Variance request to keep chickens & a chicken coop on property in a One-Family Residential Zone; Ordinance interpretation; “Hatchery”; “Hatch” or “hatching”; “Chicken hatchery”; Effect of the absence of a use in an ordinance specifically setting forth permissible uses under a zoning classification; Distinguishing Pittsfield Twp v Malcolm; Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)

The court held that “the plain and unambiguous language of Bloomfield Township Zoning Ordinance § 42-3.1.3” lacked any language prohibiting plaintiffs “from keeping chickens at their one-family detached dwelling,” and thus, they were not required to seek a variance. As a result, it reversed “the ZBA and circuit court’s orders that plaintiffs were required to have a variance to keep chickens at their” home and remanded. The language of the zoning ordinance was “less restrictive than that in Pittsfield Twp, which expressly stated that only the specified uses of land were allowed. But plaintiffs are lawfully using their land as a one-family detached dwelling in conformity with” § 42-3.1.3. Defendants suggested “that, because the ordinance does not expressly state residents may keep chickens at a one-family detached dwelling, such use is necessarily excluded. Under defendants’ logic, however, every activity at a one-family detached dwelling must then be excluded because the ordinance does not list any activities that may be conducted at a one-family detached dwelling. Because ‘[c]ourts attempt not to interpret statutes, and by implication ordinances, in a manner that leads to absurd results,’” the court held that “such interpretation of the ordinance cannot be upheld.” Defendants also claimed “that the ZBA’s interpretation that keeping chickens is a ‘farm activity,’ which must be conducted on at least 40 acres of land absent a variance, should be given deference. But custom is only given deference if the ordinance is ambiguous and the municipality’s interpretation is reasonable.” Defendants claimed there was “an ‘implied ambiguity’ based on plaintiffs’ attempt to construe the zoning ordinance’s definition of a farm to exclude the keeping of chickens as a customarily classified farm activity.” But plaintiffs were “not attempting to exclude the keeping of chickens as a farm activity, rather, [they] recognize that the ordinance is silent on whether chickens must be exclusively kept on a farm instead of a one-family detached dwelling.” The court found “no support for defendants’ claim that the zoning ordinance is ambiguous, and the ZBA’s interpretation need not be given deference. Because the unambiguous, plain language of the zoning ordinance contains no express provision prohibiting plaintiffs from keeping chickens at their one-family detached dwelling or limiting the keeping of chickens to a farm, plaintiffs are not required to obtain a variance, and the circuit court erred in affirming the ZBA’s decision.”