Groveland Twp-The zoo has moved.
After months of battles between township officials and Premier Animal Attractions’once home to as many 60 exotic animals, including a tamandua anteater, red kangaroo, African serval and tigers owned by Andrew and Rachelle Gehringer’the menagerie is heading north to a location zoned for a zoo.
On Dec. 1, township officials reported the animals were removed from a residential area following a consent order filed in June in Eastern District before Judge Paul Borman which outlined 26 requirements for Premier Animal Attractions to continue business in the township.
The 22-acre Premier Animal Attractions (PAA) business located in the township since 2006 was a federally licensed and inspected facility that had provided educational exhibits and programs off premise at various schools, events, camps, and senior facilities. Township officials were unaware of the business until April 15 when a township resident reported seeing a white tiger on the property and notified Bob DePalma, township supervisor, along with the media. The animal sighting was confirmed by the township code enforcer; however, he was denied further access to the facility. DePalma contacted the United States Department of Agriculture following the tiger sighting. The USDA is required to issue permits for exotic animals under the direction of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. The USDA responded that PAA was an approved operation in Springfield Township before coming to Groveland.
As a result of the encounter, DePalma met with Gehringer on April 29 requesting a tour of the facility with Township Fire Chief Steve McGee, DePalma, and Township Attorney Will Hosler. In the meeting, Gehringer told DePalma that he contacted the township in 2005 and inquired of ‘some lady in the office? to see if there was an exotic animal ordinance. Gehringer also said that later he came in and reviewed the township ordinances and copied some fence information. The tour, needed to assure the safety of the community said DePalma, was conducted a few weeks later. About 35 animals were on site, including a tiger.
In a letter on June 25 to PAA, township officials emphasized that the business has always been in violation of the Rural Estate Farms zoning. The letter also explained PAA is a commercial business operating in a residential neighborhood and they violate Michigan’s Large Carnivore Act that no patron shall come into direct contact with any large carnivore, regardless of age. In addition, the township says that PAA has deliberately avoided compliance with the Dangerous, Wild or Exotic Animals ordinance in effect in the township since 2009.
Elizabeth Downey, attorney for PAA, responded to the township’s actions in a statement to The Citizen, explaining for years, Premier Animal Attractions (a USDA-licensed business) legally housed their exotic animals in proper, climate-controlled conditions on the owners? Groveland Township property. The township passed an ordinance outlawing their business after the fact, and this led to a lawsuit to determine whether it’s legal to outlaw someone’s existing business from an entire township.
The litigation had continued until the announcement on Dec. 2 that PAA had moved.
‘We were pleased to learn that the animals were gone and a physical inspection of the property will be made by township inspectors of Dec. 4,? said DePalma. ‘We are glad this is resolved and residents can rest easy that no tigers are in the township.?
DePalma added the township was being sued by the Gehringers because they claimed township officials were picking on them and the Right to Farm Act was being violated.
‘They (PAA) were in violation of the REF zoning,? he said. ‘The problem would have been eliminated if they would have been clear with the zoning when Premier Animal Attractions first came into the township in 2006. I guarantee you if someone called the township office and said, ‘I want to bring in a Bengal tiger,? the whole issue would have been eliminated before it started.?
Following the announcement last week, the Gehringers agreed to respond to questions through their attorney.
‘During the litigation, the Gehringers had the opportunity to buy a zoo up north,? wrote Downey on behalf of her clients. ‘They found a township and county that was eager to help taxpaying businesses flourish, and which partnered with them in promoting the zoo as a tourist destination. This was a change from being in their home township, where their elected officials misrepresented them to the public as criminals or incompetents, rather than as the certified professionals they are.?
Given this opportunity to expand and grow their business in a welcoming atmosphere, the Gehringers decided to move their entire animal collection to the new location, she explained.
‘This business decision gave the township officials what they said they wanted from the litigation: moving the animals out of the township,? she wrote. ‘The Gehringers regretted that the decision would also moot their request for a ruling as to whether the Constitution protected their right to stay. One would have thought that that would end the suit and the spending of attorney fees.?
‘But when the Gehringers tried to stop the litigation in place while preparing new homes for the animals and moving them as each new home was completed, the township objected. Instead, the township spent additional money trying to keep the litigation going for no reason. Even though the township had ‘inspected? the premises in May with the supervisor and fire marshal, the township refused to stop litigating unless they had the right to conduct further ‘inspections? on 30 minutes? notice (while the Gehringers were moving animals to a location almost three hours? drive away). This demand would not only have been impractical, but would have delayed the very animal relocation the township officials said they wanted. The court was to hold a hearing on Dec. 1 to decide whether to stop the litigation in place; but by then, the Gehringers had completed the moving of the animals.?
‘Now, the Gehringers have invited township representatives to see for themselves that the animals are gone,? she wrote. ‘The property is to be sold as soon as it is readied for new owners. If the township stops making demands that treat the Gehringers differently from every other landowner, the matter could be finished very soon; but so far, the township officials seem to want to continue to spend money to fight for no reason.?
‘While the Gehringers would have liked to vindicate landowners? rights, their new location is better for their family, for their increased number of beautiful, healthy animals, and for public education about animals. Their animals have transitioned well to their new homes, where they are continuing to enjoy top quality care. The Gehringers would like to thank their neighbors and friends for their support during the past years, and for their continued support as they expand and grow their business in its new location.?