And photographs, if you have any.
Horseytalk.net Special Interview
Christine Philpott
City wants to ban woman from keeping her horse it says is "a noisome, filthy or offensive animal."
Like a dog following its owner, the brown-and-white horse on the other side of the chain link fence trailed after Christine Philpott.
"They should've grandfathered me in," Philpott said. "They wouldn't have had all this. It was totally unfair to tell me I can have her for three years, nothing happens, everything's good, then pass this law. It ain't right."
Philpott has filed a lawsuit in Marion County Common Pleas Court to be allowed to keep her horse. She contends the ordinance City Council adopted Dec. 13, 2010, restricting the keeping of animals and fowl within the city limits is unconstitutional. The suit also contends Philpott's keeping of the horse, Willow, was a "conforming use of her property" and remained so after the city adopted the amended ordinance.
The city has charged Philpott with allowing an animal to run at large and keeping a noisome, filthy or offensive animal in the city. She is scheduled to have a pretrial hearing in Marion Municipal Court.
Referring questions regarding the lawsuit to City Law Director Mark Russell, Safety Director Tom Robbin said he did not give Philpott an exemption from the ordinance because City Council "made it very clear no one is going to be grandfathered in on this. I remember that distinctly."
Upon her application, Robbins, who council gave the authority in the ordinance, 618.12, to grant Philpott an exemption, gave her a "one-year, non-renewable, one-time permit" for the horse. After she applied for another permit, he gave her an extension of the permit.
Responding to two phone calls with an email, City Law Director Mark Russell noted Philpott "is a defendant in criminal prosecution proceedings in the Marion Municipal Court. Given the pending litigation, it would be inappropriate to comment as to the substance of the proceedings until they each reach a conclusion.
"However, not commenting on the facts in regard to the pending cases, it is not a surprising action for a defendant in an enforcement issue to claim that the law is flawed or unconstitutional," his email states. "This is the defendant's only real hope as the facts generally are not in dispute. Given the lengthy discussion conducted by the Council in their deliberations prior to adopting the City Code prohibition, I believe a reviewing Court will find in favor of the municipality."
Philpott, 211 Waterloo St., keeps Willow, a 13-year-old Tennessee walking horse, in a fenced area at the side and rear of her house, which is located in a residential area a couple blocks off of West Center Street. She has owned and boarded Willow in the city since Feb. 16, 2007.
She acquired her as the "rescue horse" was headed for Sugar Creek Auction Facility, the lawsuit states. The horse had an open gash on her left hind leg at the time, the suit states, adding
"Willow is in excellent health today because of the love and care of the plaintiff" and citing Nov. 16, 2010, correspondence from a veterinarian saying the horse was in "apparent excellent health."
Philpott before acquiring the horse contacted the city health and zoning departments and was advised there were no existing laws, ordinances or regulations prohibiting her from having a horse within the city limits, the suit states. She was advised she would be required to board the horse in a barn and take steps to ensure the safety of the community and clean, healthy conditions for the horse. She spent nearly $20,000 to erect two barns and purchase fencing, additional land, manure bags and field containers with lids and other items, the suit states.
Nearly four years had passed without incident, complaint or governmental action. The suit contends neighbors have accepted Willow as a neighborhood pet since she arrived, and no incidents, complaints or governmental actions had occurred.
Philpott on April 18, 2011, requested a zoning variance to allow her to erect a 6-foot fence to prevent Willow from putting her head over the fence and to ensure the safety of others, the suit states. The board of zoning appeals approved the variance.
The suit states the permit extension to May 30, 2012, was granted to give Philpott's attorneys time to meet with city officials to discuss possible compromises. No meetings occurred as Russell stated a meeting would be futile, the suit states.
On May 21 the city charged Philpott with violating its animals-running-at-large ordinance, which the suit states "is wholly unfounded and retaliatory." The complaint alleges the city knows Willow has never been at large "and the charge rests on the untenable notion that (Philpott) has violated the Ordinance by allowing Willow to graze on an adjoining, fenced in, parcel of land that (Philpott) owns."
The suit claims Russell's offer of a plea agreement "that would essentially impose a mere $50 fine" if Philpott removed the horse from the city supports its contention the at-large charge is retaliatory.
When Philpott refused the plea agreement and entered a not-guilty plea to the at-large charge, the city filed an additional charge against her for violating the animal restriction ordinance, the suit states.
If found guilty of violating the city's ordinance banning the keeping of a noisome, filthy or offensive animal, she faces a maximum penalty of 30 days in jail, a $250 fine and forcible removal of Willow from the city.