Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 13 Ciurlik was given notice to stop the commercial composting operation and remove the offending noxious materials. When Ciurlik failed to comply,the Township filed a legal action asking the court to order that the commercial composting use be ceased and the nuisance be abated. i Among other things, the Township alleged that Ciurlik's commercial 6 composting facility was not a permitted use of AG-zoned land under the Ordinance. Ciurlik argued that there was no zoning violation because its com- mercial composting operation fit within the definition of"faun"under both the Ordinance and Michigan's Right to Farm Act("RTFA")(MCL 286.471). Ciurlik also argued that the composting operation was entitled to immunity under the RTFA because,under MCL 286.473(1), a farming operation cannot be considered a nuisance.Moreover,Ciurlik also argued that even if the commercial composting facility was found not to be a permitted use of AG-zoned land under the Ordinance, the exclusionary zoning statute—MCL 125.3207—allowed its composting operation to continue because there was a demonstrated need for it and the Ordinance totally prohibited the use. The trial court eventually issued a permanent injunction against the commercial composting use. The court found, among other things,that the commercial composting facility was not a permitted use of AG- zoned land. The court rejected Ciurlik's defenses. 1. Ciurlik appealed. I" DECISION: Affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Michigan first held that Ciurlik's com- mercial composting facility was not a"farm"under the Ordinance and therefore was not a permitted use of AG-zoned land. In so holding,the court considered the plain language of the Ordinance, finding"a `farm' is land on which `bona fide farming' occurs." "Bona fide farming" or simply"farming"was not defined by the Ordinance,so the court looked to the "plain and ordinary meaning" of the term. The court found the dictionary definition of"farming"to include: "to devote to agriculture," "to manage and cultivate as a farm,""to grow or cultivate in quantity," and"to engage in raising crops or animals." The court also noted that the definition of"farm" in the Ordinance listed examples of permis- sible activities, and included establishments operated as: "bona fide greenhouses, nurseries, orchards, chicken hatcheries, poultry farms, dairies, livestock raising and apiaries."The court concluded that all of those examples involved"either the production of plants or animals." With regard to Ciurlik's use, the court found that a commercial composting facility did not produce plants or animals, and did "not i even closely relate to any of the listed examples of permissible activi- ©2016 Thomson Reuters 7 k F `i fl