly commercial, as in there is no doubt at all that it is a well established and ongoing commercial business, the courts have occasionally "bent" their interpretation of RTFA to make sure it applies. Some here have seen that bending and now think the intent is to allow backyard farms to start up illegally. The answer to that is a resounding "NO!". In the Milford case it was obvious to everyone that the resident was trying to abuse the commercial requirement. Judges really don't like when people try and play those games. The judge got ticked off and made the commercial requirement even tougher to prevent the games in the future. The real, tax paying, commercial farms will have no problem meeting the new requirement. When it comes down to it this really is all about money. RTFA exists to protect state revenues that come from commercial farms.

As for Troy vs Papadelis, not sure why you just read the last case. The issue of whether the farm was legitimate had already resolved to the satisfaction of the court over a decade earlier. The last case was about whether farming structures erected on an RTFA protected farm have to conform to local zoning ordinances. I confess to being surprised by the courts ruling. From what I have read the zoning ordinances in question are actually in the state building codes manual, which I happen to have. The state codes that apply are most definitely enforceable. RTFA doesn't trump state or federal statutes (It CAN'T trump federal). The city may have failed to point out any of this to the court and that is why they lost. The state codes might also just be guidelines.

The Papadelis case is covered rather extensively on the other thread.

 

[Your_neighbor]

"Are you sure the smell is coming from the chickens?"

Oh yeah, I am sure! Chicken manure is a smell that's not easily forgettable. It's much worse after it rains. If your chickens are doing their thing in your barn the manure probably isn't getting wet.

As for my neighbor, I am past the point of caring what she wants. She should have thought of what my response might be before siting them next to my back door without ever saying anything to me. As to folks saying I just want to get rid of her farm, my response is "D'uh!"

 

[wingless]

Quote:
Hi MalissaB. Welcome to BYC.

I would do three things.

First, I would contact the State of MI Agriculture folks working on this issue to determine whether it is their understanding that MRTFA protects a commercial, GAAMPS-compliant farm operation in a residential neighborhood in Fenton. I might also ask if there are any local ordinances that trump MRTFA to the extent that they can close down your operation. 1-877-MDA-1-RTF.

Second, there is another thread on this site that deals extensively (but not always clearly) with these issues that you could read. https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=182280&p=1
And then for a really clear, short thread there is this one: https://www.backyardchickens.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=408477&p=1

Finally, if it were me I would go into the meeting with two goals: first, to provide the City Attorney with information that supports your view that your commercial, GAAMPS-compliant farming operation is protected under MRTFA, and second, to really understand the legal arguments that he/she believes will trump those MRTF protections. Bring a paper and pencil and write down the case names. If they'll print you a copy of the case and point to the language that they think supports their view, even better. If they think they have more than one good legal argument, be sure to get case names and specific information for every single one. Then either evaluate for yourself whether the arguments are valid with respect to your situation, or bring them here. I promise there are lots of folks here who will be very interested in understanding those arguments, and in bringing up other information that may be relevant.

I am pretty sure that none of us wants to break the law, and none want to be troublesome to our neighbors. But neither do we want any more MRTFA cases to be lost because the legal issues were not clearly and fully understood by the farmer, the city, and the judge.

Good luck.

 

[Your_neighbor]

Quote:
Your odds aren't good but you may have a chance. Your contention that RTFA applies probably caused the city/attorney to take a position he/she really might not want to take. If you put your sign up after the notice, that won't fly. I have seen much stronger tactics than that, such as filing amended tax returns, fail. I suspect the RTFA approach will not fly with the attorney, and you will lose if it goes to court. It's also going to place the attorney in a position where he has to shut you down. They will be extremely concerned about setting an RTFA precedent with you that others will try and abuse. A better approach might be to try and work with the attorney and city to come up with an alternative. Your child gives you a potential situation that you all can work with. if you could all come to an agreement that the chickens are for the child, and you have no intentions of farming, that might fly. It's a long shot but that is the approach I would personally take. If you are going to do that I'd take the sign down right now and hope no one saw it.

Good luck!

Edit: Was mentioning this to my wife. She is up on all this stuff now. Her response is that the city will likely tell you to get rid of the chickens and get a puppy for the children. I tend to agree. She also mentioned that at her work the subject of illegal farming came up. In another city that was having this situation, it started to become an actual problem for the city. They finally decided to "drop the hammer" and shut everyone down. No longer any problems there.

 

[dianaross77]

MalissaB,
All the advice wbanka gave was solid. There are some great links on my thread to articles you can print out to help your case. Have you sold any eggs at all or tried to before now? Also contacting your local state representative for support would be a really good idea. Letters of support from neighbors couldnnt hurt. You could also take the approach with them that the whole MRTFA subject can be dropped if they are willing to adopt a hen friendly ordinance like so many other large and small cities alike. But if it were me in the situation I would tell them I don't care what outcome other cases have had. I believe the law is being grossly misinterpreted and our rights trampled. Also do get pictures proving that your GAAMP compliant. You can call the dept. Of ag but its likey they won't be of any help to you. They really don't want to get in the middle. Good luck! Let us know how your meeting goes.

 

[Your_neighbor]

"the whole MRTFA subject can be dropped if they are willing to adopt a hen friendly ordinance like so many other large and small cities alike. "

This is simply not true. The way RTFA is currently worded, once it applies the city loses control. The city cannot stop or control a legally created commercial farm. If they adopt your ordinance, the legal aspect is met. All the farmer has to do is establish commerciality and follow GAAMP and they can do pretty much whatever they want. That IS the problem. The cities CAN take this risk if they choose, by adopting ordinances that allow chickens to be kept. That is their option. If it comes back to bite them in the behind, the courts will say "too bad!".

"But if it were me in the situation I would tell them I don't care what outcome other cases have had."

The courts do care about other cases, and your statement will have a negative impact on any reasonable attorney. The attorneys and judges don't have the luxury of believing whatever they want. I suspect the courts would end a case against you with "If you don't want to respect the law that's your choice. We find for the plaintiff. Defendant is ordered to pay the fine and remove the farm."

You might not like it...no... you obviously don't like it, but the courts have final say. That is why all the city attorneys are saying RTFA doesn't apply. If you follow the court cases, the courts are agreeing. I have shown from a review of the appeals that, with rare exception under special circumstances, the judges decisions are almost never overridden.

In other words, she would be wasting precious time and money by going to court.

EXTREMELY IMPORTANT EDIT!

There actually MAY be a way the city can create an ordinance and not lose control. We all (hopefully) know by now that you cannot break the law to gain RTFA protections. If the city says you can keep three hens AS LONG AS YOU DON'T SELL ANYTHING, that should work!! You cannot become commercial legally. The city can go after any aspect of RTFA applicability requirements. It doesn't have to be the formation requirement. It can be the commercial requirement. I LIKE IT!

 

[dianaross77]

Quote:

 

[Your_neighbor]

Malissa,

Based on my recent realization, I believe you actually might have a chance of getting what you want. First, take down the eggs for sale sign. It isn't going to work, and it is acting against what you want to do. When you meet with the attorney, ask if the reason they don't want your farm is because of the RTFA problem. The attorney will probably say yes. The city officials are afraid of losing control. Point out that they are using the fact that the farm was formed illegally to prevent RTFA application, but they could also use the fact that the farm went commercial illegally. Both will work and the attorney will quickly see that. Ask if the city created an ordinance that allowed 3 hens as long as their products weren't sold would prevent RTFA from stripping the city's control. He should say yes. Point out that your neighbors have never complained, how you are diligent in upkeep, and ask for time to get the city council to approve an ordinance of the sort you just talked about. There is a good chance that he will work with you.

Now you have some work to do. You have to convince the city to implement such an ordinance. I started looking for this situation after realizing it would work, and the first one I looked at does just this. Take a look at Ann Arbor's ordinance.

You will be doing all backyard farmers a valuable service. I wish you luck.