the city says....

well, it was what we expected, but terribly disappointing....

here's the response we received from the city...(and I say we, because even though the letter is from me, Jason is one the that technically owns the house, and therefore, the response came to both of us....)

This letter will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 21, 2012.

I appreciate your proactive stance and fully understand that your letter is not written with the intent of asking permission, but more in line with telling the City of Midland (City) what you're going to do about chickens in a residential area.

It is not my intent to address each paragraph of your letter or debate cases or statutory citations that are included in your correspondence.  My response represents the City's position and will be made very clear in the following.

The raising of chickens for egg production and sale in an area zoned residential is a clear violation of the City of Midland Code of Ordinances, specifically Section 3-40. (See Attachment 1)  A violation of this ordinance is a misdemeanor offense that has a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and/or $500.00 in fines that is charged against the property owner,  The listed property owner is J**** B*****.

Further, the Right to Farm Acti is intended, in large part, to protect "pre-existing agricultural uses" from violating local zoning laws.

Simply put, the property at **** K******* is zoned residential. (See Attachment 2) It has never been zoned agricultural.  It has never been a commercial operation of raising chickens for egg production.  Therefore, the Michigan Right to Farm Act does not apply.  Further, the GAAMP (Generally Accepted Agricultural Management Practices) clearly describes excepted site selection practices for new and expanding uses to be zoned agricultural.  Again, your home is zoned residential and therefore, the GAAMP does not apply.

You have also indicated in your letter the following, "I have several friends and acquaintances who intend to purchase my farm fresh eggs from me, thus making my farm a commercial operation, and I will keep records and file taxes accordingly."  The city has a home occupation zoning ordinance, specifically Section 3.06 (A)(4) (Attachment 3) which clearly states, "No such home occupation may be conducted in any accessory structure or attached garage."  Therefore, your proposed commercial chicken operations outside of your home would not be allowed in your residential neighborhood even if chickens were to be allowed.

Also keep in mind that the Planning Commission, which is an advisory commission only to the Midland City Council, proposed an amendment to the City of Midland Zoning Ordinance regarding chickens and it was voted down by the City Council with a 5-0 vote on October 24, 2011.

In summary, chickens are not allowed to be kept in a residentially zoned area within the City.  Violations subject the home owner to court related actions and penalties as found in our local ordinances.

This reply has nothing to do with your statements in your letter of growing a garden.  This deals only with the issue of chickens.

I do appreciate you proactive approach and hope you fully understand the City's position as well as the penalties associated with zoning and ordinance violations.

Sincerely,

*City Attorney*

Wow.  (needless to say, Jason is not thrilled at being threatened with a $500 fine and up to 90 days in jail...)  As I posted on backyardchickens.com...my basic thoughts (after some tears and some time to settle down) are this:

First, I am completely dismayed that the city attorney found the case law and precedents set by current MRFTA to be so irrelevant that he did not address them in any way in his return letter to me. Is it just me, or isnt that THE WHOLE POINT. A judge has rendered their interpretation of the law - and the city is clearly totally ignoring that. I would have thought that the attorney would have been instructed to at least check out those cases and my reasoning and then address them - rather than state that he wasn't even going to try.

Second - to point out to me that there was an attempt to change the ordinance and that it didn't pass - DUH - did you READ my letter?? I opened with that information! It's why I'm resorting to MRTFA protection!

 In reference to the home occupation - I'm going to have a small flock of 6-10 birds.... I have four children, and we eat a lot of eggs ....we won't have many eggs to sell and I literally think that I will be hand delivering them to friends when we gather at social events. I think, given that, I don't need to worry about that ordinance or the GAAMPS associated with a farm market - correct?

So my question to you all is - do I send a response to the city attorney with a copy of the MRFTA and more case law and do the same thing he did to me and basically say "I'm not going to address each of your ordinance citations because none off them are relevant...." and wait for a further response.....or do I see if I can find a lawyer that will send that letter on my behalf - as the city basically indicated they intend to disregard state law and threatened fines and jail time??


Also - as an FYI - here's the local paper article that ran the day after the ordinance was voted down
http://www.ourmidland.com/news/article_f8c8fca6-ff13-11e0-8436-001cc4c03286.html

To me, it's a matter of misinformation and snootiness.....

It just doesn't seem like a small flock of chickens should be such an unreasonable request.....

I'm working on my next step....