How about we leave this up to the individual townships?! Limited Livestock In Residential Areas Approved By Ag Commission People living in primarily residential areas not specifically zoned for agriculture would no longer be allowed to keep animals under new rules passed today by the Agriculture and Rural Development Commission. But state officials today for the first time sought to define what a primarily residential area means, setting off a long discussion by the commissioners as they wrestled with how the regulations could impact small-time farmers, who have protested the changes. The rules, known as the Generally Accepted Agricultural and Management Practices (GAAMPs), are a series of documents that set guidelines on proper farming practices. There are eight different GAAMPs, and this one -- the Site Selection GAAMP -- is the most controversial, at least for backyard farmers in residential suburban areas who have said their protections under the Right to Farm (RTF) Act would be taken away. Under the one part of the rules, people who live in areas zoned primarily residential would not be allowed to keep livestock. State agriculture officials said it should be up to local governments to determine if livestock should be allowed in their communities (See Revisions To Proposed Livestock Rules Mostly For Clarity, 3/13/14). Language was added that stipulated that if theres a local ordinance that allows for livestock, then livestock are fine. The small farmers have argued that if local governments decide to zone out agriculture, theyll lose their livelihoods and ability to feed themselves. The small farmers have weighed in on the issue in force at meetings and through public comments (See 91% Of Record 606 Comments Oppose Changes To Farming Practices, 2/10/14). The commission today eventually settled on primarily residential meaning a site that has 13 or more homes within an 1/8 of a mile of the site or any home that is within 250 feet of the actual nuisance problem -- for instance, the manure of the animals. If just one those conditions are met, that means livestock are not allowed at that site, because its primarily residential. If a site is primarily residential, it falls under the category four of the Site Selection GAAMP, which decrees that livestock arent suitable there. Jim JOHNSON, director of the environmental stewardship division of Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD), said the definition makes the livestock siting question a two-parter: How is the land zoned; and how is the land around the potential site being used? The commission first considered MDARDs suggestion of a mile radius away from other homes, but Commissioner Bob KENNEDY pushed to make the radius smaller to an 1/8 of a mile. He said he wanted to err on the side of caution to avoid any unintended consequences to small farmers. Commissioner Trever MEACHUM also proposed a definition tweak. Originally, it was 250 feet from the site property line. He proposed amending it to read facility location instead, with the understanding that would mean that the 250-foot radius would be drawn from the spot of the nuisance, not the border of the property. An example was given of a 20-acre property with homes surrounding it. If the animals are confined in the middle of property, it doesnt make sense to treat the animals like theyre affecting the neighbors if theyre so far from the border. The commission took four votes. The first was on MDARDs suggested amendments, the next two on Meachums and Kennedys amendments to MDARDs proposals described above, and then a fourth to approve the entire amended set of GAAMPs. Each vote passed 4-1, with Commissioner Dru MONTRI in opposition each time. Montri cited several concerns before the vote, including the fact she had no way of knowing for sure how the GAAMPs changes would impact small farmers. Kennedy asked several times if there was any way to measure the impact. Johnson said it was difficult, but if there were adverse effects, theyd hear about it quickly from the farming community. Montri raised many questions for Johnson, including several that originated from the more than a dozen people who spoke in opposition to the changes in public comments today. Montris questions set most of the discussion around what made a site area primarily residential, which had commissioners wrangling with the issue of residential density and the proper setback distance from the potential nuisance source. After a while, Johnson made the point that no matter what, a line would have to be drawn, and not everyone would be made happy. Johnson also mentioned these regulations come into play when a nuisance complaint is made -- the state doesnt go around and make compliance checks on properties for siting. But Johnson did acknowledge some people would be affected, likely people who are carrying on practices that dont conform to the communitys wishes. He said theyd have to conform or get rid of their animals. The hours-long debate on how to implement the GAAMPs comes after the commission delayed its first vote on the Site Selection GAAMPs at its March meeting after another wave of angry public comments from backyard farmers (See Ag Commission Delays Approval Of Livestock Changes In Residential Areas, 3/20/14). While the commissioners approved the changes today, before the vote they told the public that the commission could revisit the rules anytime. In fact, the task force that drafted the original language -- made up of agriculture officials from MDARD, Michigan State University and other groups -- is soon reconvening to begin considering the 2015 GAAMPs. And the commissioners requested that MDARD report at its next meeting how many phone calls the state receives about any adverse effects from the new changes. MDARD Director Jamie CLOVER ADAMS also suggested that the Michigan Municipal League (MML) and the Michigan Townships Association (MTA) keep the state up to speed on zoning changes across the state as a result. The commissioners also suggested starting an urban agriculture workgroup to push for legislative changes on this issue going forward. Meachum said these changes approved today would still likely not solve problems for farmers in urban areas, considering the parameters set up a 250-foot radius and 13-house limit, which would likely disqualify many urban landowners. He suggested groups like the Michigan Small Farm Council (MSFC), whose members have been vocal in opposition to the GAAMPs changes, be included on this urban agriculture work group. Wendy BANKA, director of the MSFC, didnt have an immediate comment on the amended version of the GAAMPs approved today. But another member of MSFC, Randy ZEILINGER of Garden City, said people who could now be in the category four sites may have lost this round, but signaled his hopefulness for working on a bigger solution. Now there seems to be an opening that we can be involved, he said.
Posted on: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:00:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015