Out Door Grow Is This Legal

[t-pain]

zoning ordinances dont apply to mmma.

Ah, that sounds a little far fetched in the context of making a building meet township rules. I don't think that telling the building inspector that I'm gonna grow marijuana in there changes anything about them making my building meet the normal requirements. Especially safety requirements, set backs, taxes, all kinds of things you have to conform to. The MMMA doesn't change that. It can't, or that would be discrimination against the rest of the folks out there that have to follow these general rules. The MMMA protects us from rules designed specifically against marijuana as medicine and medical use, not general rules

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the ... acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana

 

from terb v wyoming:

Under the Michigan Constitution, the City’s “power to adopt resolutions and

ordinances relating to its municipal concerns” is “subject to the constitution and the law.”

Const 1963, art 7, § 22.

 

The City, therefore, “is precluded from enacting an ordinance if . . . the ordinance is in direct

conflict with the state statutory scheme, or . . . if the state statutory scheme preempts the

ordinance by occupying the field of regulation which the municipality seeks to enter, to

the exclusion of the ordinance, even where there is no direct conflict between the two

schemes of regulation.”

 

A direct conflict exists when “the ordinance permits what the statute

prohibits or the ordinance prohibits what the statute permits.” Id. at 322 n 4. Here, the

Ordinance directly conflicts with the MMMA by permitting what the MMMA expressly

prohibits—the imposition of a “penalty in any manner” on a registered qualifying patient

whose medical use of marijuana falls within the scope of § 4(a)’s immunity.

 

McQueen does not, as the City contends, authorize a municipality to enjoin a registered qualifying patient from engaging in medical use of marijuana in compliance with the MMMA, simply by characterizing that conduct as a zoning violation.

 

this also is interesting.

 

The City seems to suggest that, for this immunity to attach, a registered qualifying patient must show a “demonstrated need” under MCL 125.3207 for his or her MMMA-compliant medical

marijuana use. Neither § 4(a) nor any other provision of the MMMA, however, imposes

or betrays a tolerance for such a condition with respect to the availability of its

protections. Thus, to the extent the MZEA may be read to require such a showing for an

individual to claim the immunity provided under § 4(a), it is inconsistent with and

superseded by the MMMA. MCL 333.26427(e).

 

i'd say that theres nothing in the mmma that requires a person to follow a local zoning ordinance for marijuana buildings , only the mmma requirements for marijuana outdoors (wood slats etc).

 

here is why any zoning ordinance will fail:

 

The Ordinance directly conflicts with the MMMA not because it generally pertains to

marijuana, but because it permits registered qualifying patients, such as Ter Beek, to be

penalized by the City for engaging in MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use. Section 4(a) of the MMMA expressly prohibits this. As such, the MMMA preempts the

Ordinance to the extent of this conflict.

 

and yes, the reason the barn is OK is because it is related to marijuana, which goes back to sec4

 

"for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act"

 

 

 

 

you do have an interesting point about making any building medical marijuana related now makes that building immune to taxes or ordinances. but then it goes back to reality. are you using the building for sleeping? sleeping isnt part of the "medical use" of marijuana so you can still be penalized/taxed for your sleeping shack.

 

the building has to be 100% for "medical use" of marijuana, or it falls into normal building ordinances. thus i have decreed my opinion, it is not legal advice.

[phaquetoo]

 

This is portable yet anchored to the ground, no?

 

 

 

Anchored to the ground.  Portable or not?  

 

 

Anchored to the ground.  Portable or not?  Permit needed?  

Add sides and a locked door and you have storage sheds lol!

 

Put chain link fence on sides and top, locked entrance, secure poles that hold the unit into the ground and you have an out door grow!

 

Peace

[phaquetoo]

OK, I built a stick frame two bedroom home, have the frame all up, getting ready to side it and put a roof on. I decided I am going to wrap all the sides in chicken wire and also decided I am going to cover the roof with chicken wire also. I am now living in this house. Question: Am I living indoors or outdoors?

Farmer Brown

your living in a chicken coupe, no protection from the weather, sun, or people who may want to reach in and pick your nose!

are there locks on it? lol

 

Peace

[Restorium2]

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the ... acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuana

 

from terb v wyoming:

Under the Michigan Constitution, the City’s “power to adopt resolutions and

ordinances relating to its municipal concerns” is “subject to the constitution and the law.”

Const 1963, art 7, § 22.

 

The City, therefore, “is precluded from enacting an ordinance if . . . the ordinance is in direct

conflict with the state statutory scheme, or . . . if the state statutory scheme preempts the

ordinance by occupying the field of regulation which the municipality seeks to enter, to

the exclusion of the ordinance, even where there is no direct conflict between the two

schemes of regulation.”

 

A direct conflict exists when “the ordinance permits what the statute

prohibits or the ordinance prohibits what the statute permits.” Id. at 322 n 4. Here, the

Ordinance directly conflicts with the MMMA by permitting what the MMMA expressly

prohibits—the imposition of a “penalty in any manner” on a registered qualifying patient

whose medical use of marijuana falls within the scope of § 4(a)’s immunity.

 

McQueen does not, as the City contends, authorize a municipality to enjoin a registered qualifying patient from engaging in medical use of marijuana in compliance with the MMMA, simply by characterizing that conduct as a zoning violation.

 

this also is interesting.

 

The City seems to suggest that, for this immunity to attach, a registered qualifying patient must show a “demonstrated need” under MCL 125.3207 for his or her MMMA-compliant medical

marijuana use. Neither § 4(a) nor any other provision of the MMMA, however, imposes

or betrays a tolerance for such a condition with respect to the availability of its

protections. Thus, to the extent the MZEA may be read to require such a showing for an

individual to claim the immunity provided under § 4(a), it is inconsistent with and

superseded by the MMMA. MCL 333.26427(e).

 

i'd say that theres nothing in the mmma that requires a person to follow a local zoning ordinance for marijuana buildings , only the mmma requirements for marijuana outdoors (wood slats etc).

 

here is why any zoning ordinance will fail:

 

The Ordinance directly conflicts with the MMMA not because it generally pertains to

marijuana, but because it permits registered qualifying patients, such as Ter Beek, to be

penalized by the City for engaging in MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use. Section 4(a) of the MMMA expressly prohibits this. As such, the MMMA preempts the

Ordinance to the extent of this conflict.

 

and yes, the reason the barn is OK is because it is related to marijuana, which goes back to sec4

 

"for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act"

 

 

 

 

you do have an interesting point about making any building medical marijuana related now makes that building immune to taxes or ordinances. but then it goes back to reality. are you using the building for sleeping? sleeping isnt part of the "medical use" of marijuana so you can still be penalized/taxed for your sleeping shack.

 

the building has to be 100% for "medical use" of marijuana, or it falls into normal building ordinances. thus i have decreed my opinion, it is not legal advice.

Nope. Not going to fly if your building doesn't meet normal zoning. Sorry. It's a harsh world with lots of rules. The MMMA will only get you around specific rules designed to get in the way of your medical use, discriminatory rules and ordinances. Specific rules about marijuana. You can spot them easily by the word marijuana/marihuana in them. 

Edited April 9, 2016 by Restorium2

[dutchfarm]

your living in a chicken coupe, no protection from the weather, sun, or people who may want to reach in and pick your nose!

are there locks on it? lol

 

PeaceHa!HA!HA!

Very Funny, bet you are a blast to hang out with :>) Peace be with you too master of disaster!! Of course there are locks, don't want anyone picking my nose without prior legal authority!!!

Farmer Brown

[dutchfarm]

Not sure how my reply ended up bundled with yours,but..............

[Highlander]

Sec. 4. (a) A qualifying patient who has been issued and possesses a registry identification card shall not be subject to arrest, prosecution, or penalty in any manner, or denied any right or privilege, including but not limited to civil penalty or disciplinary action by a business or occupational or professional licensing board or bureau, for the ... acquisition, possession, cultivation, manufacture, use, internal possession, delivery, transfer, or transportation of marihuana or paraphernalia relating to the administration of marihuanafrom terb v wyoming:Under the Michigan Constitution, the City’s “power to adopt resolutions andordinances relating to its municipal concerns” is “subject to the constitution and the law.”Const 1963, art 7, § 22.The City, therefore, “is precluded from enacting an ordinance if . . . the ordinance is in directconflict with the state statutory scheme, or . . . if the state statutory scheme preempts theordinance by occupying the field of regulation which the municipality seeks to enter, tothe exclusion of the ordinance, even where there is no direct conflict between the twoschemes of regulation.” A direct conflict exists when “the ordinance permits what the statuteprohibits or the ordinance prohibits what the statute permits.” Id. at 322 n 4. Here, theOrdinance directly conflicts with the MMMA by permitting what the MMMA expresslyprohibits—the imposition of a “penalty in any manner” on a registered qualifying patientwhose medical use of marijuana falls within the scope of § 4(a)’s immunity.McQueen does not, as the City contends, authorize a municipality to enjoin a registered qualifying patient from engaging in medical use of marijuana in compliance with the MMMA, simply by characterizing that conduct as a zoning violation.this also is interesting.The City seems to suggest that, for this immunity to attach, a registered qualifying patient must show a “demonstrated need” under MCL 125.3207 for his or her MMMA-compliant medicalmarijuana use. Neither § 4(a) nor any other provision of the MMMA, however, imposesor betrays a tolerance for such a condition with respect to the availability of itsprotections. Thus, to the extent the MZEA may be read to require such a showing for anindividual to claim the immunity provided under § 4(a), it is inconsistent with andsuperseded by the MMMA. MCL 333.26427(e).i'd say that theres nothing in the mmma that requires a person to follow a local zoning ordinance for marijuana buildings , only the mmma requirements for marijuana outdoors (wood slats etc).here is why any zoning ordinance will fail:The Ordinance directly conflicts with the MMMA not because it generally pertains tomarijuana, but because it permits registered qualifying patients, such as Ter Beek, to bepenalized by the City for engaging in MMMA-compliant medical marijuana use. Section 4(a) of the MMMA expressly prohibits this. As such, the MMMA preempts theOrdinance to the extent of this conflict.and yes, the reason the barn is OK is because it is related to marijuana, which goes back to sec4"for the medical use of marihuana in accordance with this act"you do have an interesting point about making any building medical marijuana related now makes that building immune to taxes or ordinances. but then it goes back to reality. are you using the building for sleeping? sleeping isnt part of the "medical use" of marijuana so you can still be penalized/taxed for your sleeping shack.the building has to be 100% for "medical use" of marijuana, or it falls into normal building ordinances. thus i have decreed my opinion, it is not legal advice.

Under this same theory you could also ignore electrical codes...just run a fat extension cord to a barn and wire the building without being grounded and without using circuit breakers or fuses. You could dump chemical wastes anywhere you please. You could install a gas furnace or wood stove without a proper chimney and ignore requirements for fire safety. You could put the building right at the edge of the street. You could build a mega warehouse on residential property and not need building and mechanical permits and inspections. You could build a moat around the grow barn and fill it with alligators. You could have electric fences without warning signs and hide booby traps everywhere. You could drive a car without a license, registration or insurance to go pick up clones or deliver meds to your patients. You could run red lights and drive as fast as you want as long as you were carrying cannabis back home. The possibilities are endless with some creative thinking.

[imiubu]

Not sure how my reply ended up bundled with yours,but..............

 

I think you posted within the quote box.

I've noticed sometimes, for some reason my cursor will be inside of the quote box when replying.

Just click outside of the quote box to move your cursor then type your reply

[garyfisher]

Under this same theory you could also ignore electrical codes...just run a fat extension cord to a barn and wire the building without being grounded and without using circuit breakers or fuses. You could dump chemical wastes anywhere you please. You could install a gas furnace or wood stove without a proper chimney and ignore requirements for fire safety. You could put the building right at the edge of the street. You could build a mega warehouse on residential property and not need building and mechanical permits and inspections. You could build a moat around the grow barn and fill it with alligators. You could have electric fences without warning signs and hide booby traps everywhere. You could drive a car without a license, registration or insurance to go pick up clones or deliver meds to your patients. You could run red lights and drive as fast as you want as long as you were carrying cannabis back home. The possibilities are endless with some creative thinking.

 now you're onto somethin'!  =)

[t-pain]

Under this same theory you could also ignore electrical codes...just run a fat extension cord to a barn and wire the building without being grounded and without using circuit breakers or fuses.

you are saying for an outdoor building with extra marijuana lights?

 

ok, then the barn would be protected, but the cord is not , as it is not in the structure protected by the mmma.

 

 

You could dump chemical wastes anywhere you please.

mmma protects cultivation of marijuana, not dumping chemical waste.

 

You could install a gas furnace or wood stove without a proper chimney and ignore requirements for fire safety.

what are the stoves for? for cultivation? they sell them at grow stores? no, i think not.

 

 

You could put the building right at the edge of the street.

depending on underground and overhead utilities..... maybe.

 

 

You could build a mega warehouse on residential property and not need building and mechanical permits and inspections.

warehouse for what? it has to be medical use related. as soon as its not being used for medical use its fair game.

 

 

You could build a moat around the grow barn and fill it with alligators.

probably laws against owning alligators. nothing in mmma protects against exotic animal laws.

 

You could have electric fences without warning signs and hide booby traps everywhere.

 

Marihuana plants grown outdoors are considered to be in an enclosed, locked facility if they are not visible to the unaided eye from an adjacent property when viewed by an individual at ground level or from a permanent structure and are grown within a stationary structure that is enclosed on all sides, except for the base, by chain-link fencing, wooden slats, or a similar material that prevents access by the general public and that is anchored, attached, or affixed to the ground; located on land that is owned, leased, or rented by either the registered qualifying patient or a person designated through the departmental registration process as the primary caregiver for the registered qualifying patient or patients for whom the marihuana plants are grown; and equipped with functioning locks or other security devices that restrict access to only the registered qualifying patient or the registered primary caregiver who owns, leases, or rents the property on which the structure is located.

 

mmma protects the structure itself and only the structure itself, not any external moats. not any booby traps, nor electric fences. chain link or wooden slats or SIMILAR MATERIAL. how is an electric fence similar to wood slats? cmon.

 

 

You could drive a car without a license, registration or insurance to go pick up clones or deliver meds to your patients.

you would be protected for possessing the marijuana, not for violating driving laws while possessing the marijuana.

 

 

You could run red lights and drive as fast as you want as long as you were carrying cannabis back home. The possibilities are endless with some creative thinking.

running red lights has to relate to treating a persons' condition to be protected under the mmma. if you can explain that, you win.

 

i appreciate your creative thinking. its interesting to work this out. if anyone comes up with more ideas, lets hear them!

 

 

 

you might have me in that the mmma does not protect the erection of a structure.

 

also i'm not talking about building a building. the outdoor structure defined in the act is not a building. its more like an enclosed fence.

 

 

thats what i was trying to talk about earlier with resto's reply. do you think a zoning guy can tax a marijuana related structure/building? if so, wouldnt that de-facto legalize marijuana? or entrapment via estoppel anyhow

[Highlander]

also i'm not talking about building a building. the outdoor structure defined in the act is not a building. its more like an enclosed fence.

 

Understood.  But I don't see the difference between a fence and a barn when it comes to zoning and MMMA laws.  If zoning laws don't allow a fence, but the MMMA trumps the zoning law, why would the same not apply to a barn that isn't allowed under zoning laws either?

 

I'm not trying to be facetious.  I'm just trying to get a handle on the full benefits of my MMMA (Michigan Medical Marijuana Anarchy) card. 

[+Malamute]

As far as Cavanaugh goes,.. it is a mixed bag.

 

He involved  himself with the "Walsh Bills" because he felt if he didn't do it, republicans were just going to run roughshod over the Act, as they were planning to.  Democrats had zero power and by attaching himself to the bill intimately, it allowed him to do "some" things.  And I mean,... "some" things. It also allowed to him work on something  because no democratic bill was going to pass at all with republican rule.

 

Republicans fully intended to completely ban outdoor marijuana growing. As I recall they referred to something that had happened where someone was growing on the side of their house in view of children walking to school.  So as typical, Republicans already hating marijuana, made a knee jerk reaction to ban outdoor growing in the "Walsh bills", of which there were actually more bills that were narrowed down to the 4 bills that passed as the "Walsh Bills". 

 

Sorry for the sidetrack.

 

So, Cavanaugh ended up fighting to allow for home growing partially under our tutelage. The problem was the State police, prosecutors, Townships association, Municipal league and the republican party in general(aides included) were against him the whole way.  Now, Cavanaugh wasn't exactly on "our page" when it came to outdoor growing, but he was willing to fight for "something".  He could have fought for a little more though which would have completely fixed the confusion which ended up being Law in the MMMAct.  I am speaking of this "top" issue and circular enclosures, greenhouses and several other minor definitions and regulations that would have made it very clear.  But Cavanaugh said he was done and wouldn't fix it. It is as good as it will get.  We knew it sucked, we continued to try to get it fixed and opposed the bills because they were "not right".

 

 So, Cavanaugh generally had his heart in the right place but was cockblocked by the previous groups and also unwilling to do 15 minutes more work on that language to at least make it clear, even if not what we would have preferred. 

 

"Intent" is a great concept that rarely lies in truth. We will see how the courts interpret the words eventually.

[t-pain]

also i'm not talking about building a building. the outdoor structure defined in the act is not a building. its more like an enclosed fence.

 

Understood.  But I don't see the difference between a fence and a barn when it comes to zoning and MMMA laws.  If zoning laws don't allow a fence, but the MMMA trumps the zoning law, why would the same not apply to a barn that isn't allowed under zoning laws either?

 

I'm not trying to be facetious.  I'm just trying to get a handle on the full benefits of my MMMA (Michigan Medical Marijuana Anarchy) card. 

ok, zoning ordinance banning fences and privacy fences. thats what my city has.

 

so fences are banned by the city, but required and allowed by the mmma.

 

which takes precedence?

 

(this is an easy question)

[mibrains]

I would say...

 

The existing zoning laws would overule.

 

You may be able to use an existing building for a non allowed use but you cannot build anything new that would violate existing zoning laws...it would be legal non conforming.

 

It's a zoning term

 

A new Cannabis production facility on a particular property would be considered legal non conforming and would not be allowed.

 

They would tell you because your not restricted in your access to grow it on other ways on the same property you cannot violate the conformity rules that are established specifically to protect the overall integrity of a neighborhood.

 

Because you are able to still grow without violating any zoning or building laws then they will require you to do so.

 

Zoning is not a bad thing at all.

 

It is specifically designed to ensure property values maintain a consistent value.

 

Most residential neighborhoods require a permit for any permanent structure over 100 square feet no matter what the shape. The state of Michigan set forth building codes and most counties accept and follow their guidlines. Any structure built in any county must conform to all current BOCA codes rather you need a permit to build it or not.

it's OSHA folks.. they enforce the building rules no matter who let's you or doesn't let you build a structure... and it matters not if it's permanent or not... it still has to conform to current building codes.

agricultural zones do not typically require any building permits.

 

https://www.michfb.com/MI/Farm_Business_Resources/Natural_Resources_and_Environment/Building_Permit_Exemption/

 

In order for a zoning law to be overturned for cannabis it has to be all inclusive.

it would have to say something like no cannabis use in the town for anyone....or no growing ect...

 

Specific zoning rules such as building size, setbacks, number of auxiliary units per parcel are all still able to be enforced on an individual level.

 

If you need a permit... get one.

 

What's the problem?

 

Additional taxes?

 

Well FYI by law the county tax assessor is supposed to do an in person property review of all parcels once every five years.

if you do no want them to come on your property at random for inspections you must go and establish an appointment schedule.

most will accommodate you.

by law you DO NOT HAVE TO LET THEM ON YOUR PROPERTY.

they will be forced to make all their property value assumptions from the edge of your property line.

most often that will cost you a fortune.

How are they gonna know how old and delapitaded that shed is if you don't let them inspect it?

[Highlander]

ok, zoning ordinance banning fences and privacy fences. thats what my city has.

 

so fences are banned by the city, but required and allowed by the mmma.

 

which takes precedence?

 

(this is an easy question)

 

It really isn't an easy question.  Zoning laws in my township allow only one accessory structure.  A detached garage is considered an accessory structure.  My pole barn is grandfathered in, but I can't grow in it because it is full with an airplane, old cars, and old tractors.  I can't grow in my detached garage because I park my car there.  So can I build a third accessory structure without a permit and electrical/mechanical inspections simply because the intent is to use it to grow MMJ?  A third accessory structure is banned by zoning but allowed under the MMMA?  Maybe a fourth accessory structure is OK too, considering I need one building to veg in and another to flower.

Edited April 9, 2016 by Highlander

[mibrains]

It should be an easy answer.

 

Terbeek v Wyoming is a township level zoning rule.

 

Not individual.

 

If a town says no cannabis outdoor grows.... that would be illegal however if you t say I want to build a 10 foot tall fence in a residential neghborhood they do not have to allow it.

 

Terbeek covers blanket zoning... not individual rights.

[mibrains]

It really isn't an easy question. Zoning laws in my township allow only one accessory structure. A detached garage is considered an accessory structure. My pole barn is grandfathered in, but I can't grow in it because it is full with an airplane, old cars, and old tractors. I can't grow in my detached garage because I park my car there. So can I build a third accessory structure without a permit and electrical/mechanical inspections simply because the intent is to use it to grow MMJ? A third accessory structure is banned by zoning but allowed under the MMMA? Maybe a fourth accessory structure is OK too, considering I need one building to veg in and another to flower.

If your setbacks and other site requirements (such as percentage of vacant land vrs improvements on a given parcel) were met you could/should be able to build an addition and attach a new section onto one of your existing structures.

[Highlander]

If your setbacks and other site requirements (such as percentage of vacant land vrs improvements on a given parcel) were met you could/should be able to build an addition and attach a new section onto one of your existing structures.

 

All requirements (such as percentage of vacant land vrs improvements on a given parcel) are either met or grandfathered in with my existing structures.  If I want to add an addition to my pole barn, I have to seek a variance from the zoning board of appeals, which takes two meetings to get that done (two meetings = about a month).  The zoning board might then recommend approval to the planning commission, and then the planning commission has to vote on it.  If the planning commission agrees with it, the matter gets sent to the regular meeting of the township board and voted on by the township trustees and township supervisor. 

[mibrains]

Right and typically they open it up to public review so all your neighbors can voice their possible objections.

 

As a builder and a real estate sales person I have been apart of many variances..some pass others do not..

Sounds like the pole barn is legal non conforming and yes it would thereby need a variance to change the footprint.

[mibrains]

Oh...

also if it burns down you may not be able to rebuild it unless one wall survives....

 

Crazy rules out there....

[t-pain]

well you guys are the experts.

[Highlander]

I can pretty much guarantee that if I went to the zoning board seeking approval to build a grow shed or fenced grow with a six foot fence anywhere within the 100 foot setback from the front and side yards, I'd get shot down.  I can't blame them.

 

Who here thinks it would be a good idea to have a six-foot fence enclosure built without setbacks....built exactly at the edge of the right-of-way?  Such that you'd drive down the road and suddenly encounter a six-foot fenced box exactly at the edge of the road? 

 

Actually, we could take this a step further towards the ridiculous.  Folks who live in the city or in subdivisions generally own the property up to the edge of the sidewalk.  They don't own any portion of the street.

 

Those of us who live in rural areas own to the center of the road, but we acknowledge that prescribed easements prevent us from impairing the public's use of the "right of way" of our property, which has been established for 100+ years.  

 

I own 10 acres, split from an old farm property years ago.  My neighbor across the street also owns 10 acres, split from the same 160-acre farm in the 1830s.  Our land deeds tell us that our properties abut each other - about in the middle of the road.  But we are subject to zoning rules and age-old easements by prescription so we have to allow people to build roads and travel across them on property we own.  The township doesn't own the road.  My neighbor and I do.  But my neighbor and I are required to allow "right of way" to use the portion of our properties that have been dedicated to roads and utilities.

 

If we had the privilege of ignoring zoning laws and easements, my neighbor across the street and I could cooperate to build a greenhouse in the middle of the road, blocking all traffic.  But we just can't do that.

[Highlander]

Oh...

also if it burns down you may not be able to rebuild it unless one wall survives....

 

Crazy rules out there....

 

Yes because if one wall survives, you are rebuilding an old structure and not building a new structure.  A new structure subjects you to the new rules.  Rebuilding an old structure lands you under the old rules. 

 

I recall talking to the local building inspector for a commercial property I own in Mt. Morris Twp. in Genesee County. 

 

My road-side sign is non-conforming.  He told me that I could tear-down the building and keep the sign and build a new building.  But if I ever take the sign down, even for a moment, I lose the grandfathering and can't ever have a (as they call it) a "Pylon Sign" ever again.

[t-pain]

you guys need to re-read ter beek though. still cant be penalized for medical cultivation.

 

i know you are looking at it from zoning law, but mmma law is unto itself. and supercedes all zoning laws, all phc laws, ALL MICHIGAN LAWS.

[Highlander]

Understood. I own to the center of the road. My neighbor across the street also owns to the center of the road. The roadway is subject to zoning rules, which allow the public the right of way across our properties.

 

If the MMMA trumps zoning laws, can we build a MMJ greenhouse in the middle of the road?