Farmer's residences exempt from zoning codes

All political discussion related to Kin's Domains (land rights, etc.) belongs here. Cheers to our bright future!
Post Reply
megdcl
Vedruss
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 9:06 pm
Location: Upper Michigan

Farmer's residences exempt from zoning codes

Post by megdcl »

Wondering if anyone has ever looked into this, notes and links below:

http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-conte ... ations.pdf
bottom of pg. 16 (dwelling used by farmer as residence is an agricultural building)

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(v2apr00bwcnhsoavhah0etjn))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-125-1510 (#8)

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/Qual ... 9854_7.pdf
Related Buildings MCL 211.7dd(d) defines qualified agricultural property as: "Qualified agricultural property" means unoccupied property and related buildings classified as agricultural, or other unoccupied property and related buildings located on that property devoted primarily to agricultural use as defined in section 36101 of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.36101. Related buildings include a residence occupied by a person employed in or actively involved in the agricultural use and who has not claimed a principal residence exemption on other property. Related buildings are structures on a parcel that are, in some way, part of the agricultural operation or use on that parcel. Examples of related buildings can include barns, sheds, poultry houses, etc. Additionally, related buildings are defined in the law to include a residence occupied by a person employed in or actively involved in the parcel’s agricultural use and who has not claimed the homeowner’s principal residence exemption on other property.


I’m including the link below because it shows that some states can be more “open” about the exemption of farmers' houses to the codes. I had originally heard that Illinois allowed farmers with more than 5 acres to be exempt from building codes, which got me doing this research. The MI law doesn’t “spell it out” as much as other states, but from what I’m reading, the residence of the farmer is considered incidental to the agricultural use and therefor exempt from building codes. I know that I read that specifically somewhere other than just inferring it from the above documents, but I can’t find that link right now.

Iowa Farm Exemption clarifies: https://www.millscoia.us/forms/zoning/A ... andout.pdf

Thanks for any input!
Meg
:Joyce-M:
Vedruss
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu May 07, 2020 9:26 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Farmer's residences exempt from zoning codes

Post by :Joyce-M: »

Greetings Meg,
I hoped to see you here again. You've been doing some important research as shown by your links. Anyone can also look up their local county codes (here called "Pueblo County Code"). Find the Title or section covering buildings and construction (Title 15 in our county). Read through that for specific language saying who is governed by the code. Here that language is found in 15.32.030 which says "The purpose of the code is to establish uniform, county-wide licensing and administrative provisions for all contractors doing construction work in Pueblo County." Our code actually repeats a version of that three times and nowhere else in Title 15 is found any specific language specifying those over whom the building department has authority. It applies ONLY to contractors and no others, even though the rest of the title is written to appear as though it applies to all people building a structure (but never says so specifically).

The zoning department code is a little slipperier. It never actually states it's scope of authority other than to say it will be implemented through building permits, which, of course, only apply to contractors. So we are free of building and zoning codes legally. But anyone who has tried to get many agencies or departments to recognize and honor such exemptions knows what it feels like to be demonized and bulldozed. To avoid this communicate in writing sent registered or certified mail to the department head and county attorney. In your letter quote the code that governs them and request that they respond with the specific code that grants them authority over you, who are not a contractor but a private man or woman on private non-commercial land. Give them 21 days to respond (according to shipping law which underlies all government codes and statutes). After 21 days send a second letter stating that if you get no written response within 21 more days, their silence will constitute agreement that you and your non-commercial land are not subject to their administration. Keep the letters as proof for any and all who may question your right to build at will. This record will create an estoppel for any action attempt against you because the county attorneys know it will stand up in any court.

You will find similar restrictions to commercial jurisdiction only in all your county departments and agencies if you look deep enough and read them literally and carefully without making presumptions about what is meant.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.
:Joyce-M:
Vedruss
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu May 07, 2020 9:26 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Farmer's residences exempt from zoning codes

Post by :Joyce-M: »

Meg, I couldn't get any of the links to work. Might be something to do my phone but just wanted to let you know. They seem important and it would be risky to rely on codes or statutes that can't be referenced by number.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.
:Joyce-M:
Vedruss
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu May 07, 2020 9:26 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Farmer's residences exempt from zoning codes

Post by :Joyce-M: »

megdcl wrote: Sat May 23, 2020 5:42 pm Wondering if anyone has ever looked into this, notes and links below:

http://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-conte ... ations.pdf
bottom of pg. 16 (dwelling used by farmer as residence is an agricultural building)

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(v2apr00bwcnhsoavhah0etjn))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-125-1510 (#8)

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/Qual ... 9854_7.pdf
Related Buildings MCL 211.7dd(d) defines qualified agricultural property as: "Qualified agricultural property" means unoccupied property and related buildings classified as agricultural, or other unoccupied property and related buildings located on that property devoted primarily to agricultural use as defined in section 36101 of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.36101. Related buildings include a residence occupied by a person employed in or actively involved in the agricultural use and who has not claimed a principal residence exemption on other property. Related buildings are structures on a parcel that are, in some way, part of the agricultural operation or use on that parcel. Examples of related buildings can include barns, sheds, poultry houses, etc. Additionally, related buildings are defined in the law to include a residence occupied by a person employed in or actively involved in the parcel’s agricultural use and who has not claimed the homeowner’s principal residence exemption on other property.


I’m including the link below because it shows that some states can be more “open” about the exemption of farmers' houses to the codes. I had originally heard that Illinois allowed farmers with more than 5 acres to be exempt from building codes, which got me doing this research. The MI law doesn’t “spell it out” as much as other states, but from what I’m reading, the residence of the farmer is considered incidental to the agricultural use and therefor exempt from building codes. I know that I read that specifically somewhere other than just inferring it from the above documents, but I can’t find that link right now.

Iowa Farm Exemption clarifies: https://www.millscoia.us/forms/zoning/A ... andout.pdf

Thanks for any input!
Meg

Greetings again, Meg,

I finally managed to access and carefully review your links. The second or third one has been deleted from the website. I would like to share my concerns with the information in these links.

1) The first is 100% based on court case decisions which is not law anywhere in the country. Courts do not make law they give opinions that are binding only on the parties involved. Any later court can reverse the decision at any time for future cases. Encyclopedic volumes in legal libraries list the reversals of tens of thousands of court cases in federal, state and county opinions. I've been told by several agencies and departments that they are not bound by any court case unless they are a party to it. Throughout the cases the courts qualified their opinions with statements that local definitions of ag and farm land use still apply.
2) The page 16 reference on one of your links says in parentheses, "(dwelling used by farmer as residence is an agricultural building)". In legal writing anything in parentheses, brackets, or boxes is excluded from the overall legal communication. It may have pertained to the specific case under consideration but not the overall legal decision as communicated by the court.
3) The statutory links spoke of applying to a department or agency for statutory exemptions. Any time you fill out and sign an application form for government approval of a request, the applicant is voluntarily (and unnecessarily) submitting to the authority of the agency or department. That means you are subject to their definitions, requirements, statutory or policy changes, and enforcement through court action including eviction and even bulldozing of structures in some circumstances. An historical review of the changes in any body of statutes over a twenty year period will show how severely risky this can be.
4) The final link explained in detail what does and does not qualify as ag or farm use for claiming statutory "exemptions". Ag and farm use is strictly for profit (commercial) but only specific kinds of profit products and activities. Most disturbing to me was this quote, "Under these programs, the owners may also be required to plant ground covers, thin trees, enhance wetlands, develop wildlife habitat, etc.". That means the tasks must be done to their specifications and plans not your kins domain and community plans, and you must pay the bill. In Colorado these requirements can almost destroy one's kin domain dream plans.
5) The commercial , for profit requirements to qualify for statutory ag or farm land are not compatible with the kins domains as described by Anastasia. For example, a private family garden does not qualify. A reforestation of 1/2 or more of your domain does not qualify. Harvesting wood for personal use does not qualify. Raising animals that are not meant for sale or for providing commercial milk or eggs does not qualify. A community of families creating their own beautiful adjacent hectare sized domains will not qualify except as they are operating for profit within the limits of the statutory definitions.

However we are all unique and for some people their best transition May be a temporary stage of commercial farming or commercial ranching. I do not wish to judge anyone's path to their kins domain dream. For my dream I prefer to operate as an exception to the statutes (outside their authority) rather than an exemption (defined statutorily and therefore governed by them). Exceptions exist if you know where to look for them and how to protect your right to claim the freedom of those exceptions. That's my preferred version of self-governance. I wish all kins domain and community dreamers well, along each of our preferred and most comfortable path through the legal options that exist.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.
megdcl
Vedruss
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue May 19, 2020 9:06 pm
Location: Upper Michigan

Re: Farmer's residences exempt from zoning codes

Post by megdcl »

I thought I replied to this but I guess I didn't send it through. Thanks so much, Joyce, for your thorough research and reply on this. I think some states apply this more liberally, like Illinois? But, honestly, we have just gone ahead and do what we do, I'll admit I was nervous but I also fully believed that "goodness" was with me and that if "they" could have the ridiculous amount of means to pollute our skies with chemtrails and every other nefarious project of theirs, that I would certainly be provided for in my endeavors to love and heal all of the life that I am graced with interacting with. And so it has been.
:Joyce-M:
Vedruss
Posts: 72
Joined: Thu May 07, 2020 9:26 pm
Location: Colorado

Re: Farmer's residences exempt from zoning codes

Post by :Joyce-M: »

Great perspective. I like it. However, I would be remiss if I ignored the several examples since 2007 around the country in which the outcome turned out a different way for various groups in relation to government controls. Some of those groups experienced true horror stories and another is going on right now. Still, I like your perspective and support it.
:Joyce-M:
at Charisma, becoming
one of Earth's most beautiful spots.
User avatar
Chinabrolo
Vedruss
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 6:33 pm
Location: http://product-of-china.cf/

-

Post by Chinabrolo »

I read somewhere that some evidence was left out so that Apple would win the suit. Now theres an appeal and Apple will NOT see the 1Billion awarded to them.
Post Reply