Michigan town gives neighbors veto power over chickens, property rights, and due process

In Douglas, Michigan, a picturesque city on Lake Michigan’s shores, the whim of just one neighbor can strip you of your rights—no questions asked, no appeal allowed.  

Kathy Sarkisian discovered this the hard way when, after carefully following all rules to raise backyard chickens and being issued a chicken permit by the City, a part-time neighbor didn’t like her hens. And the City’s laws give the neighbor, not government officials, the last word. 

Unlike many residents, Kathy and her husband live in Douglas year-round. She runs a small business caring for seasonal homes throughout the year and has deep family roots in the community. Kathy and her husband now live in the home that her grandparents built decades ago.  

For Kathy, Douglas isn’t just an address—it’s where her heart is. 

Kathy developed a keen interest in healthy, sustainable living through home-grown foods and she decided to raise her own chickens to save money and put fresher meals on her table. Armed with a year’s worth of research on raising chickens and local rules, Kathy drew up plans that would fully comply with the City’s requirements and applied for a chicken permit in May 2023. In June 2023, the City granted her permit to house six hens (no roosters)—the maximum allowed—on her half-acre parcel.  

Permit in hand, Kathy spent thousands of dollars and retrofitted her garage as an indoor coop, built an outdoor chicken run, and replaced fencing around her property to comply with the City’s requirement. 

But a week later, everything changed. The City’s zoning officer called to tell her that after it issued Kathy her permit, one of her neighbors objected. The City said Kathy would have to get rid of her chickens.  

The City gives neighbors complete power to veto chicken permits for any reason—or no reason at all. Under a City ordinance, adjacent landowners must be notified about chicken permit applications within 21 days of submission. If any neighbor objects, the permit “shall not be granted, with no right of appeal.” 

No discussion. No hearing. No appeal. 

Kathy pointed out that this neighbor’s objection was untimely—the complaint came in only after the City issued her permit, and not before. But the City didn’t care. It told her it realized it had issued her chicken permit without first notifying her two adjacent neighbors. When it belatedly sent notifications, one neighbor objected. These seasonal residents, who live next to Kathy for only about three months each year, demanded the permit’s denial. In response, the City told Kathy the chickens had to go. 

Kathy had done nothing wrong and had followed all the rules.  

Yet in November 2024, the City took her to state court for keeping chickens without a permit—a civil infraction punishable by fines of up to $300 per day. Kathy could be liable for anywhere between $79,000 and $200,000, plus costs, simply for raising chickens in her backyard against the wishes of her neighbor. If Kathy were found in violation of the City’s rules, she cannot pay these exorbitant fines, so is at grave risk of the City putting a lien on her house or even foreclosing on the property. 

So Kathy faces an impossibly unfair choice: abandon the chickens she cares very deeply for, or face ruinous fines. 

The City’s failure to follow its own law is bad enough. But property rights shouldn’t be subject to a neighbor’s veto. When the government grants one person control over what another person does with their property—with no standards, no hearing, and no chance to appeal—it tramples basic American principles. In Kathy’s case, the Douglas ordinance hands the government’s decision-making to private individuals who can act without explanation. 

Under this nonsensical approach to local land use, everything’s fair game—vegetable gardens, backyard grilling, or even letting your kids play in the yard. Property rights would mean nothing if neighbors could simply say “no” with no explanation needed. 

Moreover, the Douglas ordinance gives property owners no chance to object if a neighbor says “no.” When a neighbor’s whim can determine what you do with your land, you deserve to be heard by a neutral decision-maker and must have a pathway for appeal. A property owner shouldn’t have to hire a team of attorneys just to build a chicken coop in their own backyard.  

Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, Kathy is now fighting back in federal court. She is challenging the City ordinance that illegally gives neighbors absolute power over chicken permits and use of property that’s not theirs, and does so without due process.