Loading...
5-8-12 Minutes Special Called Mtg CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES 6:00 P.M. — May 8, 2012 IN ATTENDANCE: Veda Harless, Chair Dayna Williams, Secretary Juliette Hagist Alan Jensen, City Attorney Richard Ouellette Suzanne Green, Prosecuting Attorney Nicholas Dodaro Benjamin de Luna, Alternate ABSENT: Barbara Weiss Ian Luthringer ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Vic Gualillo, Commander Kelly Caton, Animal Control Officer Chair Veda Harless called the meeting to order at 6:02 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 May 1, 2012 Moved by de Luna, Seconded by Hagist The motion was approved unanimously. 2. Administration of Oath to Defendants/Witnesses Chair Harless gave the oath to the defendants and witnesses. Chair Harless requested all parties keep their comments to the facts pertaining to the case. 3. New Business A. 579 Cruiser Lane, Kimberly Olson, Police Case #12- 01837: Atlantic Beach City Code, Chapter 4, Sec. 4 -10 Dangerous Dog. Prosecuting Attorney Suzanne Green presented her first case. Ms. Green reminded the Board we are looking at the Dangerous Dog Ordinance, which is having the City declare the dog a dangerous dog. Ms. Green stated we are looking for aggressively bitten, attacked, endangered or inflicted injury on a human and the sanctions thereunder. Ms. Green stated the first case on the agenda is Ms. Kimberly Olson, the owner of the dog, who resides at 579 Cruiser Lane. Ms. Green called Officer Ashmore to the podium. Chair Harless requested the record note that Ms. Olson is not present. Ms. Green asked the witness to state his name. The witness stated Officer Robert Ashmore. Ms. Green asked Mr. Ashmore if he was involved in a dog bite case at 579 Cruiser Lane. Mr. Ashmore stated that it was not a dog bite, but an aggressive dog. Ms. Green asked if it was on February 3, 2012, and Mr. Ashmore replied he did not recall the specific date, but he did recall the incident. Ms. Green asked if Mr. Ashmore worked with Officer Jevic and he answered yes. Ms. Green stated she could show him the police report to refresh his memory to the incident to which he was called, but not involved. Mr. Ashmore reviewed the report and stated it was the incident in question. Ms. Green asked Mr. Ashmore to explain to the Board what his involvement was and what were his discoveries. Mr. Ashmore stated he believed he was the original officer dispatched to 579 Cruiser Lane regarding the aggressive dog. Mr. Ashmore added that Sergeant Jevic arrived first and upon Sgt. Jevic's arrival something happened and Sgt. Jevic requested Officer Ashmore step up his pace to get to the location. Mr. Ashmore stated, when he got to the location, Sgt. Jevic had pulled his vehicle into the driveway as a barrier for himself and other residents in the area. Mr. Ashmore stated Sgt. Jevic informed him what had happened; indicating the dog had charged him (Sgt. Jevic) and he had pulled his taser and weapon. Mr. Ashmore stated they both tried to make contact with the resident (Ms. Olson) and they also spoke to other residents in the neighborhood, as listed in the report. Ms. Green asked Mr. Ashmore if, during his investigation, did it note the dog charged Sgt. Jevic and he responded yes. Ms. Green asked if, during his investigation, he witnessed the dog charge our Animal Control Officer and he responded no, he was not present during that part of the incident. Ms. Green asked if Mr. Ashmore spoke with Ms. Farwell. Mr. Ashmore responded that he spoke with Danella Cogswell. Ms. Green stated, so this was another resident, not Ms. Farwell, and he replied yes. Ms. Green asked what he learned from Ms. Cogswell. Mr. Ashmore stated that Ms. Cogswell relayed to him there had been several incidences where the dog would charge out into the roadway. Mr. Ashmore reported she made reference to an incident where her child was chased into her back yard and she was concerned the dog was acting aggressively, and her family was in fear of the dog. Ms. Green asked if it was correct, in Sgt. Jevic's report, that Officer Ashmore stated the dog had been growling and showing its teeth and barking. He confirmed that was true. Ms. Green asked if he knew the dog was off property and Mr. Ashmore stated Ms. Cogswell indicated the dog chased her child into her back yard. Ms. Green asked if he thought the dog was provoked in any way and he stated no. She asked if he had any further investigation or did he speak with Ms. Conrad. Mr. Ashmore responded that Sgt. Jevic spoke with Ms. Conrad and stated he did not recall talking to Ms. Conrad. Ms. Green asked if he spoke with Sgt. Jevic after reviewing Sgt. Jevic's report, and he replied no. Ms. Green then realized the report she was questioning was by Ms. Caton, the Animal Control Officer, and not Sgt. Jevic's report. Mr. Ashmore stated he was only familiar with Sgt. Jevic's report. Ms. Green asked him if he understood the City of Atlantic Beach issued a citation to declare the dog dangerous and if he had any other contact with the dog. Mr. Ashmore stated he was aware of the citation and the dog was already in the house when he arrived so he had no further contact with the dog. Ms. Green stated they would like to tender that report for the Board's review. Mr. Dodaro asked what was the original reason the police were called to the house. Mr. Ashmore stated because the dog ran out into the roadway chasing a child walking by the front of the property. Chair Harless asked if Sgt. Jevic was present at tonight's meeting and Mr. Ashmore stated he was unable to attend due to a prior engagement. Ms. Hagist asked where the dog is now and what kind of dog it is. Mr. Ashmore stated the call from dispatch indicated it was brown in color, but he never saw the dog once he Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on May 8, 2012 Page 2 of 13 arrived on scene. He stated he believed the dog was still on the property with the owner of the dog, but he was not sure. Chair Harless requested to see Sgt. Jevic's report and Ms. Green stated she had just admitted it to the Board. Mr. de Luna asked what conduct or behavior of the dog the witness observed. Mr. Ashmore reiterated the dog was already inside the house when he arrived so he did not observe the dog's behavior when it was outside. Mr. Ashmore repeated his statements regarding the incident that Sgt. Jevic encountered with the dog prior to his arrival. Chair Harless asked the witness if he had anything else he would like to add that might be pertinent. Mr. Ashmore stated no and Chair Harless excused the witness. Ms. Green called Ms. Farwell to the podium. Chair Harless asked the witness to state her name and address. The witness stated Joan Farwell, 566 Cruiser Lane, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233. Ms. Green asked Ms. Farwell to explain her connection with this case. The witness stated she has had direct contact with the animal in question and she witnessed Sgt. Jevic's interaction with the animal. Ms. Farwell stated she is the complainant who called to report the children being chased by the animal, off property, and she, too, has been aggressively terrorized by the animal. Ms. Green asked if this is the dog owned by Ms. Olson who resides at 579 Cruiser Lane, and the witness answered yes. Ms. Green asked if she was aware of the incident that occurred on February 3, 2012 and to tell the Board what she saw. Ms. Farwell stated she assumed Officer Jevic was responding to her calls to dispatch that day. Ms. Farwell stated the dog had already left its property and chased her son onto the driveway. Ms. Farwell stated her son is a twenty - five year old adult who was en route to his vehicle from her front door. Ms. Farwell stated the dog left its property and came onto her property in a very aggressive and vicious manner. Ms. Farwell explained that her son jumped in his car and she called the police. Ms. Farwell was told Animal Control was not available to respond. Ms. Farwell stated she called again when she observed, from inside her home, two children being chased into her yard. Ms. Farwell stated she insisted they send a patrol car and when Officer Jevic arrived she observed the incident of the dog charging Sgt. Jevic. The witness reiterated the same events that have been provided in earlier testimony regarding this incident. Ms. Green asked Ms. Farwell if she had filled out an affidavit for this February 3, 2012 incident and she replied yes. Ms. Green asked the witness to tell the Board about a prior incident Ms. Farwell had on January 28, 2012 with the same dog. Ms. Farwell stated she arrived home at approximately 6:00 pm and was walking to her front door when she noticed the dog just coming for her. Ms. Farwell stated that she froze, screamed, and the dog got within two feet of her, when her neighbor, who was replacing carpet for her, yelled at the dog and it stopped and started to back off. Ms. Green asked the witness if, in either of the two incidences, she had provoked the dog or approached the dog on his property. The witness stated absolutely not. Ms. Green then presented the witness with an Animal Control affidavit and asked if that was Ms. Farwell's signature and she replied yes. Ms. Green stated it was notarized. Ms. Green then presented Ms. Farwell's Addendum A as the first incident on January 28, 2012 and stated she also had the February 3, 2012 incident. Ms. Green then presented a picture of the dog and asked the witness if it was a fair and accurate description of what the dog looks like and if the witness knows what kind of dog it is. Ms. Farwell stated it was a pit bull and the picture was accurate. Ms. Green then presented the documents to the Board for review. Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on May 8, 2012 Page 3 of 13 Chair Harless stated it was her understanding the neighbor was hearing impaired and asked the witness how, or if, she made contact with the neighbor on any occasion. Ms. Farwell stated she has not spoken to or had the opportunity to meet these folks. Ms. Farwell added that every time she approaches her front door she looks to see if the dog is out or on its leash in the front yard before she leaves her home. Chair Harless inquired if the dog was contained in the front yard or is there a fenced back yard. The witness stated there is a fenced back yard. She stated the dog has now been put on a leash (after these incidents) that allows it to make it to the roadway. Ms. Farwell stated she has witnessed children walking to school and the dog goes after them and she is not convinced, in any way, that the leash and its anchor will secure this animal. Ms. Hagist asked the witness if the owner of the dog, Ms. Olson, is aware of what her dog has been doing and how it has terrorized the witness and others and has she done anything to contain the dog. Ms. Farwell stated the neighbor is aware and has not done anything to contain the animal. Ms. Farwell was excused and Ms. Green called the next witness. Ms. Green called the Animal Control Officer to the podium and asked her to state her name. The witness stated Kelley Caton, Animal Control Officer for the City of Atlantic Beach. Ms. Green asked Ms. Caton if she responded to the incident involving the dog owned by Ms. Olson. Ms. Caton stated she did respond and Ms. Green asked her to tell the Board what she found. Ms. Caton stated she came in and spoke to Ms. Farwell. Ms. Caton added she had spoken to Ms. Farwell on the previous incident, as well, and they were in the process of getting affidavits back and forth. Ms. Caton stated she also had a second phone call from Ms. Conrad. Ms. Caton stated that she spoke with both of them, gave them affidavits and tried several times to make contact with Ms. Olson. Ms. Caton stated that Ms. Olson is hearing impaired and does not hear when you knock on the door. Ms. Green asked the witness what she found when she spoke with Ms. Farwell. Ms. Caton stated the discussion included the same testimony presented earlier, adding that Ms. Farwell is afraid of the dog. Ms. Green asked if Ms. Caton spoke with Ms. Conrad and did Ms. Conrad submit an affidavit as well. Ms. Caton stated that was correct. Ms. Green asked Ms. Caton to describe what Ms. Conrad told her. Ms. Caton stated Ms. Conrad told her there have been several times that she has gone outside and the dog was in the yard. Ms. Conrad wrote an affidavit for an incident that occurred on January 31, 2012. Ms. Green asked the witness to describe what happened and Ms. Caton stated that Ms. Conrad was present at the meeting. Ms. Green instructed Ms. Caton to go ahead and describe the incident. Ms. Caton stated Ms. Conrad was taking her garbage out late at night and the pit bull charged her. Ms. Green asked if Ms. Caton issued a citation and she stated it was issued by Sgt. Jevic on February 3, 2012, citation number 3926, for the dog being at large. Ms. Green asked Ms. Caton about sending a letter to Ms. Olson, dated February 8, 2012; regarding the investigation about the dog. Ms. Caton stated she sent several letters to Ms. Olson, and the February 8, 2012 letter asked her to contact Animal Control so they could meet with her. Ms. Green presented the witness with an Animal Complaint Affidavit and asked Ms. Caton if it was hers. Ms. Caton responded yes. Ms. Green asked the witness what the date of the affidavit was and what it stated. Ms. Caton stated it was dated April 3, 2012 and it stated that Animal Control had received several complaints. Upon further review of the report, Ms. Caton realized she had been presented with a different affidavit (also dated April 3, 2012) which was confirming whether or not Ms. Olson received the letter. Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on May 8, 2012 Page 4 of 13 Ms. Green then provided Ms. Caton with a letter signed by the Chief of Police, Mike Classey. Ms. Caton stated it was the letter sent, after her investigation, informing Ms. Olson the City wanted to declare the dog dangerous. Ms. Green than introduced the aforementioned reports to the Board as composite number three. Ms. Green addressed the fact that they had been at a prior hearing regarding Ms. Olson's case and asked Ms. Caton if she felt proper notice was given at the last hearing for Ms. Olson to be present today. Ms. Caton responded yes, and Ms. Green asked again if proper notice was established at the last hearing and what was the reason for the last hearing to be continued. Ms. Caton stated Ms. Olson rejected the interpreter the City had provided and she requested a different interpreter. Ms. Green asked for the record to reflect that the City had provided a certified interpreter for tonight's hearing. Chair Harless asked Ms. Caton if she had received any complaints on this dog prior to January's incident and were the shots and registration current. Ms. Caton stated the first complaint was January 28, 2012 and she did not check his shot record because he had not bitten anyone. Ms. Harless asked if that was a requirement when they receive complaints and the witness stated not unless they have bitten a person or another animal. Ms. Hagist asked the witness for her recommendation. Ms. Caton stated the dog was fine when it was around the owner, but it is not fine when it is not around the owner. The witness stated her professional recommendation is the dog should never be allowed in public away from the owner. Ms. Caton stated she felt the dog being muzzled, the double lock enclosure and everything that is in the Statute would be a fair recommendation. Ms. Caton added that when the dog is away from the owner it is really not a nice dog. Ms. Hagist asked if Ms. Olson was aware of these recommendations. Ms. Caton said she has met with Ms. Olson several times and a lot of the communication is written. Ms. Caton stated Ms. Olson has been given several copies of the Ordinance, underlined and highlighted, and they discussed the muzzling and double lock enclosure. Ms. Hagist asked if Ms. Olson had complied and the witness stated she did not believe so; but we have not declared the dog dangerous, so we have no recourse. Ms. Caton stated Ms. Olson bought a cable and tied the dog in the yard, but the witness believes the dog should not even be allowed to do that. Chair Harless asked the witness if she had anything else pertinent to add and Ms. Caton stated no. Mr. de Luna asked how much Ms. Caton had observed the dog herself, versus someone else telling her about the dog. Ms. Caton stated she has been to Ms. Olson's house a minimum of three times and she has observed, touched, petted and talked to the dog. Ms. Caton added that when the dog is with Ms. Olson it is a nice dog. Ms. Caton stated she had not observed the dog away from Ms. Olson, like these other people have, but she does not disbelieve the dog is not a nice dog when away from the owner. Mr. de Luna asked if the dog had ever been aggressive to the witness and she stated no. Chair Harless excused the witness and Ms. Green called Ms. Conrad to the podium. Chair Harless asked the witness to state her name and address. The witness stated Marcia Ann Conrad, 567 Cruiser Lane, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233. Ms. Green stated Ms. Conrad filed an affidavit dated Tuesday, January 31, 2012, and asked Ms. Conrad if she recognized her affidavit, and could she tell the Board what occurred regarding the dog. Ms. Conrad stated she recognized the affidavit and stated that she was taking her garbage out at night and placed it next to the curb and the dog charged her. Ms. Conrad stated she ordered the dog to go home and it did go home, but she was really upset. Ms. Conrad added that she had an earlier incident where the dog Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on May 8, 2012 Page 5 of 13 charged her and she is scared of the dog and believed his chain would not hold him if he wanted to charge another dog or person. Ms. Green asked if she had provoked the dog in any way and if the dog was off property. The witness stated she did not provoke the dog and it did come off its property. Ms. Green stated that between January 28, 2012 and February 3, 2012, Ms. Conrad knew of three aggressive incidents. Ms. Conrad stated yes and that she has seen others in addition to those. Ms. Green then tendered the affidavit to the Board to review. Mr. de Luna asked the witness to describe the dog's behavior when she stated he charged her. Ms. Conrad stated he was growling, barking, teeth showing, acting like he was going to eat her up, but he did not bite. Mr. de Luna asked if the dog retreated after the owner called him back and she replied yes. Ms. Green reiterated that Ms. Olson had been given proper notice prior to the last hearing and that was all introduced into evidence at that time. Ms. Green added that Ms. Olson was present at the last hearing and the hearing was continued at her request. She further stated she believes Ms. Olson waived the statutory time period and we set a second date and time at her request. Chair Harless asked if there was anybody present for Ms. Olson, any witnesses. Ms. Green asked the record note that at the last meeting Ms. Olson and her son were both present. Motion: The Board finds the dog Zihara, owned by Kimberly Olson, whose address is 579 Cruiser Lane, be declared as a dangerous dog under the provisions of Section 4 -10 and Section 4 -11 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlantic Beach. Moved by de Luna, Seconded by Hagist Chair Harless asked if there was any discussion on this matter. Mr. de Luna wanted to go on record that it sounds as though Ms. Olson has been given many opportunities to come and her not being here tonight makes us decide for the prosecution as we have no recourse other than to classify the dog as dangerous. Mr. Ouellette stated he agreed with that and felt like we have a dog here on the verge of doing some very serious injury to someone. Mr. Ouellette added the dog was unpredictable when away from its owner and sounded vicious to him. He stated he believed someone would get seriously injured, therefore, he was going to vote yes on this motion. Chair Harless stated she agreed and believed there is significant testimony that there is an aggressive dog and, regardless, it is her understanding the City of Atlantic Beach does not allow dogs to roam. Chair Harless asked if there were any other questions before they took the vote. Ms. Green stated she would like Officer Gualillo to testify as to what the cost of the interpreter is for the City of Atlantic Beach. Chair Harless asked if it was within our rights to assess that as a fine. Chair Harless gave the oath to Officer Vic Gualillo. Chair Harless asked the witness to state his name and position. The witness stated Victor Gualillo, Commander of the Atlantic Beach Police Department, Commander over the Animal Control Division. Ms. Green asked Mr. Gualillo if the City was required to hire a certified sign language interpreter for this case today. Mr. Gualillo responded that was correct. Ms. Green asked how much the cost to the City would be. The witness stated for a minimum two hours it was one hundred and twenty dollars. Ms. Green recommended the amount be assessed to Ms. Olson. Mr. Ouellette asked if the interpreter was present and Ms. Green stated yes. Discussion ensued. Ms. Hagist asked if they are within their rights to assess the charge to Ms. Olson and Ms. Green explained the interpreter stated they may not be able to with ADA. Ms. Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on May 8, 2012 Page 6 of 13 Green advised the Board to assess the charge if legally possible, and if not legal, it would not be assessed. Chair Harless asked Ms. Hagist to rephrase that for the full motion to include the dangerous dog. Mr. Jensen stated that she needed to do a second motion. Mr. Ouellette stated we need to vote on the first one. Chair Harless stated we will need to vote on both then. Discussion ensued and Chair Harless asked if there was more discussion on the first motion to accept the recommendation this is a dangerous dog. Chair Harless stated the motion was accepted. The motion was approved unanimously. Chair Harless asked for a second motion. Motion: The Board recommends we assess Ms. Olson to pay one hundred and twenty dollars if legally possible and does not violate the ADA. Moved by Hagist, Seconded by Ouellette The motion was approved unanimously. B. 360 Aquatic Drive, Lance Friedman, Police Case #12- 04896: Atlantic Beach City Code, Chapter 4, Sec. 4 -10 Dangerous Dog. Ms. Green presented the case stating it involves a dog -on -dog bite from 360 Aquatic Drive. Ms. Green called Officer Alex Hinton to the podium and asked the witness to state his name for the record. The witness stated Officer Alex Hinton of the Atlantic Beach Police Department. Ms. Green asked the witness if he was called to a disturbance at 360 Aquatic Drive for a dog bite on March 26, 2012. Mr. Hinton stated yes. Ms. Green asked Mr. Hinton if he had his police report and would he please tell the Board what happened. Mr. Hinton stated he was dispatched to 360 Aquatic Drive in reference to a dog that had bitten another dog. Mr. Hinton stated upon his arrival at the three -way stop on Aquatic Drive and the 300 block, he observed a group of people and a dog on the corner of the sidewalk. The witness stated he approached and made contact with Ms. Louise Hunley, the owner of the injured dog, spoke with her and got her information and released her from the scene so she may get her dog to a vet. Mr. Hinton stated he then made contact with Mr. Lance Friedman and Ms. Katie Kennerly, the owners of the attacking dog and got both sides of the story and wrote his report. Ms. Green asked he learned from Mr. Friedman and Ms. Kennerly. Mr. Hinton stated the story was consistent with everybody involved. Ms. Hunley was walking her dog, Puddin, in the 300 block of Aquatic Drive when Mr. Friedman and Ms. Kennerly were exiting their apartment and their dog exited and attacked. Ms. Green asked if the attacking dog went off property and Mr. Hinton stated he was not sure. Ms. Green asked if the attacking dog was provoked in any way and the witness stated he did not believe it was provoked. Ms. Green asked if he saw injuries to the dog and what kind of injuries. Mr. Hinton stated he did see injury to one of the front paws. Ms. Green asked what kind of dogs were the attacking dog and the victim dog. The witness stated the attacking dog was a black lab /pit bull mix and the victim dog was a tan mixed breed dog. Ms. Green asked the witness if he prepared a report for this incident and he said yes. Ms. Green Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on May 8, 2012 Page 7 of 13 submitted the report to the Board for review. Chair Harless asked what was the size relationship of the lab /pit bull to the dog that was bitten. Mr. Hinton stated he did not see the attacking dog when he arrived on scene, it was back inside the house. Chair Harless asked how big the dog was that was bitten and the witness replied medium size. Mr. Dodaro asked to clarify, that the dog that was attacked was being walked down the street and the attacking dog was in the yard or exited their house through an open door and attacked. The witness stated that it was his understanding that the attacking dog exited the open front door and attacked the dog being walked down the street. Mr. Dodaro asked if the owner of the attacking dog stated this was the case and the witness stated, yes, there was no dispute. Mr. de Luna wanted to further clarify if this took place in the attacking dog's driveway or in the street. Mr. Hinton stated it was not in his report, but the Animal Control Officer's report stated in was in the driveway or at the street. Chair Harless asked the witness if there was anything else he would like to add. Mr. Hinton stated no and Chair Harless excused him from the podium. Prosecuting Attorney Suzanne Green called the attacking dog's owner, Mr. Friedman to the podium. Chair Harless asked the witness to state his name and address. The witness stated Lance Friedman, 360 Aquatic Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233. Ms. Green asked the witness to explain the incident that occurred on March 27, 2012. Mr. Friedman stated that he and his girlfriend (and also roommate) Katie Kennerly had just gotten back from out of town. Mr. Friedman stated they had their friend, Michael Mendoza who lives a few houses over, taking care of their dog Judah for the weekend. The witness stated they were going to the car to get a bite to eat and Judah loves car rides and was very excited. Mr. Friedman stated the dog was already outside of the house and it was his mistake for not having him leashed up to take him to the car. He stated when Judah saw the dog in the street, he approached the dog and before he knew it they had started fighting. The witness stated Judah is very friendly, playful, and has never been in a fight before. The witness stated he believes the excitement of going for a car ride and the fact they had just returned from out of town added to the excitability of the situation. Mr. Friedman stated he went to break it up as quickly as possible and Ms. Kennerly went into the house to get Judah's leash and took him inside and the police were immediately called. The witness stated Ms. Hunley's dog did have it's paw up, but did not seem vitally injured or severely hurt. Mr. Friedman stated the dog, Puddin, did have some damage and, as a dog lover, he wanted to assess the damage but Ms. Hunley did not want us to touch her dog or do anything, which he understood. He stated he felt terrible about the situation. Mr. Friedman reiterated how unusual this behavior was, as Judah is very friendly with other dogs and with people. The witness brought a letter from his veterinarian of three years assessing Judah's demeanor around people. Mr. Friedman also brought multiple pictures of Judah throughout the years to show his involvement with people and other dogs, along with a letter of testimony from a friend who owns four dogs that Judah plays with and has gone to the dog park with many times. Chair Harless advised the witness that he could present copies of everything to the Board for review, which he obliged. Mr. Friedman wanted to reiterate that Judah has never had problems with dogs or people, this behavior was very out of the ordinary and he had no idea what started the dog fight. Chair Harless asked if Judah had ever seen this dog before and the witness stated he did not believe so, even though they live in the same neighborhood. The witness added he has had Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on May 8, 2012 Page 8 of 13 Judah since he was a puppy and he has always been great. Mr. Friedman added this whole incident was very shocking and Judah had a small bite wound on his leg, as well, but Mr. Friedman did not feel it needed medical attention. The witness further stated the situation was very overwhelming at the time and Ms. Hunley instantly took her dog to the veterinarian and they had been in contact since then. Chair Harless asked if Judah's shots were up to date and if the witness was making restitution to Ms. Hunley for the medical bills. Mr. Friedman stated the shots were up to date and he had the records for the Board. The witness also brought a letter stating he had provided Ms. Hunley five hundred dollars as a first payment for her veterinary bill of over fourteen hundred dollars with both their signatures on it. Mr. Friedman further explained Ms. Hunley had taken her dog to the emergency critical care unit, as it was 11:00 pm at night. Chair Harless asked Ms. Green and the Board if there were any other questions for Mr. Friedman. Mr. de Luna asked the witness where the fight took place; was it in his driveway. Mr. Friedman stated it was actually on the outskirts of his driveway where the roads intersect. Mr. Ouellette asked why the dog was off leash and did he run through an open gate. Mr. Friedman stated he was off leash because he had given him a bath earlier in the day and his collar got wet and had been taken off. Mr. Friedman explained the front door is right where the driveway pulls up to and it was only about five feet for Judah to get in the car. Mr. Friedman added it was a last minute decision to let him jump in the car without putting his leash on, but Judah saw the dog before he jumped into the vehicle. Mr. Ouellette asked the witness if he observed the two dogs approach each other. The witness stated he had not noticed Ms. Hunley walking her dog and it was his mistake not to have Judah on the leash. Mr. de Luna asked if anybody saw the actual fight between the two dogs. Mr. Friedman stated that Ms. Hunley witnessed it and he saw Judah approach her dog and then it got loud because the dogs had started fighting. Mr. Friedman added some neighbors had come outside, due to the commotion, but he does not believe anyone else witnessed the fight. Mr. de Luna asked the size of the other dog. Mr. Friedman stated the medical report had about forty -five pounds. Mr. de Luna then asked how much Judah weighed and the witness stated eighty -eight pounds. Chair Harless asked the witness if he had anything else he would like to add. Mr. Friedman stated it had been emotional for both parties and he knows how it is, being a dog lover himself. Mr. Friedman added how out of the ordinary this behavior was for his dog, and he honestly does not believe Judah ran up to Ms. Hunley's dog to attack it, maybe the situation was just overwhelming. He stated he feels bad about it and has been in contact with Ms. Hunley to see how her dog is doing and to give her the first payment. He stated he is glad her dog is doing much better. Chair Harless thanked the witness and he was excused from the podium. Ms. Green called Animal Control Officer Kelley Caton and asked her to state her name for the record. The witness stated Officer Caton with Atlantic Beach Animal Control. Ms. Green asked the witness if she responded to an incident of a dog -on -dog bite on March 27, 2012. Ms. Caton stated she actually responded on March 28, 2012. Ms. Caton stated it happened when she was off and Officer Hinton left her the information to follow up the next day. Ms. Green asked the witness what she determined from her investigation. Ms. Caton stated both Ms. Hunley and Mr. Friedman gave her the same story they had provided to Officer Hinton. Ms. Caton stated that Ms. Hunley was walking her dog on leash in front of Mr. Friedman's house and Mr. Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on May 8, 2012 Page 9 of 13 Friedman's dog came out and attacked her dog. Ms. Green asked was there any provocation involved and the witness stated no. Ms. Green asked if the witness made a report for this incident and showed Ms. Caton a copy of the report. Ms. Caton stated it was a copy of her report. Ms. Green asked if Ms. Caton's report stated the ten year old dog, the victim, was a forty pound mixed breed and Ms. Caton responded yes. Ms. Green asked the witness if she took some pictures of the dog's injuries and presented them to the witness. The witness affirmed the pictures were hers. Ms. Green asked if they were a fair and accurate representation of the injuries to the front paw and the rear. Ms. Caton stated the dog's right shoulder was stitched up and had gauze over it and there was also a bite to the rear leg. Ms. Green asked if the witness issued citations for this incident. Ms. Caton stated she issued two, one for biting, and one for the rabies shot, which was not up to date. Ms. Caton stated the Florida State Statute states the dog has to have a current rabies vaccine. The witness issued it to Mr. Friedman and told him if he got the shots within five days, she would rescind it. Ms. Green asked if it had been brought up to date and the witness stated yes. Ms. Green then tendered the report and photographs to the Board. Ms. Hagist asked Ms. Caton if she felt this was an out of the ordinary incident and the witness stated she believed so. Ms. Hagist asked if she believed this was an isolated incident and the witness stated that was her belief. Mr. de Luna asked if Ms. Caton had any prior incidents with Judah. She stated no and added that both the dogs were neutered and she found that interesting. Mr. Ouellette asked the witness to repeat that. Ms. Caton reiterated that both dogs were neutered and normally when she sees aggression between animals there is usually extra testosterone involved. Mr. de Luna asked if this took place in the evening and the witness stated it happened about 10:30 pm. Mr. de Luna asked if the intersection was lit in any way so people could see what was going on. The witness stated she did not know. Chair Harless asked the witness if there was anything else she would like to add. Ms. Caton stated no and was excused from the podium. Ms. Green called Ms. Hunley to the podium. Chair Harless asked the witness to state her name and address. The witness stated Louise Hunley, 591 Aquatic Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233. Ms. Green asked the witness if she was the owner of the dog involved in this incident and how much her dog weighed. Ms. Hunley stated she was the owner and her dog weighed about forty pounds. Ms. Green asked Ms. Hunley how long she had lived at that residence, did she file an Affidavit Complaint regarding this incident and would she describe to the Board what occurred on that evening. Ms. Hunley stated she teaches night classes at a college and likes to take her dog for a walk before they go to bed. She explained she was walking her dog on a leash around the circle; Aquatic Drive is a loop street and she stated she wanted to make one thing very clear. The witness stated they were half a block away from Mr. Friedman's house. Ms. Hunley added they were nowhere near his driveway; it was two to three houses down in the middle of the street where the attack took place and it was under a street light. Ms. Hunley stated she was walking her dog when she saw the dog charge, it just ran from his house from his driveway three quarters of the way down the block before it turned and attacked and jumped her dog. The witness stated she started screaming and Mr. Friedman and his girlfriend were there and he did come and pull his dog off of hers. Ms. Green asked if the dog obeyed any commands from the owner and the witness stated no. She stated the owner grabbed it by the neck and Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on May 8, 2012 Page 10 of 13 pulled it off her dog. Ms. Green asked if the witness had seen the photographs of the injuries and if she took the dog to the emergency room. Ms. Hunley stated she had seen the photographs and she took her dog to the emergency hospital. Ms. Hunley stated her dog could not walk; it was holding up its foot and had a deep puncture wound in the shoulder and a couple of other puncture wounds underneath on its stomach where the dog had tried to get him. Ms. Green asked the witness if she had any knowledge that the other dog was injured. Ms. Hunley stated after speaking with the other dog's owner, her dog got a lick or two in. Ms. Green asked how long Mr. Friedman had lived at that location and the witness stated she did not know. Ms. Green asked if Ms. Hunley's dog provoked Mr. Friedman's dog in any way and the witness stated no, her dog is ten and a half years old and was walking on a leash. Chair Harless asked Ms. Hunley if she had ever seen the dog before. The witness stated no. Mr. Dodaro stated the photographs indicated her dog was injured on multiple locations and asked if that was correct. Ms. Hunley stated one leg was bandaged for the IV from the surgery, it was the other two legs that were injured. Mr. de Luna asked the witness if her dog had ever had any occasion to have a fight with another dog and she replied no. Mr. Dodaro asked Ms. Hunley to describe the distance between when the dog came out of the house and where she was standing at the time. Ms. Hunley stated Mr. Friedman lives on one side of the intersection where Aquatic Drive loops and then goes straight, and she was two and a half houses past the intersection in the middle of the street when the dog came out; so it is roughly the distance across the street, the corner house, the next house, and about half of the third one down where the dog got her dog. Mr. Dodaro reiterated the dog charged from the owner's doorway all the way to where you were and then proceeded to attack your dog. The witness stated it was from the owner's driveway to where she was standing. Mr. Dodaro asked if prior to the attack, did she attempt to block the dog from accessing her dog or do anything to prevent the attack. Ms. Hunley stated no sir, it was a pit bull with no collar, no leash, and the owner's were far enough away that she could not try to do anything. Chair Harless asked if there were any other questions or if the witness had anything else she would like to add. Ms. Hunley stated, as Mr. Friedman said, both of us were very upset. Ms. Hunley explained her dog is older and it is disconcerting when you feel that you cannot walk your dog on a leash, on your own street, in your own neighborhood, in safety. Ms. Hunley stated it was upsetting to think that and it is just a question of owner responsibility. Chair Harless asked the witness if she felt Mr. Friedman was being a responsible owner from this incident. Ms. Hunley responded she hopes so, she thinks so, yes. Chair Harless asked if there were any other questions, then excused the witness from the podium. Chair Harless asked if there was anybody else who would like to bear witness for either of the parties. A witness stated he would like to say something. Chair Harless asked him to come to the podium and state his name and address and his relationship to which party. The witness stated Michael Mendoza, 429 Aquatic Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233. Mr. Mendoza stated he had known Mr. Friedman for some years now and has watched Judah grow up. He stated he has dogs of his own, lives in the very same neighborhood, and his dogs interact with Judah without any problem. The witness stated he has a twenty week old dachshund and a year and a half old golden retriever and he sees no problem with them interacting with Judah at all. Mr. Mendoza stated Judah had actually been in his care the weekend before this happened and Judah Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on May 8, 2012 Page 11 of 13 stayed at his house, playing with his dogs, and he really feels this is uncharacteristic for Judah. Chair Harless asked if the witness had seen any other aggressive behavior since then. Mr. Mendoza stated Mr. Friedman used to live in a place with lots of roommates, people in and out all the time, and there was never any aggression with the people or their pets. Ms. Green stated to Mr. Mendoza that it sounded like all his interactions with Judah have been in his home with other animals and other people. Mr. Mendoza stated that was not the case, he has been walking his dogs and met Judah in the street. Ms. Green asked if Judah was leashed at that time and the witness responded yes. The witness added that at the other residence with multiple roommates Judah was allowed to roam free because there was a large yard and he has seen Judah unrestrained and without the owner and there was never any aggression there either. The witness stated he did not witness this incident, he just wanted to attest to Judah's behavior. Mr. de Luna asked the witness, in the time that he has known Judah, has he ever attacked any dog or shown any aggressive behavior. Mr. Mendoza stated he has never witnessed any aggressive behavior. Chair Harless thanked the witness and excused him from the podium. Chair Harless asked if anybody else had something to add. Ms. Green stated she wanted to direct the Board during their discussion to follow the Ordinance regarding an aggressive bite. Chair Harless stated we have heard both parties and we need a motion to determine whether or not this is a dangerous dog. Mr. de Luna asked Ms. Green if she was going after aggressive bite, but that is with regards to a human being, is that correct. Ms. Green responded by stating City Ordinance Sec. 4- 10(la) which pertains to a human. Mr. de Luna stated he believed it should be Ordinance Sec. 4- 10(lb) and much discussion followed. The Board discussed whether or not they had issued the citation under the correct Ordinance that Ms. Green had instructed them to follow. After more discussion and review of the citations and affidavits, it was determined the Animal Control Officer Kelley Caton's Affidavit, dated April 3, 2012, referred to Ordinance Sec. 4- 10(lb). Chair Harless asked Ms. Green to confirm if she was asking for just dangerous dog and is it correct that they are not looking at Sec. 4 -12. Ms. Green confirmed that was correct. Chair Harless reiterated the motion here would be whether or not this is a dangerous dog and did she have a motion for dangerous dog. Motion: The Board moves the dog not be deemed a dangerous dog. Moved by Harless, Seconded by Hagist Discussion ensued. Mr. Ouellette stated this all revolves around the word severe and the Ordinance reads severely injured or killed a domestic animal. Mr. Ouellette stated his vote would hinge on whether or not this was a severe injury. Mr. Ouellette stated he did not think so, it was not life threatening, immediate care was sought and given, and Mr. Friedman is paying for this in agreement with the injured dog's owner. Mr. Ouellette stated he did not think this dog should be declared dangerous, nor does he think we should give Mr. Friedman any instructions on how to control his dog in the future. Mr. de Luna stated, a point for clarification, the Ordinance does read severe injury means any physical injury that results in broken bones, multiple bites, or disfiguring lacerations requiring sutures or reconstructive surgery. Mr. de Luna addressed Mr. Ouellette and asked if that changes his opinion and Mr. Ouellette stated it does not. Mr. Ouellette requested the motion be read one more time. Chair Harless stated the motion Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on May 8, 2012 Page 12 of 13 is that we will not find Mr. Friedman's dog as a dangerous dog. Chair Harless asked if they were ready to vote. The motion was approved unanimously. 4. Miscellaneous Business None 5. Adjournment There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 7:19 p.m. 9CI CA '� a Veda Harless, Chair 044 (Aat:d/v-- ,, r a L. Williams, Secretary Minutes of the Code Enforcement Board on May 8, 2012 Page 13 of 13