Posted on 05/30/2008 7:37:56 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin
(Trouble is, Mukwonago officials say it's zoned for farming, not nuptials)
Sherry Towns says she spends about $50,000 annually to sustain a formal French garden with six fountains on her 111-acre rural estate in the rolling fields of rural southern Waukesha County.
Towns, who grew up amid Mukwonago-area farmsteads, can expect to pay even more this summer if Town of Mukwonago police ticket her on allegations that she's running an illegal wedding service in her lush, 10-acre garden, known as Millennium Gardens.
A distraught Towns said Thursday: "It is easy to destroy, but difficult to create. Are we going to punish those who give to others for the sake of a greater community? We personally spend three times whatever gardeners' fees we have ever received from brides for events here."
The Millennium Gardens contains eye-catching statues, bubbling springs, granite-lined avenues, streams, natural coves, fountains, gazebos and a colonnade on a hill, publicity material from its Web site says.
To accentuate their point, town supervisors said Wednesday that they want to increase citations from $200 plus court costs to possibly as high as $2,000 plus costs for each incident that skirts zoning regulations, town attorney John Macy said.
The Plan Commission is expected to make a recommendation on increasing penalties at its June 4 meeting, followed by a July 2 public hearing.
The town argues that Towns is running a wedding business on a property that's zoned for farming. Towns can hold weddings at the gardens if she first obtains a conditional use permit from the town that allows her to expand the use of her land beyond farming, Macy said.
The town has struck down three requests from Towns for a permit, he said.
Meanwhile, Towns has booked five weddings in the gardens for this summer, and she intends to honor those dates.
"Will we light a candle or curse the darkness?" Towns asked.
Town officials are not "heartless," which is why a court order to halt the weddings will not be sought, Macy said.
But supervisors told police to expect to open their ticket books and write up Towns whenever she holds a code-violating event at her estate, Macy said.
"Innocent third parties, such as wedding parties, will not be ticketed," Macy said.
Towns said her lawyer claims that weddings should be permitted in the garden because the events are short-term rentals.
Towns said she converted farmland, at S100-W31244 Highway LO, into an enviable green space with nearly 3,800 shrubs and five marble and granite statues. The estate also has a four-story, three-bedroom French-style manor.
She declined to reveal her cost to create the garden.
"Mukwonago is known for having the largest Wal-Mart in the state," Towns said. "But it also has beautiful natural resources and beautiful people. This garden, to me, is a beautiful thing."
Towns said she would like to open the gardens to the public someday, but now is simply trying to keep nervous brides happy.
Because of the restrictions, Towns said, she's had to turn down requests from charitable groups to use the garden to host fund-raising events.
"It breaks my heart that we've had to decline that," she said.
Looks like the GOVERNMENT sees a Cash Cow here, via tickets.
Jerks.
Weddings booked for this summer at the Millennium Gardens, near Mukwonago, will go on, vows garden owner Sherry Towns. But Towns may face municipal citations for each event because Town of Mukwonago officials say her wedding business violates zoning regulations.
Wow, as an avid gardener, this sucks.
It’s wonderful that she would choose to build something so beautiful that people would ask to come there and share a special day, only to have the local government reject a sane and logicial appeal for a permit.
There’s a law that I can’t be married on farmland????
What logic is in that? What if I grew up on a farmstead and love it and want to get married there? Why does the government need to be involved in where consenting adults choose to marry?
Wow, as an avid gardener, this sucks.
It’s wonderful that she would choose to build something so beautiful that people would ask to come there and share a special day, only to have the local government reject a sane and logicial appeal for a permit.
There’s a law that I can’t be married on farmland????
What logic is in that? What if I grew up on a farmstead and love it and want to get married there? Why does the government need to be involved in where consenting adults choose to marry?
Farming is ok? All righty ... temporarily open up a cattle feed lot or a turkey barn - let those aromas waft through the air a bit. Eventually, the city morons will figure out weddings are a far better alternative.
She should throw a couple gay weddings. See what they say then.
I wonder if she can change her business model and simply show this as renting out the property. Any employees of the gardens that she hires for wedding services can be changed to contract labor hired by the renters. This way, she can keep her hands clean by just claiming the renters are using the property they are renting for a private function as they see fit. Thus, no wedding service company and no need to rezone.
A good judge would look at the reason why the City denied the temporary use permits.
And we STILL have people in this country who honestly think our governments are NOT Fascist at ALL levels.
That's a revealing detail.
If she were to hold a fundraiser for a non-profit I doubt she would get a ticket - because it would not be a commercial service, but a charitable one.
The weddings - i.e. her commercial business - will proceed as planned, of course.
She's running a good PR campaign, I'll give her that.
She doesn't explain why she should be exempt from the zoning laws that her neighbors have to abide by.
I’d wager that a part of the issues is taxes.
Agricultural lands generally pay lower rates of taxation than commercial properties. I doubt she’s growing corn on the back 40, but she’s likely paying the lower tax rate.
From the article, she has asked for conditional use permits, essentially to allow other uses without changing the zoning (and thus the taxes). What I don’t see is her petitioning to have her land zoned commercial.
Just my take - I could be wrong.
One sure fire way to solve the owner’s problems is to start holding Homo-Weddings, that should appease the Liberal Govment Nannies.
(Oh, little Johnny sells baseball cards out of his room? $2000 fine! Your house isn't zoned for retail!)
Stop requesting any money for the event and just say you are holding a personal “party” on your own land. If the bride and groom want to give her some money to help “defray” the costs of upkeep then that is their personal business.
Stupid Governments...
Sounds like one of those Towns and Gowns ruckuses I’ve heard about.
Excellent analysis. I’ll wager you are correct.
This may be the case where her residence and gardens far predate the zoning laws that came into effect as communities grew around her estate and land was annexed. Zoning laws are a pain in some places. As she apparently is well to do, it may be in her interest to sponsor some like minded people to run for local government offices that oversee these things.
Weddings may be, and have been, held anywhere.
What the Town of Mukwonago officials see this as, is a business being operated in a place that is not zoned for business. But “business” is one of those hard things to define. If a farm produce stand is set up by the side of the road, is that part of “agriculture” or is it a “merchant doing business”?
This whole deal about “zoning” is a dodge to make sure that everyubody, some time or another, will run afoul of the laws, more designed to trap the unwary than to maintain orderly development. If this is an “agricultural” zoned location, try keeping a bunch of pigs in a pen out in sight of the road. The zoning people and your neighbors will be all over you like flies on pigsh*t - er, honey.
I happen to know a little bit about Town of Mukwonago, as my sister-in-law had a house built there about twenty years ago, and she called upon me to assist in developing a little “sweat equity” while it was being built. She wanted the “country” feel to the place (deer grazing in her back yard, overlooking a stand of trees), which meant the land was still considered “agricultural” as long as the lot was of a certain minimum size. Would she have allowed a wedding party on the grounds? Darned right.
The disagreement with the Town of Mukwonago officials seems to be that an illegal BUSINESS is being run at the location in question. Again, we are coming down to a pretty loose interpretation of “business”.
What if she had the house declared a “church”?
I’d like to know more about the immediate surroundings of the garden. If it’s close to residences, rather than surrounded by large tracts of farmland that would routinely be using noisy heavy equipment, this may not be an entirely irrational decision. There’s a similar dispute going on right now in my suburban town re an old estate with large beautiful gardens that has long been legally used for weddings. Trouble is, it’s a full-scale commercial operation in the middle of what would otherwise be a quiet neighborhood of upscale single family homes. There are weddings and wedding receptions being held there virtually every weekend, often both Saturday and Sunday, each drawing a huge amount of vehicle traffic. The neighbors have had enough, and the township is currently considering rescinding the zoning exception under which it has been operating for many years.
Enemy Central has taught zem vell.
With a 111 acre lot, I have to wonder if she didn’t buy this land in an unincorporated portion of the county and then have it annexed by the city. This happened to a family at the Church I grew up in. They had a farm outside of town and he had built a small store with a small selection of fishing and hunting gear.
When the town annexed his land, they zoned it farm, then threatened to fine him if he didn’t close his store. (One of the city council member’s son owned a sporting good store in town.)
We as a people, need to start doing what the hell we want to do on our property and resisting by force of arms any attempt to make us do otherwise.
They will damned sure come in by force to keep you from doing it. It’s high time that the Government OF the people, starts being ruled over BY the people.
There’s no evidence that the local government is prohibiting occasional weddings on the property, of friends and relatives of the property owner. What they’re prohibiting is a busy commercial operation in an area that isn’t zoned for that. It’s the fact that she’s doing this on a commercial basis, marketing the property as a wedding site to anyone who will pay her fees.
I hope she does not give up fighting these local nazis.
I was thinking the same thing but there is also another potential that can come into play in some areas. There are places where government does not permit changing from agriculture to another usage. The concept is that these governments do not want to see 'gentrification' that starts with conversion of farmland into acre homesteads etc.
If that were to be the case, she might be forced to move her business. I agree that you do need to check zoning's first, but these things can happen after you buy and/or plan. Again it can also be antagonism between personalities. A zoning board can be just like a homeowner's association, filled with petty bureaucrats exercising power. Then again she just might have been running clueless and roughshod.
There are numerous farms around our area (southeast of Pittsburgh) doubling as businesses which sell mulch, nursery plants and even services such as gunsmithing, hayrides and landscaping. Most of the farms are too small to earn a living exclusively by farming. This is not tax evasion, it is adapting and surviving.
Even the tax-hungry local czars realize the alternative would be for these small farmers to sell out and turn this place into a slummy extension of Pittsburgh which people moved here to escape from and which fuels what little growth (including growth in tax revenues) which we have.
Amen to that! I bought some acreage out in the middle of nowhere and lease its use to a neighbor to grow hay. Someday I hope to build a house there. It's my land and I'll do whatever I want with it. Anyone that tries to force me otherwise will be violently opposed. I will live free or die.
Close the little popup, switch to the aerial image and move the image up to see the garden at the end of the road. Zoom in and out. Looks like Mrs Towns owns much more than just the garden portion. Seems there is a driveway that is at lease 1500 feet.
See post 32 for the Mapquest Aerial view.
“Why does the government need to be involved in where consenting adults choose to marry?”
Why, indeed? Could the possibility of five fines of $2,000 each have entered the little, little minds of the kleptocrats?
Could visions of spendable cash be brightening their beady little eyes?
I love that feature. I just looked at my farm...from the air, it looks like I own “Southfork,” though I really only own a few acres. ;)
Fascism is a form of socialism in which citizens are allowed to own private property and engage in commercial enterprise but the circumstances, type and scope of such enterprise is STRICTLY controlled by the government (state).
Please expllain to this poor unintelligent individual how this is NOT an example of local-level fascism. I urge you to use small words since I am so stupid.
I eagerly await your oh so intelligent and enlightened response.
PS - GFY
I wonder where the flowers is? ;oD
Fascism is far more than that.
Fascist states are characterized by an absence of representative government, one-party rule and a party led and controlled by a single individual. All law is therefore dependent on the leader's personal whim, and the liberty of any individual can be completely taken away at any moment, for any or no reason, without any legal recourse.
Please expllain to this poor unintelligent individual how this is NOT an example of local-level fascism.
Even though the local government - which is a representative government elected by local voters - was well within its legal rights to ruin the weddings she was running out of her unlicensed business, they refrained from doing so.
This was a personal favor to her, since if the weddings had been ruined a lawsuit against the municipality would have gone nowhere - the wedding business was clearly operating in violation of local laws.
A fascist government would not be representative. It would not be elected. It would not show any leniency to her or her customers. It would not permit her a day in court or even permission maintain residency on her property.
Her local government acted in a restrained manner, even though she apparently defrauded customers.
Something sounds fishy about it. If there were legitimate reasons to disallow this kind of activity on the property, then I'd think they'd be getting a court order to stop it. Instead, they're denying the permit, but letting the event go on and planning on citing the owner for the infraction.
I'd be willing to bet there's going to be a lot more money to be had over the ticket and court costs than there would have been from whatever fees were involved with the permits.
mega dittoes
On arrival, hand every guest a few kernels of corn to be sown by hand (rather like throwing rice at a wedding) in a "planting ceremony" as the bride and groom leave the ceremony.
Now it's a farm activity and everyone should be happy!
Personally, I’d be really interested in hearing whether her neighbors have any objections to these events.
LOL!
...allegations that she's running an illegal wedding service in her lush, 10-acre garden, known as Millennium Gardens...were confirmed today when it turned out she's always the bride.
Town of Mukwonago Zoning code. The relevant sections are 82-130 and 82-110, covering A-1 agriculture and Rural Homes respectively. Seems that she can run a buisness from her home. The limitations seem to be what percentage of the home is used as office. Nothing there about use of the garden. But then since she is outside the city limits I think that the County regs will be the authority. I'll look them up after lunch.
Be sure to look at the mapquest link in #32 she's got a football field between her home and any of the neighbors.
In its base form, fascism is exactly what I described. All the “unelected, unrepresented” stuff is things that you have added based on how the actual fascist governments which have previously formed on this earth have operated. It is entirely possible to elect a fascist government. Adolph Hitler was ELECTED Chancellor of Germany.
If it looks like a fascist, walks like a fascist and acts like a fascist, it is most likely a fasict.
But, you go ahead and “Keep on sheepin’ on”. I’m sure everything will turn out fine.
PS - In relation to citizens/individuals, governments do not have rights, they have POWERS.
No, he was not.
If you would like me to explain the parliamentary system to you, I can.
If it looks like a fascist, walks like a fascist and acts like a fascist, it is most likely a fasict.
The problem is, you don't understand how a fascist looks, walks or acts.
I have known people who actually lived (and very nearly died) under actual fascist regimes.
Fascists don't say: "You violated this law a bunch of times now, so I am going to write you a ticket. Don't worry, I'm not going to give your customers a hard time. It's not their fault you misrepresented yourself. See you in court."
Fascists show up your home in the early morning hours, seize them, confiscate their property and throw them in a cell or a mass grave.
And if your customers complain, they get the same treatment.
PS - In relation to citizens/individuals, governments do not have rights, they have POWERS.
That's the most lucid thing you've said all day.
I stand corrected: the local authorities were well within the scope of their authority to enforce the laws made by their local legislature.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.