Laserfiche WebLink
July 10, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 13 Zoning Bulletin <br /> ties provided by the [O]rdinance." Finally, the court determined that <br /> the operation of a commercial composting facility was not within the r <br /> intent of the AG-district, which was "to protect land needed for agri- <br /> cultural pursuits from encroachment by untimely and unplanned . . . <br /> commercial . . . development." Accordingly, because Ciurlik's com- <br /> mercial cornposting operation was not a"farm" under the Ordinance, <br /> the court concluded that it was not a permitted use of AG-zoned land. <br /> The court next rejected Ciurlik's argument that the Township <br /> engaged in exclusionary zoning—in violation of state statutory law <br /> (MCL 125.3207)—by excluding commercial composting from the <br /> entire township. The court found that the Ordinance did not include a <br /> township-wide ban on commercial composting operations, and that <br /> such operation would be permitted on land designated for light <br /> industrial use. <br /> Finally, the court also rejected Ciurlik's argument that the com- <br /> mercial composting operation was a"farm operation"under RTFA and <br /> thus immune from the Township's odor-related nuisance claim. RTFA <br /> provides that"a farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a pub- <br /> lic or private nuisance . ."Noting that a property must be a"farm" <br /> to be a"farm operation,"the court concluded that Ciurlik's commercial <br /> composting operation was not a"farm"under the RTFA.RTFA's defi- <br /> nition of"farm"required the land be "used in the commercial produc- <br /> tion of farm products."The court found that while Ciurlik's operation <br /> was"commercial in nature" it did not produce "farm products,"which <br /> were defined under the RTFA as "those plants and animals useful to <br /> human beings . ." Finding the compost produced was neither a <br /> plant or animal, the court found it could not be a "farm product." <br /> Because Ciurlik's commercial composting facility did not produce a <br /> "farm product" it was not a "farm" under the RTFA and was not <br /> entitled to the protection of the RTFA, concluded the court. <br /> The court concluded that the trial court properly ordered the <br /> composting operations to cease and the nuisance be abated. <br /> See also: Lima Twp. v. Bateson, 302 Mich. App. 483, 838 N.W.2d <br /> 898 (2013). <br /> 8 ©2016 Thomson Reuters <br />