Agenda Packet 1-8-13.pdfCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AGENDA
6:00 P.M., JANUARY 8, 2013
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Roll Call
1. Approval of the Minutes of the Special Called Meeting held on November 19, 2012.
2. Administration of Oath to Defendants/Witnesses.
3. Old Business
None
4. New Business
A. 735 Bonita Road, Kimberly Peters, Case #67512: violation of Atlantic Beach
City Code, Sec. 24 -173 Neighborhood Preservation.
B. 742 -748 Cavalla Road, John S. Wilburth, Case #76712: violation of
International Property Maintenance Code, Sec. 302.8 Motor Vehicles;. violation
of Atlantic Beach City Code, Sec. 24 -173 Neighborhood Preservation.
C. 141 Jasmine Street, W. Glenn Jackson, Case #81212: violation of International
Property Maintenance Code, Sec. 302.8 Motor Vehicles.
D. 831 Bonita Road, Winston Cunningham, Case #78412: violation of Atlantic
Beach City Code, Sec. 24 -173 Neighborhood Preservation.
E, 1990 Park Street, Willie F. Miley, ET AL, Case #79512: violation of
International Property Maintenance Code, Sec. 302.8 Motor Vehicles.
F. 44 Jackson Road, Darryl Lamar and Lacreshia D. Harris, Case #61212: violation
of International Property Maintenance Code, Sec. 301.3 Vacant structures and
land; Sec. 304.1 Roofs and Drainage; Sec. 304.2 Protective Treatment; Sec.
604.3 Electrical System Hazards.
G. 1500 Main Street, Cemetary Professionals, LLC, Case #67612: violation of
Atlantic Beach City Code, Sec. 6 -16 Florida Building Code Adopted; FBC Sec.
105.1 Permit Required.
H. 43 Stanley Road, Yousef Sultani.
1.) Case #66012: violation of Atlantic Beach City Code, Sec. 24 -173
Neighborhood Preservation.
2.) Case #66112: violation of Atlantic Beach City Code, Sec. 6 -16 Florida
Building Code Adopted; FBC Sec. 105.1 Permits Required; violation of Atlantic
Beach City Code, Sec. 24 -151 (2) C Accessory Structures and Uses; violation of
Atlantic Beach City Code, Sec. 24 -157 Fences, Walls, and Similar Structures;
Sec. 24- 157(B) Fence Height and Location.
3.) Case #66212: violation of Atlantic Beach City Code, Sec. 6 -16 Florida
Building Code Adopted; FBC Sec. 105.1 Permits Required; FBC Sec. 110.4
Certificate of Completion.
5. Miscellaneous Business
None
6. Adjournment
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
SPECIAL CALLED MEETING
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES
6:00 P.M. —November 19, 2012
IN ATTENDANCE:
Veda Harless, Chair
Dayna Williams, Secretary
Juliette Hagist
Alan Jensen, City Attorney
Ian Luthringer
Suzanne Green, Prosecuting Attorney
Richard Ouellette
Benjamin de Luna
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:
Nicholas Dodaro
Vic Gualillo, Commander
John Stinson, Alternate
Kelley Caton, Animal Control Officer
ABSENT:
Meade Coplan (Excused)
Chair Veda Harless called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m., followed by the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
Secretary Dayna Williams read the roll, finding a quorum was present.
1. Approval of Minutes
Motion: Approve minutes of the Special Called Code Enforcement Board Meeting of
November 1, 2012.
Moved by de Luna, Seconded by Ouellette
The motion was approved unanimously.
2. Administration of Oath to Defendants/Witnesses
Chair Veda Harless gave the oath to the defendants and witnesses.
3. Old Business:
A. 330 Magnolia Road, Suzanne Leviseur and Cecilia Babillis, Police Case #12-
17084: Atlantic Beach City Code, Chapter 4, Sec. 4 -10 Dangerous Dog.
B. 330 Magnolia Road, Suzanne Leviseur and Cecilia Babillis, Police Case #12-
17085: Atlantic Beach City Code, Chapter 4, Sec. 4 -10 Dangerous Dog.
C. 330 Magnolia Road, Suzanne Leviseur and Cecilia Babillis, Police Case #12-
17086: Atlantic Beach City Code, Chapter 4, Sec. 4 -10 Dangerous Dog.
Prosecuting Attorney Suzanne Green stated they are presenting a case today with one owner and
three dogs with numerous incidents. She stated they are asking each dog to be declared
dangerous. She stated instead of proceeding dog by dog by dog, she felt it was more concise to
go by date of incident, because these dogs attack in packs, in twos, and so on. She stated the
Board would see in front of them a summary of incidents of how she is going to proceed. She
stated when the Board is deliberating she needs the Board to look at each dog individually, how
they acted, and if they fit under the dangerous dog provision. She stated we are proceeding
under 4- 10(1)(d) which is when the dangerous dog has, when unprovoked, chased or approached
a person upon the streets, sidewalks, or any public grounds in a menacing fashion or apparent
attitude of attack, provided that such actions are attested to in a sworn statement. She stated she
had eyewitnesses and the Animal Control Officer. She stated we would hear testimony of severe
injury which is under 4- 10(1)(b). She stated we are presenting evidence and asking the Board to
find every dog under (1)(d), however, if you feel you need to add (1)(b) on top of that, that is
fine, but we are proceeding under (1)(d).
Ms. Green stated Attorney Robert Willis, representing the respondents in this case, had a
procedural issue to present. Attorney Willis came to the podium stating he has not previously
appeared in any proceedings which have predated tonight's events. Mr. Willis stated he has filed
a Motion to Dismiss or Alternative Relief which is the title of the motion. He stated it has to
do with due process considerations. He stated it is an overview of where we are generally, not
just from a pure legal standpoint, but from the standpoint of where we are addressing the
complaints that are here tonight. He stated the principal owner and custodian of these dogs is
Ms. Babillis, who is here tonight. Ms. Babillis and her mother live here and have lived in the
same home since 1982. He stated Ms. Babillis is a student at The University of North Florida
and her mother is an engineer. He stated the three dogs are rescue dogs they have acquired at
different times. Mr. Willis stated what they believe is going on here is there have been a series
of incidents all of which are related to the undeniable fact that Ms. Babillis has allowed these
dogs to run at large without a leash. He stated, as far as knowing there was some kind of
unprovoked, menacing behavior such as contemplated by the Ordinance, that is not something
we had notice of. Mr. Willis stated they were furnished notice of that on October 10, 2012. He
stated since that time the respondents have ceased that behavior, and in fact somewhat preceding
that they ceased that behavior, and these dogs have not been the occasion of any further
complaints since then. Mr. Willis stated he did not want to bog the Board down in the legalities
because he has been told by Mr. Jensen and Ms. Green that is something we preserve for another
day, if there is another day. He stated, according to what he is seeing from Mr. Jensen, Mr.
Jensen perceives it is not the Board's position to legally decide such motions, and Mr. Willis
stated he does not necessarily disagree with that; we are trying to preserve it. Mr. Willis stated,
as we read the Ordinance, we believe we were entitled to notice and the opportunity to correct
the problem. There are two exceptions under the Ordinance, neither one of which apply here,
and the only notice we got in the sense contemplated by the Ordinance is the notice which we got
on October 10, 2012, and there has never been a period provided during which we could correct
the problem. He stated the first reaction you may have is this is not a problem you can correct,
but that is not true. If the dogs are misbehaving in any way you can spend five minutes on the
internet and you can find any number of dog behavior experts that can modify dogs behavior,
including this kind of behavior. He stated the proposition that we have concluded that motion
with is the same proposition that we conclude here. He stated we perceive the statute and this
Board's efforts to be corrective in nature and not punitive in nature. He further stated these
Ordinances are drawn so that any dog, on even a single occasion, were to growl at someone in an
unprovoked fashion, it would qualify as a dangerous dog under your ordinance, and he does not
think, that is what we have in mind. He stated that he thinks what we are concerned with is
protecting the citizenry from repeated behavior of that nature. He stated that is why it is called
corrective, it is not a penalty imposed on the dog or the owner because of the behavior, but to
correct and make sure that it does not occur in the future. He stated we have taken steps to do
that as demonstrated by the fact there have been no more instances. He stated there is no more
running at large, they keep the dog in the back yard properly fenced in, and so what we have
concluded the motion with is a request for a relief to allow us a period of time within which to
correct this problem and not go to the extreme of declaring these dogs, any one or more of them,
as being dangerous. He stated the simple reason for that is if you do declare these dogs
Draft Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 2 of 20
dangerous, there are some onerous conditions which are imposed, some of which can be
accommodated, but there is one in your Ordinance which cannot, and that is the requirement that
you purchase or acquire a three- hundred thousand dollar liability policy. Further, if you are
going to get insurance, you have got to notify the insurance company that the dog has been
declared dangerous and show written proof to the city that you advised the insurance company of
that, and the only alternative to that is to purchase a surety bond. Mr. Willis stated his view is
there is no such coverage available in the marketplace. He further stated the surety bond or the
insurance are so far beyond the ability of these persons to pay; that in effect, if these dogs are
declared to be dangerous and nothing is done to undo that finding, then the net result is they will
lose these dogs. It will be a taking by the government in the same way that imminent domain or
condemnation of property or any other. He stated that is what they think the ultimate bottom line
is here and that is what the outcome will be by your actions. He stated for all of those reasons,
we are suggesting we ought to find some solution to this problem that should have been a
neighborhood problem and handle it in a way that gives these folks the opportunity to retain their
property, their chattel, and their dogs, without going to the extreme of, in effect, denying them
their property. That is our position.
Chair Harless stated she was going to address the motion and, as Mr. Jensen briefly explained to
the Board, we did not receive that prior to this meeting. Ms. Harless stated, as they are not a full
judicial board, what we will do tonight is hear the case presented. She stated she understood Mr.
Willis's concerns and if any of the other Board members have questions after Ms. Green has
presented her information, he will have an opportunity to answer other questions by the Board
and see if we can come to an agreeable resolution for this. Mr. Willis stated his only purpose in
bringing that up was he had furnished this motion to Ms. Green and Mr. Jensen on Friday, and
sent a cover letter to Ms. Green with it, stating he was not familiar with how we file things
before this Board. He stated if the Board has not had an opportunity to see the motion then he
thinks that is a problem that should be addressed; but his interest is in preserving that issue. He
stated that is what he is here to do and if that issue has, in effect, been reviewed by you and your
counsel and you are satisfied we should go forward, not withstanding our motion, then that is
okay with him; he just does not want to be waiving an issue that we have presented. Chair
Harless stated she would leave that to legal counsel between Mr. Jensen and Ms. Green. Chair
Harless stated what the Board is hearing today is the Notice of Violation of a code. She stated
Mr. Willis brought up some great questions regarding the Code and if it is what it should be. She
further stated the Board could only vote on what is going to be presented tonight and do our best
to come out with an agreeable resolution for all.
Ms. Suzanne Green stated she has prepared an evidence packet for the Board and Ms. Williams
has a copy of the evidence packet in front of her. She stated the first thing she would like to
introduce is an affidavit and she is doing this in time line. She stated the affidavit is from
January 20, 2009. She stated the affidavit is from Jennifer Chalot and she wanted to introduce it
as Exhibit 1. She stated this affidavit concerns Jack, a brown pit bull mix. She stated we would
be hearing about three pit bull mixes. We have Jack, we have Lola, who is brown and white or
tan and white, and then we have Jewel, who is black. She stated those are the three dogs to keep
in mind when you are hearing all the instances. Ms. Green stated on January 20, 2009, Ms.
Chalot testified Jack was roaming on her street and ran in front of her car as she pulled in her
driveway. Ms. Chalot testified Jack began barking when she honked and refused to move. Ms.
Chalot testified she parked her car and attempted to walk to her mailbox when Jack charged at
her growling with teeth bared. Ms. Chalot testified she avoided eye contact and tried to calm
him while walking to the mailbox, but he became increasingly agitated. She testified she
Draft Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 3 of 20