Manzke v. Jefferson Cnty. & Town of Ixonia, 18-cv-505-bbc
| Decision Date | 21 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | 18-cv-505-bbc |
| Parties | SARA MANZKE, Plaintiff, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY and TOWN OF IXONIA, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
In this civil action brought under the Fair Housing Amendment Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3604, and Wisconsin's Open Housing Law, Wis. Stat. § 106.50, plaintiff Sara Manzke contends that defendants Jefferson County and Town of Ixonia discriminated against her because of her disability when they denied her applications for a zoning variance and conditional use permit to accommodate her emotional support animals. Before the court is plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction preventing defendants from enforcing their zoning ordinances against plaintiff in a discriminatory manner. Dkt. #4.
After reviewing the parties' briefs and evidence, I conclude that plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction must be denied because plaintiff has not shown that she is likely to succeed on the merits of her claim or that she will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction. In addition, because defendants appear to be correct that plaintiff's accommodation claim is not yet ripe and plaintiff has not yet had an opportunity to respond to that argument, I am giving plaintiff an opportunity to file a response and show cause why her claim should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Turning to the proposed findings of fact submitted by plaintiff in support of her motion, I note that defendants are correct that plaintiff seems to rely on her unsworn complaint to support many of her proposed findings of fact, in violation of this court's procedures to be followed on motions for injunctive relief. Although she has submitted a short affidavit and several documents, not all of her proposed findings of fact are supported by admissible evidence. Therefore, I have not considered any proposed finding of fact that plaintiff has failed to support with admissible evidence and to which defendants have not stipulated. In any event, as discussed below, none of the facts that defendants have objected to on this ground affect the ruling on plaintiff's motion.
On or about May 12, 2017, plaintiff Sarah Manzke and her fiancé, Joshua Pernat, purchased residential property located at N8263 County Road E in the Town of Ixonia in Jefferson County, Wisconsin. Defendants Town of Ixonia and Jefferson County are both governmental corporations organized under Wisconsin law. Plaintiff's property is approximately one acre in size and zoned "community" under the Jefferson County zoning ordinances, which Ixonia has adopted in accordance with Wis. Stats. Ch. 59 and 60.
According to her healthcare providers, plaintiff suffers from severe intestinal cystitis, recurrent depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder, chronic debilitating pain,fatigue and muscle weakness, for which she has sought the support of emotional support animals. Four miniature goats and up to six geese reside on her property. Plaintiff's neighbor, Martine Koeppel, complained about the animals. (Plaintiff says she purchased the goats on or about July 21, 2017, and that Koeppel began to object to the animals and file complaints about them in August 2017, but plaintiff has not submitted admissible evidence to support these facts.)
On August 24, 2017, plaintiff provided the Town of Ixonia a letter from her behavioral therapist, Sandy Bruggink, who recommended that plaintiff be allowed "to own and care for Emotional Support Animals" and stated that the animals provide "many emotional benefits" to plaintiff, including reducing her anxiety and depression, releasing her chronic pain and helping her "maintain a positive, well supported, way of life." Dkt. #7, exh. #10 at 2.
On August 29, 2017, the town clerk, Nancy Zastrow, received a complaint from an unidentified individual that plaintiff was housing farm animals on her property, in violation of the zoning ordinances. Zastrow notified Matt Zangl of the Jefferson County Zoning and Sanitation Department, who issued plaintiff and Pernat a "Notice of Ordinance Violation" on August 31, 2017. Dkt. #7, exh. #1. The notice advised plaintiff that her property was zoned "community," which allows only household pets, and that her ownership of farm animals violated §§ 11.03(b) and 11.04(f)(9) of the Jefferson County zoning ordinance. Plaintiff was told that she had 30 days to remove the animals or face a possible citation of $200.50 for each day a violation continued.
On November 13, 2017, Zangle issued plaintiff and Pernat another Notice of Ordinance Violation, acknowledging that Jefferson County had received the letter from Bruggink but noting that the county's corporation counsel had found that Bruggink's recommendation did not prevent enforcement of the zoning ordinance. Dkt. #7, exh. #2. The notice ordered plaintiff to correct the violation by removing her farm animals no later than December 13, 2017. Id.
On December 13, 2017, Zangl issued plaintiff and Pernat another notice of ordinance violation regarding the farm animals. Zangl referred to a December 8, 2017 discussion (presumably relating to plaintiff's disability and her need for emotional support animals), but he noted that the county's position on the violation had not changed and that plaintiff must either (1) remove the farm animals from the property, or (2) apply for and obtain a conditional use permit to allow farm animals on a R-2 zoned property and a variance to allow farm animals on property that is not at least two acres in size. Dkt. #7, exh. #3. He informed plaintiff that only one animal per acre is allowed and allowing more than one animal per acre would require approval from the county's Planning and Zoning Committee and Board of Adjustment and input from the Town of Ixonia. Id.
On or about February 6, 2018, plaintiff paid a $500 fee and filed applications for a variance and a conditional use permit. On February 28, 2018, the Ixonia Planning Commission reviewed plaintiff's applications and voted to recommend that the Town Board deny plaintiff's variance application. It declined to make any recommendation with respect to her application for a conditional use permit. The Town Board heard plaintiff's requestsfor a variance and a conditional use permit at its March 12, 2018 meeting and voted to recommend that Jefferson County deny the variance and, based on that denial, took no action on the conditional use permit.
In an email to plaintiff dated March 27, 2018, Zangl asked plaintiff how she wanted to proceed in light of the fact that Ixonia had denied her requests. He told plaintiff that she could withdraw her applications and receive a fee refund or she could proceed with the process and seek approval from the county. Zangl warned plaintiff that although the county does not have to follow the town's recommendation, the town's decision is usually a sign of what may happen at the county level. Plaintiff responded the same day, stating that she wanted to withdraw from the process and get a refund.
In an unaddressed letter dated March 30, 2018, plaintiff's treating physician, Dr. Jennifer Scheeler, states that plaintiff's intestinal cystitis can be severely debilitating and that her four goats prevents flare ups of the disease. Dkt. #7, exh. #9 at 1. Dr. Scheeler entered an order on the same day stating that plaintiff required four goats as medical support animals for her "lifetime." Id. at 2. In an undated and unaddressed letter, Bruggink states that plaintiff should be allowed to keep four miniature goats and two of her six geese because the animals give plaintiff motivation to get out of bed and care for them on days on which she would otherwise feel inadequate. Dkt. #7, exh. #10 at 1. Bruggink also states that the geese provide plaintiff a sense of security and loyalty because they follow her when they are with her. According to Bruggink, losing the animals would be very harmful to plaintiff's well being and would set her treatment backwards.
On or about April 4, 2018, plaintiff wrote to Zangl, again asserting her rights under the Fair Housing Act and requesting reasonable accommodation. On April 12, 2018, Zangl issued plaintiff and Pernat another notice of ordinance violation, noting that plaintiff had withdrawn her applications for a variance and conditional use permit but had not removed the animals from her property. The notice warned plaintiff that if she did not contact Zangl by April 27 to develop a plan to resolve the violation, the matter would be referred to the Jefferson County Corporation Counsel. On April 25, 2018, plaintiff's attorney sent Zangl a letter setting out plaintiff's position regarding her disability and her rights under the Fair Housing Act.
In a letter dated May 30, 2018, J. Blair Ward, the Jefferson County Corporate Counsel, informed plaintiff and Pernant that they were in violation of ordinance and faced possible legal action and penalties under Jefferson County ordinance § 11.03(j), which provides:
Any person, firm, or corporation who fails to comply with the provisions of this Ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof, forfeit not less than $25.00 nor more than $5,000.00 and costs of prosecution for each violation and in default of payment of such forfeiture and costs shall be imprisoned in the County Jail until payment thereof, but not exceeding thirty (30) days. Each day a violation exists or continues shall constitute a separate offense. In addition to such forfeiture or imprisonment, action may be brought to enjoin, remove, or vacate any use, erection, moving or alteration of any building or use in violation of this Ordinance.
Ward told plaintiff that to avoid legal action, she must contact Zangl before June 29, 2018 to make arrangements to correct the violation.
Plaintiff filed her lawsuit in this court on June 29, 2018. On July 3, 2018, defendantJefferson County filed a small claims summons and complaint against plaintiff and Pernat in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial