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 securing a permit from the City, a part-time neighbor didn’t like her hens. The City’s laws gave the neighbor, not government officials, the last word.
For Kathy, Douglas isn’t just an address—it’s where her heart is. Unlike many residents, she 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.
She developed a keen interest in healthy, sustainable living through home-grown foods and 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 local rules and raising chickens, 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—the maximum allowed—on her half-acre parcel.
Permit in hand, Kathy spent thousands of dollars to retrofit her garage as an indoor coop, build an outdoor chicken run, and replace 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 gave neighbors complete power to veto chicken permits for any reason—or no reason at all. Under a City ordinance, adjacent landowners had to be notified about chicken permit applications within 21 days of submission. If any neighbor objected, the City stated that 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, 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 have been 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 had been found in violation of the City’s rules, she would not have been able to pay the exorbitant fines, so she would have been at grave risk of the City putting a lien on her house or even foreclosing on the property.
Kathy faced an impossibly unfair choice: abandon the chickens she cares 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 handed the government’s decision-making power to private individuals and gave property owners no chance to object if a neighbor said “no.”
Under this nonsensical approach to local land use, everything’s fair game for your neighbor to veto—vegetable gardens, backyard grilling, or even letting your kids play in the yard. Property rights mean nothing if a neighbor’s whim can determine what you do with your land. A property owner shouldn’t have to hire a team of attorneys just to build a chicken coop in their own backyard—they should be heard by a neutral decision-maker and must have a pathway for appeal.
Represented at no charge by Pacific Legal Foundation, Kathy fought back in federal court. She challenged the City ordinance that illegally gave neighbors absolute power over chicken permits and use of property that’s not theirs, without due process.
On March 16, 2026, Kathy celebrated a legal victory when the City Council approved a settlement agreement. As part of that settlement, the City will re-issue Kathy’s permit, allowing her to keep her chickens, and dismiss the fines. The City also agreed to revise its ordinance on chicken-keeping permits, removing the language that gave Kathy’s neighbors control over her property, and added a provision allowing residents to appeal a denied permit to the City Council.
What’s At Stake?
- Property owners have the right to decide how to use their property to fulfill their American dream. The government can’t give your neighbors an unreviewable veto over reasonable and legal uses of what you can and cannot do on your own property. Nor can the government take away your property rights without informing you and giving you a chance to object.
