Loading...
11-1-12 Minutes Special Called Mtg.pdfCITY 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 John Stinson, Alternate ABSENT: Nicholas Dodaro (Excused) Dayna Williams, Secretary Alan Jensen, City Attorney Suzanne Green, Prosecuting Attorney ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Vic Gualillo, Commander Kelly Caton, Animal Control Officer Chair Veda Harless 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 Code Enforcement Board Meeting of July 10, 2012. Moved by de Luna, Seconded by Hagist 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: 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 Board 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 Code, Chapter 4, Sec. 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 pm he had two big parcels to deliver. He stated he knocked on the door, the customer came to the door to take the two packages, the dog 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 he had to seek medical attention and he responded yes. Mr. Lisman stated he went back to the post 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. He 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 he 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. Hezel to please identify herself. She stated she was Stephanie Hezel, the owner of the dog. 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 dog to bring him back 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 if 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 new 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 Luna asked if he had been bitten by any other dogs on his route, and Mr. Lisman stated one time about two years ago. Mr. de Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 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 Mr. Lisman responded no, but he refers to his female customers as young ladies so as not to be rude to anybody. Ms. Coplan asked if the dog lunged at him or barked and the witness stated it lunged at him. Mr. Stinson asked where Mr. Lisman 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 he 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 -Luna asked if the dog came 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 he 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 further 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 in. Ms. Drake stated she did not call him back in, he 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. de Luna asked the name of the dog and Ms. Drake said Geronimo. She further 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 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 walls 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 other 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. Drake 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 want to come out and I did not want them 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 got 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 making sure the dog was going in the house and she was not looking at Mr. Lisman at the time. She added she did not see him hit the ground. Ms. Hagist asked to look at the picture of the bite submitted as Exhibit 2. Discussion ensued regarding the picture of the bite with blood running down Mr. Lismans calf. Ms. Hagist asked Ms. Drake 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. Hagist further questioned the picture of the wound and Mr. de Luna asked if the Board could see what picture Ms. Hagist was describing. Ms. Hagist stated she is looking at Exhibit 2 which looks like blood 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. He 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 taken 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. Drake to describe the mannerism of the dog as he went out the door; was he growling or snarling. Ms. Drake stated he did not seem angry when he went out or when he came back in. She further stated she did not call him, 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 Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board 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. Coplan 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. Ms. 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 after he had been bitten he told Ms. Drake 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 went to the post office to find out where the mail was, -Mr, Stinson asked --the- witness if .she was holding the other 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 Kelly 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 filed 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. Hezel 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 under Sec. 4- 10(1)(a) and the witness stated yes. Ms. Green asked if Ms. Caton subsequently got in touch with Mr. Lisman and Ms. Caton explained she played tag 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 Board 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 Board. 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. Ms. Hagist 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 Minutes of the Code 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 bite mailmen and delivery men on a fairly regular- basis; in dog language here is a man corning to the door, dog barks, rnan 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 dog is dangerous. Mr. de Luna asked the witness if there were other bites to delivery men or mailmen that do not get reported 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. bezel has taken precautions to never let this happen again. She stated Ms. Hegel gat 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 she would not declare this one vicious. Mr. de 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 times and never received stitches. Ms. Coplan 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 lie 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 coming out the door prior to the bite. Ms. Lisman stated it happened so fast he did 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 assumed was the oavner at that time. Mr. Lisman was excused from the podium. Chair- Harless asked Ms. Hezel if there was a statement she would like to make. Ms. Hezel asked if she could take a couple of minutes to talk about her dogs and Chair Harless stated as long as it pertains to the case. Chair Harless asked the witness to come to the podium and state her name and address. The witness stated Stephattle Hezel, 700 Bonita Road, Atlantic beach, FL 32233. Ms. Hezel 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 rosette, 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, Hezel stated her dogs are medium sized, 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 swims, they go to agility training, and she has a letter she would like to submit from the agility instructor as Exhibit 1. The witness stated the letter is from Maria Oehler, giving her background information and stating she would not consider the dog dangerous. The witness i`urther 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 Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November t, 2012 Page 6 of 11 mark all these materials as exhibits so the record is complete and in order. Ms. Green asked the witness it 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 Geronimo was in agility classes and she wanted to know if there were any classes where he was trained not to attack. Ms. Flezel stated no and explained what is involved with agility classes, ie obstacle courses, jumping through hoops, anything to mentally challenge the breed. Ms. Caplan 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. Caplan asked the witness why she thought it happened on that day. Ms. Hezel reiterated it has never happened before and 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 Bob Hammesfahr, a resident of Atlantic leach 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. 1- Iammesfahr stated he has known Ms. Hezel for quite some time, also works with rescue groups, and she asked hint 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 saute, 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 puric:ture; level three is when you have a full set of all 4 canines, but these bites are all oil 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 b, forensics says this is an aggressive dog, this is a (log that is out to kill. Mr. Hammesfahr said in examining Geronimo'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 posture, 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. I-Iezel's home three tithes 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. He 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 assent themselves trying to control the space around them. Ile further explained this is not speculation, this is documented in behavioral sciences which is where he has one of his Master's Degrees. Mr. Harnmesf`ahr stated this is what occurred in Geronimo'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 goad bite;, but the point is this is not an ongoing dangerous dog that needs to be 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. Ile stated this 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 Hatless 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, Ms. 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. Careen if she objected to Mr. Hammesfahr 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, if not, they will take 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 five 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, Hammesfahr 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 injury. 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 make a point of order so we know what we are motioning and what to consider when you are approving. Chair Hatless stated we need to keep in mind that Mr. Harnrnesfahr 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 Mt. Hammesfahr 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. Hammesfahr only gave Lis 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 Board did not declare a dog dangerous that has bitten someone and the dog bites again it leaves the City open to civil action, 11Rinotes of the Cade Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page €3 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 stating this is a factual determination for this Board whether or not Mr. Lisman was aggressively bitten or attacked. Ile reiterated it is a factual determination that this Board has to make. Mr. Jensen added what if a ten year cold girt 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 its to what happened that day. Mr. Jensen stated if there is a known condition and the City knows about it and we do not tape steps to correct it, there could be liability. Mr. Luthringer said we are here today making a factual determination. He further stated if we are making a factual determination on the nature and propensity of the dog to be a dangerous dog or not, how can liability stem from that later. Mr. Jensen stated you are not malting a factual determination based can the propensity of the dog to bite someone; you are making a determination whether the bite that happened was an aggressive bite or an_ aggressive attack. Mr. Luthringer wanted to bring Mr. 1Iammesfalir back to the podium to give testimony as to whether he has research on what would be considered an attack as apposed to aggressive or assertive, Mr. Jensen stated he did not believe we need to go there, . the man was bitten, we have pictures to show that. More questions and discussion ensued. Ms, Caplan had a question for Mr. Lisman. Mr. Lisman carne to the podium and Ms. Caplan 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 lie 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. lie reiterated that he is an animal lover and he does not think the dog should be considered dangerous. Ms. I•Iagist 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;, it the dog should bite again, how liable is the City. Ms. I- lagist 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 -1I. 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. Caplan asked Mr. Jensen if thee: was a termination of the dangerous dog classilic.ation, or does it last forever. Mr. Jensen stated it lasts forever and follows the dog even if it goes to a new Borne. Motion: The Board finds the dog, Geronimo owned U Stephanie Hezel whose address is 700 Bonita Road, not be declared as a dangerous dog under the provisions of Section 4-10 of the Code of Ordinances of the Cill of Atlantic Beach. Moved by de Luna, Seconded by liagist Char Harless asked if we vote and then have discussion and Mr. de Luna stated we have discussion and them 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. He 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 Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Pace 9 of 11 four dogs and she treats her dogs as if they could Fite 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. Lutluinger stated as the Ordinance is currently written he would have to held this is a dangerous clog. He further stated that looking at the Ordinance he wondered if they could have possibly meant any bite is an attack. He 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 ccrrnment. 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, which is the language of this particular cede. Ms. Coplan stated we are hamstrung by our wording and our definitions, as is usual in statutes and cedes. Ms. I-lagist 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 does 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: - 5 - de Luna, Hagist, Luthringer, Coplan, Stinson Nay: - 2 - Harless, Ouellette Motian Carried B. 330 Magnolia Road, Suzanne Leviseur and Cecilia Babillis, Police Case #12- 17084: Atlantic Beach City Code, Chapter 4, See. 4 -10 Dangeraus Dog. This item was taken out of sequence and acted on earlier in the meeting. C. 330 Magnolia Road, Suzanne Leviscur and Cecilia Babillis, Police Case X12-, 17085: Atlantic beach City Code, Chapter 4, See. 4 -10 Dangerovs Dog. This item was taken out of sequence and acted on earlier in the meeting D. 330 Magnolia Road, Suzanne Leviscur and Cecilia Babillis, Police Case #12- 17086: Atlantic Beach City Code, Chapter 4, Sec. 4-10 Dangerous Dag. This item was taken out of sequence and acted on earlier in the meeting. 5. Miscellaneous Business None Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 10 of 11 6. Adjournment There being no furt}aa discussion, the meeting adjouzn d at 33 A eAa aHess, Chair Day a . Williams, ,Secretary Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on November 1, 2012 Page 11 of 11