Agenda Packet 11-14-12.pdfCITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AGENDA
6:00 P.M., NOVEMBER 14, 2012
Call to Order
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Roll Call
1. Approval of the Minutes of (lie Special Called Meeting held on November 1, 2012.
2. Administration of Oath to Defendants /'Witnesses.
3. Old Business:
None
4. New Business:
A. 85 Dora Street, Christopher Sprungrnann, Case #58412: violation of
International Property Maintenance Code, Sec. 302.4 Weeds.
B. 720 Bonita Road, John P. Vitale, Case #60412: violation of International
Property Maintenance Cade, Sec. 304.7 Roofs and drainage.
C. 310 Royal palms Drive, Joe W, Pugh, Case #60912: violation of International
Property Maintenance Code, See. 301.3 Vacant structures and land; Sec. 302.4
Weeds: Sec. 302.7 Accessor); structures; and Sec. 304.7 Roofs and drainage.
D. 146 -148 W 14`x' Street, Thomas J. Bennett, Jr., Case #62112: violation of
International Property Maintenance Code, Sec 304.2 Protective Troatinent; See-.
304.7 Roofs and drainage; acrd Sec. 304.6 Exterior Walls.
E, 735 Bonita Road, Kimberly Peters, Case #67512: violation of Atlantic Beach
City Code, Sec. 24 -173 Neighborhood Preservation.
F. 60 Ocean Boulevard, Jubrana A. Jubran, ET AL, violation of Atlantic Beach
City Code, Sec. 17 -61 Perinit Required; and Sec. 19 -1 Obstructing free passage
Prohibited.
5. Miscellaneous Business
A. review and discussion on Code Enforcement Procedures Manual,
6. Adjournment
DRAFT
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
SPECIAL CALLED MEETING
CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES
6:00 P.M. — November 1, 2012
IN ATTENDANCE:
Veda Harless, Chair
Juliette Hagist
Ian Luthringer
Richard Ouellette
Benjamin de Luna
Meade Coplan
Jahn Stinson, Alternate
ABSENT:
Nicholas Dodaro (Excused)
Dayna Williams, Secretary
Alan Jensen, City Attorney
Suzanne Green, Prosecuting Attorney
ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:
Vic Gualillo, Commmider
Kelly Caton, Animal Control Officer
Chain Veda IIarless called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by Roll Call and the
Pledge of Allegiance to the flag.
Chair Harless explained the hearing process and asked the Board members if they have received
any ex parte communications. The Board members all stated no
1. Approval of Minutes
Motion: Approve minutes of the Regular Cade Enforcement Board Meeting of dryly tO,
2012.
Moved by de Duna, Seconded by I- Iagist
The motion was approved unanimously.
2. Administration of Oath to Defenclants/Witnesses
Chair Veda Harless gave the oath to the defendants and witnesses.
3. Old Business:
None
4. New Business:
Prosecuting Attorney Suzanne Green stated there was a change to the Agenda for the three cases
B, C, and D. The parties hired an attorney last night and have requested a continuance. Ms.
Green stated she had spoken with the attorney for the respondents and there are also some
witnesses that are not available, She stated, in consideration of these premises, counsel agreed to
the continuance; however, she did enter into a consent order which requires that they waive the
twenty -one day requirement before this Board and comply with any conditions in the Ordinance
pertaining to the dogs in full force and effect until the final hearing. Ms. Green presented the
consent order signed by both attorneys to the Board for signature by the Chair Veda Harless.
City Attorney Alan .Jensen stated he would make sure copies were given to the appropriate
parties. Mr. Ouellette asked who reschedules this hearing. Ms. Green stated Commander
Gualillo would coordinate with all the necessary parties. Discussion ensued as to whether it
would be possible to schedule this on our next regularly scheduled Code Enforcement Hoard
Meeting on November 14, 2012. Commander Vic Gualillo stated we already have a full
calendar for that date. Chair Harless asked Ms. Green to proceed with presenting the first case
on the agenda.
A. 700 Bonita Road, Stephanie A. Hezel, Police Case #12- 14547; Atlantic Beach
City Cock., Chapter 4, See. 4 -10 Dangerous Dog.
Ms. Green stated this was regarding a dog bite case that occurred on August 27, 2012 and called
Mr. Craig Lisman to the podium. Chair Harless asked the witness to state his name and address.
The witness stated Craig Lisman, 13268 Eucalyptus Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32225. Mr.
Lisman stated he was a mail carrier and went to deliver two packages and got bit by a dog.. Chair
Harless asked if he could give more details on the incident. Mr, Lisman stated at approximately
4:00 pin he had two big parcels to deliver. He stated he knocked on the door, the customer came
to the doer to take the two packages, the dot; slipped between the door and bit him on the leg.
Mr, Lisman stated the owner called the dog back and he went back to deliver his mail and called
his supervisor. Chair Harless asked if lie had to seek medical attention and he responded yes.
Mr. Lisman stated he went back to the past office and dropped off his mail and went to the
doctor and was there for about an hour. Chair Harless asked if there were stitches and he said
no, they had to keep the wound open so it could drain. Ile further stated they bandaged it up and
he was on pain medication for a while and went back to work. Ms. Green stated Mr. Lisman
Filled out an Animal Complaint Affidavit and presented a copy of the Affidavit for him to
identify. Ms. Green introduced the Animal Complaint Affidavit to the Board as Exhibit 1. Ms.
Green asked Mr. Lisman if he took some pictures of his injury and he stated yes. She presented
some photos to him and asked if they were taken at the time of the bite, and he stated they were
taken at the doctor's office. Ms. Green asked if they were a fair and accurate representation of
the wound and he responded yes. She then presented the photos to the Board as Exhibit 2. Ms.
Green asked the witness if he had some medical bills as a result of the bite and he replied yes.
She asked if lie had them with him or were they still pending. He stated they were pending and
his attorney has them. Mr. Green further stated because he works for the government he wants
workman's compensation and he said yes. She asked if he knows the extent of the bills at this
point and he stated no. Ms. Green stated that was all she had for Mr. Lisman unless the Board
had some questions.
Ms. Hezel asked Mr. Lisman who took the photos he submitted and he stated he did with his
camera phone. Ms. Hezel asked if that was the day of incident and he replied yes, Ms. Hezel
stated she had two dogs and he saw one. Mr. Lisman stated he only saw one and he did not
know she had dogs. City Attorney Alan Jensen asked Ms. Bezel to please identify herself. She
stated she was Stephanie Hezel, the owner of the clog. Ms. Hezel stated it was her friend
Donna Drake who was at the house at the time of the incident and asked Mr. Lisman if it was
correct that he stated Ms. Drake called the clog to bring him hack into the house and he said yes.
Ms. Hezel said she was surprised by that, Mr. Hagist asked Mr. Lisman if he was bitten on the
leg and what was the location of the bite and the witness stated it was on his lower calf. Ms.
Coplan asked what type of dog it was. Mr. Lisman stated it was black and white and a big dog,
but he did not know what kind. Mr, de Luna asked Mr. Lisman how many times has he
delivered to that residence. Mr. Lisman stated seven years, but these tenants moved in about a
month ago. Mr. de Luna asked i f the house had been vacant all the time prior to them moving, in
and Mr. Lisman stated it was sometimes vacant and sometimes occupied, but these now residents
just moved in. Mr, de Luna asked if this was the first time Mr. Lisman had an encounter with
this dog and these residents and Mr. Lisman said yes. Mr, de Luria asked if lie had been bitten
by any other dogs on his route, and Mr. Lisman stated one time about two years ago. Mr. de
Draft Minutes of the Cade Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Poge 2 of 11
Luna asked him to describe that incident and Mr. Lisman stated it was a little dog that came at
him and bit him before he had time to get his spray. Mr. de Luna resumed questioning the
witness on the current incident asking if the bite was on the front of his leg or the back of his leg
and Mr. Lisman stated the back of his leg. Mr. de Luna stated the dog came out and bit the
witness and he was not moving, is that correct. Mr. Lisman stated it was correct and the owner
called him back; the woman he believed to be the owner at that time. Mr. de Luna asked if the
dog responded to her calling him back and the witness stated yes. Ms. Coplan asked if there was
a sign in the yard warning of a bad dog and the witness stated no. Ms. Coplan asked if the young
lady was a girl and Mfr. Lisman responded no, but he refers to his female customers as young
ladies so as not to be rude to anybody. Ms. Caplan asked if the dog lunged at him or barked and
the witness stated it lunged at him. Mr. Stinson asked where Mr. Lislrtan was standing in
relation to the front door as he delivered these packages; was he inside the house or inside the
door. The witness stated lie was outside the door. Mr. Ouellette asked if he provoked the dog in
any way or made- any - movements toward the owner and the witness stated no. Mr. de l�u�
asked if the dog carne out as the witness was handing the package to the owner and the witness
replied yes. Ms. Green clarified the witness handed the package to the person who opened the
front door, not the owner. Mr. Lisman stated that was correct, he had never met the owner prior
to today. Ms. Coplan asked if the package was large, small. Mr. Lisman stated it was heavy,
somewhat large and would not fit in his satchel, which is why he was delivering it first. Ms.
Coplan asked if it had any red markings on it or anything that might excite a dog and the witness
stated no. Chair Harless asked if there were any more questions or if there were any final
comments the witness would like to make. The witness stated lie just did not want this dog to be
considered a dangerous dog.
Ms. Green called Donna Drake to the podium. Ms. Green asked the witness to state her name for
the record and the witness stated Donna Drake. Ms. Green asked if Ms. Drake lived at 700
Bonita Road, Atlantic beach. The witness stated she did at the time. Ms. Green confirmed it
was her address at the time she filled out the affidavit, and the witness stated yes. Ms. Green
asked the witness to report her role in the bite incident. Ms. Drake stated she heard a knock at
the door, it was the postman, she opened the door a little bit and he showed her the packages.
The witness stated she took them through the crack of the door, but she had to open the door a
little wider to get the second package in because it was bigger. She fuuther stated the mailman
started to turn and walk away and she was holding one dog and the other dog came from behind
her and slipped out and did one little pinchy bite on the mailman's leg and ran back its.. Ms.
Drake stated she did not call him back in, lie just swooped and ran. Ms. Green asked if that was
stated in her affidavit and the witness stated yes. Ms. Green introduced the affidavit as Exhibit 3.
Chair Harless asked how long the witness has known the dog and she said about one year. Chair
Harless asked what kind of dog it was and Ms. Drake said it is a Springer Spaniel. Chair Harless
asked if the dog has bitten anyone in her presence before and the witness stated no, she has never
seen the dog be anything other than a bundle of love. She further stated the dogs were excitable
and energetic dogs and they bark, but she has never seen them bite, snap, growl in any way.
Chair Harless asked if she had seen any provocation of why he would come out and bite the
mailman, and the witness stated no. Mr. de Luna asked if the dog barked at mailmen, and the
witness stated yes, it barks at mailmen, leaves drifting past the window, butterflies, it barks; but
it does not bite or snap. Mr. do Luna asked the name of the dog and Ms. Drake said Geronimo.
She f irther stated he was about forty -five pounds and about calf height. Mr. de Luna asked if the
two dogs co -exist and she answered, happily, yes. She stated they sleep on the foot of her bed
every night and were gentle, sweet, wonderful dogs. Mr. de Luna asked how old is the dog and
she said she has only known him about a year. Mr. de Luna asked if she took the dog for a walk
Draft Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 3 of 11
and she said yes. He asked, in a year's time, how many times has she taken the dog for a walk
and she said about ten or twelve times. Mr. de Luna asked if the dog had ever been aggressive
and she stated no. He asked if it barked at other dogs and she said it barks at cats, He asked if
the dog has ever attacked another dog and she stated no. Ms. Drake stated she has taken the dog
to agility training and he has never acted aggressively to any ether dogs. Mr. de Luna asked if
the dog has gone to the dog park we have here and she said she has not taken him. Ms Coplan
asked if the witness would know if the dog was ill at that time and the witness said she thinks she
would have noticed and the dog did not appear to be ill. Ms. Coplan asked what kind of dog the
other dog was and Ms. Drake stated it is a Springer Spaniel as well. Ms. Coplan asked if the
dogs were right there at the door together when the mailman came and the witness stated yes.
Ms. Coplan asked if they play together and Ms. Drape stated they play together and when we
have a guest come to the house they feel like they have to come to the door to greet them. Ms.
Coplan asked if there was a reason the witness only opened the door a crack, and Ms. Drake
stated because they -rant to come out and 1 did -not -want Miens to get out—,,She- further - explained
she did not want to run after them in the street, but stated they are not her dogs and she does not
know if they would come to her if they got out. The witness added they come to her when she
calls them inside the house. Ms. Coplan asked if they had any other complaints filed against
them and Ms. Drake said not that she knew of.
Ms. Hezel asked if Ms. Drake spoke to Mr. Lisman after the incident. Ms. Drake stated he was
lying on the ground and she brought a towel to try to help him clean up and get him off the
ground, but he never spoke to her again. Ms. Drake stated he just lay on the ground. Ms. Hezel
asked if the bite was bleeding and the witness stated no. She further stated it was an abrasion
and you could tell it would probably be bruised but it was not bleeding when she saw it. Ms.
Drake stated it was somewhat bigger than a dime but not quite the size of a quarter. Mr. de Luna
asked Ms. Drake to describe in detail what happened after the dog bit Mr. Lisman. Ms. Drake
stated Mr. Lisman had turned away, the dog did the little pinchy bite, ran back in and she closed
the door and put the dogs in the kennel and trot a towel and went back out to see if she could help
Mr. Lisman. Mr. de Luna asked why Mr. Lisman was on the ground and Ms. Drake stated she
did not know. Mr. de Luna asked if she saw him being knocked down by the dog and she said
she was malting sure the clog was going in the house and she was not looking at Mr. Lisman at
the time. She added she did not see hint hit the ground. Cols. llagist asked to loop at the picture
of the bite submitted as Exhibit 2. Discussion ensued regarding the picture of the bite with blood
running down Mr. Llsmans calf. Ms. Hagist asked Ms. brake about her description of the bite as
a pinch. Ms. Drake restated it was a pinchy bite but was not Bleeding when she saw it. Ms.
ldagist further questioned the picture of the wound and Mr. de Luna asked if the Board could sec
what picture Ms. 1-lagist was describing. Ms. Hagist stated she is looking at Exhibit 2 which
looks like blond running down Mr. Lismans calf Chair Harless asked Mr. Lisman to clarify if
that was blood running down his leg. Mr. Lisman stated it was blood running down his calf and
discussion ensued. Ms. Hagist asked if the picture was the little: pinch and Mr. Lisman stated if
that is what Ms. Drake wants to call it, but it was no little pinch. Ile further stated that it was a
lunge and bite and it did not feel very good and that is why he fell down. Mr. Lisman stated it
was not a little nip. Mr. Stinson asked where the picture was takers and Mr. Lisman stated at the
doctor's office on the same day as the incident and before it was cleaned up. Ms. Hagist asked
how long after the bite and the witness stated about thirty to forty minutes after he left his route.
Mr. Luthringer asked Ms. Brake to describe the mannerism of the dog as he went out the door;
was he growling or snarling. Ms. Drake stated he did not seep angry when he went out or when
he came back in. She further stated she did not call hire, he was out and right back in. Ms.
Coplan asked Ms. Drake what was going on with her when this was happening and the witness
Draft Minutes of the Cade Enforcement Beard on November 1, 2012 Page 4 of 11
responded she was shocked,. Ms. Drake said he is just a big ball of love for her and she has never
seen him do anything like this, Ms. Caplan asked if he was wearing a collar and the witness
stated yes. She stated that she was holding the other dog by the collar but Geronimo was not
with her. Ms. Coplan asked if the dog had a veterinarian in the area and does he go there
regularly. Ms. Drake stated yes, she had never seen dogs go to the doctor as often as these dogs
do. Ms, Meade asked if the veterinarian had ever said to be careful, the dog might bite
somebody or has a propensity to do things like that. The witness stated not that she knew of
Nis. Coplan asked if she had ever thought of putting a sign in the yard to say beware. The
witness reiterated she was only there for the summer and added she brought her three and four
year old grandchildren to play with the dogs. Ms. Coplan asked if they ever had a problem with
the dogs and the witness stated no. Mr. Stinson said in Mr. Lisman's statement he reported that
alter he had been bitten he told Ms. brake it may be a while before you have mail delivered here
again; do you remember that comment? Ms. Drake stated he never said another word to her and
she wen"a the -post -office to find out where - the -mail was-.--Mr.-Stinson asked -the witness she
was holding the ether dog by the collar because she was worried it would bite. Ms. Drake stated
no, she was worried the dog would get outside. Chair Harless asked if there were any other
questions and excused the witness from the podium.
Ms. Green called belly Caton to the podium. and asked her to state her name for the record. The
witness stated Kelly Caton, Animal Control Officer with the City of Atlantic Beach, Ms.
Green asked if she had investigated this incident and riled an affidavit in response to that. The
witness stated yes to both questions. Ms. Green asked Ms. Caton to please tell the court her role
and provided the affidavit to the witness for reference. Ms. Caton stated she got in touch with
Mr. Lisman and also spoke with Mr. bezel and Ms. Drake during the investigation and came to
the conclusion the bite met the definition of a dangerous dog in the City Ordinance 4- 10(1)(a). I
recommended the Chief of Police move forward with the dangerous dog proceedings. Ms. Green
asked if the aggressive bitten provision is Linder See. 4- 10(1)(a) and the witness stated yes. Ms.
[green asked if Ms. Caton subsequently got in touch with Mr. Liman and Ms. Caton explained
she played lag trying to get in touch with Mr. Lisman and finally connected with him three days
after the incident and took a picture of the bite at that time. Ms. Green asked if the picture Ms.
Caton was holding was a fair and accurate representation of the bite three days after the incident
and Ms. Caton said yes. Ms. Green tendered the picture to the Beard as Exhibit 4 and asked the
witness if she signed the Affidavit on October 3, 2012. The witness stated yes and Ms. Green
tendered the Affidavit as Exhibit 5 to the Beard. Ms. Green asked Ms. Caton if she issued a
citation and Ms. Caton stated she issued a citation for biting to Ms. Drake because she was in
charge of the dog at the time of the incident. Ms. Green clarified the owner of the dog was not
there and the witness concurred. Ms. Green tendered the citation as Exhibit 6; asked Ms. Caton
if her office is supposed to give notice that the dog has been deemed dangerous pursuant to the
Ordinance; and did Chief of Police Michael Classey issue the order after his investigation and
Ms. Caton stated yes. Ms. Green presented a copy of the letter dated October 3, 2012 and asked
the witness to identify if it was the letter Chief Classey issued. Ms. Caton stated yes and Ms.
Green tendered the letter as Exhibit 7 to the Board. Ms. Green asked the witness if she had any
further involvement in the case after the last letter was issued and the witness stated no and Ms.
Green said she had no further questions.
Nis. 1- lagist asked Ms. Caton if the size of the bite would be considered a dangerous dog. Ms.
Caton stated yes because of the way the Ordinance is written, She said the Ordinance: states
aggressively bitten; the Ordinance does not reference size. Chair Harless asked if Ms. Caton had
previous calls on this dog and the witness stated no. Chair Harless asked the witness if it was her
Draft Minutes of the Cade Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 5 of 11
opinion that once an incident like this happens is it repetitive. Ms. Caton stated no. Chair
Harless asked the witness if she could see any reason or rhyme why this dog would come out,
lunge, bite, and go back. Ms. Caton stated dogs mite mailman and delivery men on a fairly
regular basis; in dog language ].sere is a man coming to the door, dog barks, man goes away. She
further stated this is not an uncommon or unusual Occurrence. Ms. Hagist asked the witness if
she considered this dog a dangerous dog and the witness stated she does not personally feel this
dot; is dangerous. Mr. de Luna asked the witness if there were other bites to delivery men or
mailmen that do not get repotted and the witness stated yes. Ms. Hagist asked Ms. Caton for her
recommendation about this dog. The witness asked if' Ms. Hagist was asking; her if she thought
they should declare the dog dangerous, and Ms. Hagist said yes. Ms. Caton stated she did not
and added that Ms. I Iezel has taken precautions to never let this happen again. She stated Ms.
Hegel got a post office box the day after this occurred so the postman never has to come to her
house again. Ms. Hagist said she wanted Ms. Caton's professional opinion since she deals with
this on a daily- basis -and Ms:- -Caton stated she has -seen vicious- dogs - before- and -sloe would -not
declare this one vicious. Mr. do Luna asked the witness if she took the picture of the bite three
days after the occurrence and Ms. Caton stated yes. He asked if there were any stitches and she
stated no they normally do not stitch puncture wounds. She added she has been bitten five tinges
and never received stitches. Ms. Caplan asked if Ms. Caton had been to the house since the
incident and did the dogs bark and _jump out at her when the door was opened and the witness
stated no. Mr. Ouellette stated since it was not Ms. Caton's decision to declare the dog
dangerous and issue a citation, it had been Chief Classey's decision, Ms. Caton stated the
incident meets the requirements of the Ordinance which is why Chief Classey declared the dog
dangerous. Mr. Luthringer said he had a question for Mr. Lisman if everyone was finished
questioning the Animal Control Officer.
Ms. Caton was excused from the podium and Chair Harless called Mr. Lisman to the podium.
Mr. Luthringer asked Mr. Lisman what the mannerism of the dog was as he was corning out the
door prior to the bite. Ms. Lisman stated it happened so fast he dirt not even know the dog was
there. Mr. Luthringer asked the witness if he heard the dog and the witness stated he never heard
him bark, if he had heard the dogs barking he would have just left the package, knocked on the
door and walked away. Mr. Luthringer asked as soon as the dog bit, did it walk away. The
witness stated as soon as it bit, the owner called the dog back and it went right back in, or who he
asstnned was the owner at that time. Mr. Lisman was excused from the podium.
Chair Harless asked Ms. Ilezel if there was a statement she would like to make. Ms. I-Iezel asked
if she could take a couple ofmi.nutes to talk about her dogs and Chair Harless stated as long as it
pertains to the case. Chair Harless asked the witness to cone to the podium and state her name
and address. The witness stated Stephanie )Bezel, 700 Bonita Road, Atlantic beach, FL
32233. Ms. Hegel stated she has had Springer Spaniels for 20 years and the 2 dogs she has now
she got through the Springer Rescue. The witness elaborated on her active role with the rescue,
from interviewing prospective owners and transporting dogs to their new homes. The witness
stated she is very picky with her dogs, they are family members. Ms. Hegel stated her dogs are
rnedium sued, high energy dogs; hers weigh 45 and 53 pounds. She added they are inside dogs
and when she takes them outside they are on a leash. She stated they go for daily walks, they go
for swirns, they go to agility training, and she has a letter she would like to submit from the
agility instructor as Exhibit I. The witness stated the letter is from Maria Oehler, giving her
background information and stating she would not consider the dog dangerous. The witness
further stated she is very conscious about socializing her dogs with people and animals and
brought some pictures of the dog to be submitted as Exhibit 2. Mr. de Luna stated we should
Draft Minutes of the Code Enforcemeot Board on November 1, 2012 Page 6 of 11
marls all these materials as exhibits so the record is complete and in order. Ms. Green asked the
witness if she was present when the bite took place and the witness stated no. Ms. Hezel added
he has never bitten anybody before and she will gladly pay any medical bills and she apologizes
profusely for the incident. Chair Harless asked what steps the witness has taken since to avoid
any other instances. Ms. Hezel stated she has two crates and if anybody comes to the door that
the dogs do not know, she crates them. Chair Harless asked if her property was fenced and the
witness stated she was a renter, but the entire back yard is fenced and the dogs are only allowed
out on leash. Ms. Coplan stated the letter from Maria Oehler mentions that Gerommo was in
agility classes and she wanted to know if there were any classes where he was trained not to
attack. Ms. Hezel stated no and explained what is involved with agility classes, ie obstacle
courses, jumping through hoops, anything to mentally challenge the breed. Ms. Coplan asked
who did the training; to help him not leap forward to somebody if they were coming onto your
property. Ms. Hezel stated he has never done that before. Ms. Coplan asked the witness why
she thought it- -happened -on that - day.— Ms. -Hezel reiterated it -has never happened - bekr4 an4 -she
has no idea what happened to cause it this particular time. Discussion continued regarding the
dog's age, activities, and prior incidents in general. Chair Harless asked the witness if she had a
closing statement she would like to make and Ms. Hezel asked to introduce an animal behaviorist
that has worked with her dogs over the years as a character witness, Ms. Green stated as long as
it pertains to Geronimo and this incident.
Chair Harless asked the witness to state his name and the nature of his support for Ms. Hezel.
The witness stated Bola Ham mesfahr, a resident of Atlantic Beach and a certified dog
trainer and animal behaviorist. The witness stated he has his resume if anyone wants to see it.
Mr. Ouellette asked if this witness had been sworn in and Chair Harless stated everyone was
sworn in at the beginning of the meeting. Mr. Hammesfahr stated he has known Ms. I-Iezel for
quite some time, also works with rescue ;groups, and she asked him to come and evaluate dogs
and things of that nature with the group she works with. The witness stated his field was in the
area of what is typical animal behavior, etc. He added all dog bites are not the same, they have
differing degrees and elaborated on the concept of six different levels of dog bites. He stated the
first level is air snapping; the second there is contact and bruising, scraping;, or a single puncture;
level three is when you have a hill set of all 4 canines, but these bites are all on and then off;
level four you have multiple bites and the dog; stays there and is chewing on the person; level
five is chewing and kill /tear; level six is death of the victim. The witness stated levels 1, 2 and 3
are associated with assertive dogs as opposed to aggressive dogs. In .levels 4, 5 and 6, forensics
says this is an aggressive dog, this is a dog that is out to kill, Mr. Haminesfahr said in examining
Geroninio's behavior, dogs will do 3 things when they are confronted with something strange,
like someone coming to the door. He explained the first thing they will do is try to escape from
it; if that does not succeed and the scary thing stays there or advances they will posti.ire, such as
barking, air snapping, anything but actually corning; into close contact. The witness expressed
surprise that Mr. Lisman stated the dogs did not bark. He added he has been to Ms. Hezel's
home three times and the dogs bark. He said he comes to his own house and his dogs bark; they
are supposed to, they do not know what is on the other side of the door. fie explained, at this
point, it is the dog's opinion what to do next. If the door is open and they bark, bark, bark and
the thing does not go away, the third thing they will do is assert themselves trying to control the
space around them. He further explained this is not speculation, this is documented in behavioral
sciences which is where he has one of his Master's Degrees, Mr. Harnmesfahr stated this is what
occurred in Ceronimo's case; the mailman did not go away and the dog came out, single bite and
right back in; that is the assertive dog. That is not a dangerous dog; per se. The witness stated no
bite is a good bite, but the point is this is not an ongoing dangerous dog that needs to be
Draft Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 7 of 11
euthanized or needs to have extreme measures taken. Mr. Hammesfahr said he feels Ms. Hezel
has taken more than adequate precautions to prevent this from happening again. He stated tills is
not a dangerous dog, he knows her dog, he has been around her dog, he has been around her
rescues and there has never been an issue.
Chair Harless stated there were some questions and Ms. Green stated she would like to cross
examine. Ms. Green stated in this scenario we have a dog that comes out the door, bites as the
person is leaving, the testimony was the mailman was walking away, would the witness call that
aggressive and the witness stated no. Nis. green asked what was his definition of aggressive.
Mr. Hammesfahr said aggressive is the dog that stays there, pursues and continues to bite. He
added assertion is protecting my space and my territory. Mr. Luthringer asked Ms. Green if she
objected to Mr. Ilammesfalu• being classified as an expert. Ms. Green said she had not seen his
CV at all. Mr. Luthringer asked her to please assess the CV quickly and let the Board know if
she .objects 'n�they {-°-tape— Mr.— Hammesfahr as -an expert-.— Ms Green stated- -she
understands Mr. Hammesfahr is the owner of a behavior training for dogs, and asked what
classes has he taken for certification as a behavioral consultant of dogs. The witness stated it is
25 years experience. He stated the minimum qualification to be certified as a dog behaviorist is
rive years experience in the field, at least 500 hours of continuing education units, as well as two
recommendations from veterinarians and another trainer. Ms. Green stated she had no problem
accepting the witness as a certified professional dog trainer and behaviorist. Ms. Green said she
just wanted to confirm that Mr. Hamme.sfahr was not present at the dog bite incident and he said
no. Mr. Luthringer asked the witness if his testimony, as an expert, is the dog's actions were not
aggressive; the dog was just asserting his space and the witness said that is correct. Mr.
Luthringer stated as a point of order he wanted to address his fellow Board members that we are
looking at elements under Ordinance 4- 10(1)(a) when we are considering whether this dog is to
be classified as a dangerous dog. He further stated that leaves us with whether this dog has
aggressively bitten or inflicted severe irljury. He stated we have to consider whether the injury
we have seen today is severe, we have no testimony on whether it is or it is not. Ms. Green
clarified we are proceeding under the aggressively bitten. Mr. Luthringer said we are only
proceeding under aggressively bitten and have received expert testimony as to what is
aggressive. He added the Board could take it upon themselves to determine what we think
aggressive is, or we can take the opinion of the expert. Mr. de Luna said he thinks we should
have a motion First and then we can have further discussion. Mr. Luthringer stated he just
wanted to mare a point of order so we know what we are motioning and what to consider when
you are approving. Chair Harless stated we need to keep in mind that Mr. Hamr- nesfahr was not
there at the incident, so we need to focus on the facts that Mr. Lisman was bitten and he was
bitten unprovoked. Ms. Green wanted to clarify for the Board when she asked Mr. Harnmesfahr
about the hypothetical; he was not there. She added the Board needs to consider the testimony of
the victim and how the dog acted and understand Mr. Hatnmesfahr only gave us his opinion.
Discussion ensued at length regarding dogs and their reactions to different triggers and
subsequent behaviors. Mr. Hammesfahr- was excused from the podium.
Ms. Green clarified we are going under 4- 10(1)(a) which reads aggressively bitten, attacked, or
endangered. She further stated we are not proceeding under severe injury, but she advised the
Board to discuss the attacked and endangered which is in our Ordinance and that is why we are
here because we have to follow the Ordinance. Chair Harless asked if we had a motion to set
forth. Mr. Ouellette stated he had a question for Alan Jensen before we moved forward. Mr.
Ouellette asked if he was correct in his understanding that if the Beard did not declare a dog
dangerous that has bitten someone and the dog bites again it leaves the City open to civil action.
Draft Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 8 of 11
Mr. Jensen stated potentially; if you know a situation exists and you have an opportunity to
correct it and you do not and something happens later on down the road. He continued by staling
this is a factual determination for this Board whether or not Mr. Lisman was aggressively bitten
or attacked. He reiterated it is a factual determination that this Board has to make. Mr. Jensen
added what if a ten year old girl selling Girl Scout cookies walks up to the door and knocks with
a package in her hand and the City knows this dog has bitten someone before. He further stated
you have to judge it on the facts you heard tonight as to what happened that day. Mr. Jensen
stated if there is a known condition and the City knows about it and we do not take steps to
correct it, there could be liability. Mr. Luthringer said we are here today snaking a factual
determination. He further stated if we are malting a factual determination on the nature and
propensity of the dog to be a dangerous dog or not, how can liability stern from that later. Mr.
Jensen stated you are not malting a factual determination based on the propensity of the dog to
bite someone; you are making a determination whether the bite that happened was an aggressive
- bites =,an— aggressive - aaack — Mr.- Luthiinger- wanted-W = b ,g_Mi- .I3a esfahr-back to -Ahe
podium to give testimony as to whether he has research on what would be considered an attack
as opposed to aggressive or assertive. Mr. Jensen stated he did not believe we need to go there,
the span was bitten, we have pictures to show that. More questions and discussion ensued. Ms.
Coplan had a question for Mr. Lisman. Mr. Lisman came to the podium and Ms. Coplan asked
him after he delivered the second package and lie turned to leave, was he running, walking fast.
Mr. Lisman stated he ,just turned and was walking away, not running.. Ms. Hagist asked Mr.
Lisman, as the victim, what does he feel should be done with the dog. Mr. Lisman stated he was
an animal lover and does not believe the dog is at fault, lie believes it is the person watching the
dog who is at fault. He reiterated that lie is an animal lover and he does not think the dog should
be considered dangerous. Ms. Hagist asked Mr. Jensen, since we have testimony from a
behavioral expert and our Animal Control Officer that they do not believe the dog, is a dangerous
dog, if the dog; should bite again, how liable is the City. Ms. Hagist clarified what she is asking
is if every case that comes before the Board regarding a dog bite is considered a dangerous dog,
then the Board must classify it as a dangerous dog or the City would be liable. She added she is
confused where to draw the line in case there might be another bite. Mr. Jensen stated a bite has
occurred; the City is aware of that; the police department has investigated and determined the
dog should be classified as a dangerous dog. He said a request has been made to the Board
whether that determination should be upheld or not. Discussion ensued regarding the City
Ordinance Sec. 4 -11. The Board discussed what the owner of the dog will have to adhere to
according to the Ordinance if they classify this as a dangerous dog. Ms. Coplan asked Mr.
Jensen if there was a termination of the dangerous dog classification, or does it last forever. Mr.
Jensen stated it lasts forever and follows the dog even if it goes to a new home.
Motion: The Board finds the dog, Geronimo owned by Stephanie Heze1 whose address is
700 Bonita Road not be declared as a dangerous do under the provisions of Section 4 -10
of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlantic Beach.
Moved by de Luna, Seconded by Hagist
Chair IIarless asked if we vote and then have discussion and Mr. de Luna stated we have
discussion and then we vote. Mr de Luna spoke to Mr. Jensen and stated certainly there is
liability, even if the dog bites the first time. He stated it still has to go through procedure; the
City has various immunities and insurance policies. IIe asked Mr. Jensen to please correct him if
he is wrong, but what this Board needs to do is determine if this dog„ by biting and retreating, is
a dangerous dog. He stated, with apologies to Mr. Lisman, in his summation of what
aggressively bitten is; this is not an aggressive bite. Chair Harless disagreed and stated she has
Draft Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board can November 1, 2012 rage 9 of 11
four dogs and she treats her dogs as if they could bite at any time because no one can say for sure
their dog will not bite. Chair Harless stated as she reads the section as to what we are trying to
determine and you read it by the letter of the law it has been proven tonight that it was an
aggressively 'bitten attack, unprovoked. Mr. Luthringer stated as the Ordinance is currently
written he would have to hold this is a dangerous dog. He fiirther stated that looking at the
Ordinance he wondered if they could have possibly meant any bite is an attack. lie added there
must be a level of severity that they are trying to accomplish in writing this Ordinance, but
without the history of this Ordinance we would have to hold this is a dangerous dog. Chair
Harless asked if anyone else wanted to comment. Mr. Ouellette stated we are not offered
degrees in this [Ordinance of biting or aggressiveness; perhaps there should be. He further stated
as it is written he would have to declare this dog dangerous. Ms. Coplan stated she also has
trouble with the language. She elaborated on research she has done, including a community
approach to dog bite prevention. Ms. Coplan further explained some highlights of the
community based program by the American Veterinary Association. She added that since we-do-
not
have this program in our community we have to rule on what we have in front of us, whic is
the language of this particular code. Ms. Coplan stated we are hamstrung by our wording and
our definitions, as is usual in statutes and codes. Ms. Hagist stated she was having a hard time
with this. Chair Harless stated there is no danger to the dog by claiming it as a dangerous dog.
She stated the dog would not be harmed, but there will be protection for all involved. Mr.
Stinson stated he believed there was a lot of focus on what happens after this hearing that is
beyond the scope of what we are here for. He further stated the way he reads the Ordinance and
from the testimony our expert provided he dries not believe the bite meets the aggressive
definition. Discussion, ensued regarding the language and wording of the Ordinance. Chair
Harless asked if there were any more questions or comments.
Votes:
Aye: - 4 - de Luna, H-Hagist, Luthringer, Coplan, Stinson
Nay: - 2 - Harless, Ouellette
Motion Carried
13. 330 Magnolia Toad, Suzanne Leviseur and Cecilia Babillis, Police Case #12-
17084: Atlantic Beach City Code, Chapter 4, Sec. 4 -10 Dangerous Dog.
This item was taken out of se uence and acted on earlier in the meeting.
C. 330 Magnolia Road, Suzanrie Leviseur and Cecilia Babillis, Police Case #12-
17085: Atlantic Beach City Code, Chapter 4, See. 4 -10 Dangerous Dog.
This item was taken out of se uence and acted on earlier in the meeting.
D. 334 Magnolia Road, Suzanne Leviseur and Cecilia Babillis, Police Case #12-
17086: Atlantic Beach City Code, Chapter 4, See. 4 -10 Dangerous Dag.
This item was taken out of sequence and acted on earlier in the meetin .
5. Miscellaneous business
None
Draft Minutes of the Code Enforcement ward on f0vember 1, 2012 Page 10 of 11
G. Adjournment
There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 7:33 p.m.
Veda Harless, Chair
Dayna L. Williams, Secretary
croft MimlteS Of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1' 2012 Page 11 of 11