Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 08 19 Code Enforcement Board Regular Minutes MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING 1. Call to Order. Pleda:e of Allea:iance The Code Enforcement Board meeting was called to order Wednesday, August 19, 1997 at 7:05 p.m. by Chairperson Schneider in the Municipal Building (City Hall, 1126 East State Road 434, Winter Springs, FL). The Pledge of Allegiance followed. 2. Roll Call Also Present Anne Schneider, Chairperson, present Marc Clinch, present Ken Haines, present Bob Gray, present Kitty Reilly, present Lurene Lyzen, present Joanne Krebs, present AI White, Code Enforcement Inspector Captain Bob Pieper, Code Enforcement Officer The Chair welcomed the two new members to the board: Marc Clinch and Joanne Krebs. 3. Approval of the June 17. 1997 Rea:ular Meetina: Minutes Motion by Haines, seconded by Lyzen; Motion carried approving the minutes as written. Gray commented about how much the minutes have been streamlined. Captain Pieper stated that audio tapes of the meetings are available if more detail is needed. Consensus of the Board to move the elections (Item 4 and 5) to the end of the meeting. 4. Election of the Chairman Gray nominated Haines for Chairman. Haines accepted the nomination. Motion: Close the nominations. Motion by Lyzen. Second by Gray. Vote: Krebs, aye; Reilly, aye; Clinch, aye; Gray, aye; Haines, aye; Schneider, aye; Lyzen, aye. Motion passed. Motion: Elect Haines for Chairman. Motion by Gray. Second by Schneider. Vote: Gray, aye; Haines, aye; Clinch, aye; Schneider, aye; Krebs, aye; Lyzen, aye; Reilly, aye. Motion passed. 5. Election of the Vice-Chairman Reilly nominated Lyzen for Vice-Chairman. Lyzen accepted the nomination. Motion: Close the nominations. Motion by Gray. Second by Haines. Vote: Reilly, aye; Clinch, aye; Haines, aye; Lyzen, aye; Krebs, aye; Gray, aye; Schneider, aye. Motion passed. MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 2 OF 14 Motion: Elect Lyzen for Vice-Chairman. Motion by Reilly. Second by Haines. Vote: Gray, aye; Haines, aye; Krebs, aye; Lyzen, aye; Schneider, aye; Reilly, aye; Clinch, aye. Motion passed. 6. Discussion of Closed and Pendina: Cases Lyzen asked about the North Devon cases which were brought up under the discussion of closed and pending cases at the June meeting. White explained that the meter readers made complaints indicating that the meters to be read were obstructed. White investigated, and the meters were not obstructed. A procedure has been established which should not involve code enforcement unless necessary. The meter readers, or any other employee of the city, can use door hangers to notify occupants of a complaint. Case #97013582 (page 2) -- The city put up a banner without a permit; problem corrected. Case #97013584 (page 2) -- White said he received a complaint about open sewage pouring out of the side of a hill, and when he investigated he found a drainage pipe (not sewage) running from the house; problem corrected. Case #97013893 (page 3) -- White explained that the house was unidentifiable due to the house number not being posted; there is a code provided for the homeowner to exhibit a number on a post, on the mailbox, or on the house. Numbers must be at least three (3) inches in height. 7. Case #97011304, 701 Heather Lane Section 13-2(b): Rotted Fence Owner: Gustavo & Jacqueline Aponte Morta:aa:ee: Inland Morta:aa:e Corp. White stated that this case was corrected; therefore, will not be presented. 8. Case #97012005, Intersection of Shepard Road and Sheoah Boulevard Section 16-53: I1lea:al Sia:ns Owner: PEl Homes, Inc. White stated that this case was corrected; therefore, will not be presented. 9. Case #97012007, Intersection of Sheoah Boulevard and State Road 434 Section 16-53: IlIea:al Sia:ns Owner: PEl Homes, Inc. White stated that this case was corrected; therefore, will not be presented. 10. Case #97001971, 141 Woodleaf Drive Section 13-2(c): Untended Property Owner: Pulte Home Corporation White stated that this case was corrected; therefore, will not be presented. 11. Case #95008568, 639 Pearl Road Section 13-2(d): Staa:nant Pool Owner: Louis & Frances Rodria:uez MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 3 OF 14 Morta:aa:ee: Homeside Lendina: Inc./BancBoston White stated that this case was corrected; therefore, will not be presented. 12. Case #97014296, 639 Pearl Road Section 13-2(b): Trash in Yard Owner: Louis & Frances Rodria:uez Morta:aa:ee: Homeside Lendina: Inc./BancBoston White stated that this case was corrected; therefore, will not be presented. 13. Case #97012006, Intersection of Hayes Road and State Road 434 Section 16-53: IlIea:al Sia:ns Owner: Heritaa:e American Homes, Inc. White stated that this case was corrected; therefore, will not be presented. 14. Case #97012008, Intersection of Moss Road and State Road 419 Section 16-53: IlIea:al Sia:ns Owner: Heritaa:e American Homes, Inc. White stated that this case was corrected; therefore, will not be presented. 15. Case #97013309, 216 Albert Street Section 4-1: Animal at lara:e Owner: Hamid F. Fard & Jon Feshan Morta:aa:ee: Capstead Morta:aa:e Corporation Occupants: Gary Dunn & Sylvia Tyson Witnesses were swom in for testimony. Pieper: Case # 97013309 is a matter of violation of section 4-1 (20.23) of the Seminole County and Winter Springs Animal Control laws; Ordinances for an animal at large. This case first came to the code inspectors attention from an anonymous complaint called into him about two rottweiler dogs that reside at 216 Albert Street that are constantly getting out of the owners property, off the owners property, and terrorizing people in the neighborhood. At that time the code inspector did research into past cases called into the police department as well as to the animal control department which you have in your packages, but I will summarize for you: . On September 24, 1996, the animal control officer responded to a complaint of a loose dog at 216 Albert Street. Upon arrival found the dog in a fenced rear yard. . On January 25, 1997, Winter Springs Police Department responded to complaint of an animal at large, and issued a written warning to Mr. Gary Dunn. . On March 13, 1997, Winter Springs Police Department responded to animal at large complaint and posted a written warning at 216 Albert Street. . On March 15, 1997, two days later, Winter Springs Police Department again responded to an animal at large complaint, and posted another written warning at 216 Albert Street. . On April 20, 1997, Winter Springs Police Department responded to an animal at large complaint, and again issued a written warning to Mr. Gary Dunn. MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 4 OF 14 . On May 13, 1997, the animal control agency responded to an animal at large complaint, and issued a verbal warning to Gary Dunn. . On June 9, 1997, the animal control officer picked up the loose dogs which were later redeemed by Sylvia Tyson for the impound fee of $25.00 per animal. . On June 19, 1997, the animal control officer responded to 216 Albert Street for complaint of loose dogs that had jumped a fence into a neighbors yard, and again issued a verbal warning. . On July 14, 1997, the animal control officer responded to a bite report at 233 Sherry Avenue which is an adjoining rear yard to 216 Albert Street where a tree trimmer was working in the rear yard when the male rottweiler jumped the fence, and bit the tree trimmer. The dog was placed on "home quarantine" by animal control, and ten (10) days later on July 24, 1997 the animal was released from home quarantine. Pieper: It was on that day, July 14, 1997, that the anonymous complaint was called into Mr. White to start this complaint which revealed this past history of continuing problems with these animals at 216 Albert Street which ultimately ended in a bite case. Since the animals have been released from home quarantine, and to this date we have not had further complaints about the animals at large, but we believe this presents a prima facie case of an owner either failing to exercise due care through negligence or lack of proper concem to keep the animals contained in violation of City Ordinance 4-1, and ask that you issue a finding of fact and appropriate relief to prevent further and future problems of the same nature. Pieper: Mr. White will answer questions, and there is a neighbor to testifY if you have questions. Just want to follow up and say that Mr. White completed his investigation, identified the owner of record, issued the proper due notification through due process to the mortgage company, the owner of record, and the occupant. Neither of the three has sent representation or appeared to speak at this meeting. Schneider: There has been no reports of loose dogs though since the bite report of 07/ 14/97. Pieper: Not that we have on file. Schneider: Can we confirm the fact, and I'm asking you, I'm going to ask the witnesses as well, that the two dogs, the two rottweilers are still at 216 Albert Street. Have you been by the property? White: I was by twice today, and last night, and did not see any dogs in the yard, they could have been in the house, but I didn't make any contact because I didn't see the dogs outside. Gray: Do we know if these are both full grown rottweilers? Is one of them an older dog, or one a younger one, and which one was the one that bit Mr. Wilcox? Pieper: According to the animal control complaint, you should have a copy of your bite report in your package. There is a male and a female. The male is the larger, the female is the smaller. The male is the one that jumped the fence, and bit the tree trimmer while the female was contained on a chain within the yard. Schneider: Have you talked to the tree trimmer, Al? White: I spoke to the tree trimmer's wife, maybe two weeks ago, and was told that he would not be at the meeting and he didn't want to be involved in it at all. Schneider: The reason I ask is that the bite report states that he put his hand on the fence to check the trees, and on the computer printout it says that the rottweiler actually jumped the fence to get to the tree trimmer. I was just wondering whether the animal had been in his owners backyard when he bit the tree trimmer, or whether he had actually cleared the fence and into a neighbors yard to get to the tree trimmer; there was a discrepancy here. MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 5 OF 14 White: I believe Mrs. Jeffords has information to add to that, and her testimony. Schneider: Any further questions before I call the first witness? Lyzen: Al, am I right in assuming that there was five (5) warnings given so far? White: There are five (5) given by the City of Winter Springs. Additional warnings were given by animal control, some verbal, some written, and some actual fines. Schneider: Ken, Bob, Any questions? Gray: No, I don't have any further questions. Schneider: In that case, I'd like to call the first witness. Could you please state your name and address for the record, please. Jeffords: Deborah Jeffords, 223 Sherry Avenue. Schneider: So you are the owner of the property where the tree trimmer was in? Jeffords: I actually rent, I'm not the owner. Schneider: Okay, I'm sorry, you reside at that address. Jeffords: Right. Schneider: Could you please tell us the problems you've been having with the two rottweilers, and how does your property adjoin to the other property? Jeffords: Our house is directly behind 216 Albert, so our backyards meet, and there is a chain link fence and it's only the regular height of a normal chain link fence, you know, about mid way. Schneider: So it's not a six (6) foot fence? Jeffords: No, it's a normal, regular, chain link fence that these are two full grown rottweilers, and they can easily step over those fences; they don't even need to jump. We've only lived there for about three (3) months, going on four (4) months. I don't know the people, I've never met them, but since we've been there we have patio furniture out back. My husband the first time went out back, we didn't even know that the dogs were there, and he went to sit down and one of the dogs, I'm not sure if it was the male or female, had jumped over and started to go after him. Well, when he hollered at the dog, the dog circled around him then jumped back over the fence, and then just continued to bark. Every time we mow the grass the one that's not on a chain jumps over; hasn't physically bit my husband, but has stood his ground to let him know that, you know, he could do something to him. The children, every time the children, they can't even go out back to play or anything. They go to the neighbors house which she didn't want to come because she didn't want to be involved either; she's afraid of the people, I guess. The kids go over to swing on the swing set that she has in her backyard, they jumped over, on one occasion both dogs. The one on the chain has broke the chain, and jumped over the fence so they have been, it has been both dogs. The one neighbor, and I asked my children because I don't really know them very well, I just met them so I don't really know their names, they were suppose to be here tonight too. I don't know if it was because of the weather. The one gentleman was in his yard, he lives on Albert Street at the very end, and he was out doing his yard work inside his fence he had the gate shut, apparently that was about two (2) months ago approximately, both dogs had gotten loose and were running down the road; the one dog had came up and jumped up on his fence and when he went to holler at the dog, he said to leave, the dog nailed him right on the hip, and he has the scar showing it. He picked the shovel up because he was doing yard work, and was going to fend himself off with the dog, told his wife to call the police. Winter Springs Police were called out, and they did respond, they chased the dogs down the road trying to get them. The one officer drew his gun, he was going to shoot the dog. MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 6 OF 14 Schneider: Was there a bite report filed on this incident? Because this is the second bite report. Jeffords: There should have been. Winter Springs Police should have it because he said that if they did their job, they should have a report out because he did call that out, they did respond out. Schneider: Were you there, too? Jeffords: No, this was about two (2), two and a half (2-1/2) months ago so and we didn't even know them then. Schneider: So this is something your neighbor told you? Jeffords: Right, because we just recently met them because my daughter plays with their twin girls. Pieper: Can you tell me what address that gentleman lived at? Jeffords: No. Schneider: How many doors up from 216 over? Jeffords: I would say, it's on the opposite side of the street. I'd say at least four houses down. They're the ones that live on Albert Street, and then you have Edwin coming this direction, and as you go down Edwin they live in the house directly at the end of Edwin. Pieper: So they actually live on Edwin? Jeffords: No, they live on Albert Street, it's just when you get to the end of Edwin, their house faces directly across, straight across. Pieper: I'll have to recheck that with my records people, I think they just check for the numerical address at 216. Jeffords: Then I was home the one day when the tree trimmers came out because I had made a report when we moved in to see if they would trim our trees for us. So I asked the guys; I was excited and I said are you going to trim our trees, and he said no ma'am I can't because those dogs back there, and I said well I can take care of that. I'll just call animal control again. I called animal control like five (5) times reporting these dogs, they came out, and the time that they bit the tree trimmer guy they had their things that they were going to, you know, and we saw, we watched them from our back yard, but apparently they got scared of them or something, or they couldn't actually get the dogs, so they left, and I didn't hear anymore about it. Schneider: The dogs were in your yard, or out on the street when the animal control came? Jeffords: No, when the tree trimmer guy said that he could not do the house on the left from where I live and my house and the house on the right because of the dogs so they went to the following house down, two houses down from my house on the right and he was trimming the tree, and he leaned on the fence like this, and when he leaned on the fence to look at the tree the dog had jumped on his side on their street, he jumped there's two fences down, he was in the persons yard when he nailed the guy, but then he went back to his yard. They are not stupid dogs. They are still there, what they do from what I can see cause I really don't know the people or their lifestyle, they do bring the dogs in on occasion, but they're there because like the other night I took my garbage out, I really have to watch my back because my light doesn't work outside, and the minute you walk from the back of my house you don't even have to get all the way into my backyard, they are right there up on that fence, and they're gritting their teeth, and they're ready to come right over. Schneider: Have you seen the dogs in your yard since July 14th? Jeffords: No Reilly: Have you ever noticed, are the dogs chained up? Jeffords: One dog is chained up. Reilly: Just the one? Jeffords: Yeah, one dog is chained up, and the other one is not. Gray: Is it always the same dog that is chained up? MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 7 OF 14 Jeffords: I think, well, actually they look alike, one is a little bit bigger, but they look alike. I think it's basically the same dog because the one day I came home from work and I had just pulled up in my driveway, and when I went to get out of my car, the dog was loose and it had already came over, and it was running around my house and it ran up to my car, well, I just shut my door because I don't trust them, and you know, that's why I called animal control because I have three (3) children, and I've heard, you read it in the paper, you see it on the news, and I've complained to them five (5) times. I'm not going to wait until one of my children are mauled to death and then something is done about it. That's not going to bring my child back. Already two people I know of have been bitten by them. But their response was that they would look into it, and they never did. I called the police when the gentleman got bit because I called animal control and all they wanted to know is if it broke the skin, does he have to go to the hospital. I said what does it matter, somebody was bitten by this dog. Gray: Do they always put the two dogs out, or do they put like one dog out? Jeffords: No, they're both out. Gray: So they always put both of them out? Jeffords: Yeah, they're both out at the same time. Haines: And you had said you had never spoken to the two neighbors behind you? Jeffords: No, I don't even know them, actually when it first started I was going to go and say something-Could you please keep your dogs in their yard. I don't care if they bark or whatever, just don't let them come loose, I don't want them to get a hold of my kids, but the gentleman that got bit on the hip, well he said he had went to them to try to ask them to please keep the dogs in the yard because it bit him, and the women got really hostile with him, and he said she just didn't want to hear it, and he said she was just one, in his words, one rough character so I told my husband that I'm just not going to deal with them then, I'll just go through the proper channels, and I called the police department on the day that the worker got bit, and the officer laughed in my face on the phone, and he said, oh, 216 Albert, we're called out there all the time, we're always out there breaking up fights, or the dogs or this or that. So I said if you're called all the time why isn't something done then, and he said, well because our hands are tied, basically, he said I feel for the safety of your children but there is nothing we can do until basically what he was saying until something really drastic happens. Haines: So since the bite, the owners of the dogs really haven't done anything to try to change the way they live in the backyard? Jeffords: I can go out to my backyard right now, and that dog would come right over the fence at me, and if I'm not faster than him, he could nail me in a minute because they're big, they're very big. Gray: Are your children afraid of the dogs? Jeffords: Yes, they are very afraid of them. Gray: So they don't even go out in the yard if the dogs are out in their backyard? Jeffords: They will not go in the backyard. We have to mow, we can't let our yard go so usually we'll have, like my husband will mow and he'll have someone behind him with a hammer ready for safety, you know, in case something happens. I mean we can't basically go out and mow our grass because someone's got to be watching that person's back who's mowing the grass. Schneider: Are you home during the day? Jeffords: Partially, I work for myself, I'm self employed so there are days, I usually have two days off a week. Schneider: I wanted to ask you about how often are the dogs outdoors, are they kept outdoors when the people are not home? Jeffords: They are out the majority of the time, now just before I came here, I didn't see the dogs, the dogs weren't out but of course it was going to storm so they may take them in for that which I hardly think so cause that's why my son wants to talk because the dogs are being MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19,1997 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 8 OF 14 abused, and apparently, you know, maybe it's the way you raise a dog; I'm not saying all rottweilers are bad, but this man is viciously mistreating his animals. Schneider: I have another question, if you're home during the day during the times that you are home in the past month since July 14th, have you seen the dogs out in their backyard? Jeffords: In their backyards. Schneider: And you say that you haven't seen the dogs loose in the past month, have they both been chained or has something changed to keep the dogs from getting loose in the past month? Jeffords: Yeah, nobody has been in their backyards. We're all prisoners of those dogs. I won't let my children out. My neighbors next door she will not allow her children out to play on the swing set. Schneider: But you have seen the dogs in their backyard in the past month? They have been out? Jeffords: Right, and if you go back there, and if you stand back there in the back yard the one will jump over the fence. The other one will try, he will try even though he is on a chain, he will try and jump that fence because we have all prayed that he will hang himself, but no such luck. Schneider: But you can testify that you cannot visibly see any changes to their pattern of the way they keep their dogs restrained since the bite incident of a month ago? Jeffords: No, it's the same. Schneider: Okay, thank you. Any other questions from the board? Lyzen: Mrs. Jeffords, you said that you have to cut your grass. How often do you cut your grass? Jeffords: Once a week. Lyzen: Okay, so you have been in your backyard in the past month? Jeffords: Right. Not my children. My husband. Lyzen: And the dogs have been in their backyard? Jeffords: Right. Lyzen: And they didn't jump over the fence when your husband would (interrupted) Jeffords: They've been on the fence, they won't jump over the fence, not now, no, maybe it's because if there is, you know, they are not stupid, if there is somebody there and they've got something in their hands, you know, maybe that's why they won't jump over, but yeah, they do get on the fence. We had a cable man just last month who was doing some repair work on a neighbors house two (2) houses down, and the dog jumped over the fence, ran after him, he shimmied up the pole. Time Warner Cable guy because he wasn't even, you know, he didn't know this dog is running after him barking, you know, and so he just went up the pole and the dog circled around the pole and went back in the yard. Lyzen: You saw this? Did you see that? Jeffords: No, my neighbor did. Lyzen: Oh, okay. Schneider: Well, Mrs. Jeffords thank you for your testimony. Pieper: Madam-Chairman, with regard to the case Mrs. Jeffords referenced, Mr. White just handed me a report that you don't have in your packages because he just found it today, but it's from March 20, 1997. The officer met with a Mr. Graham of 107 Albert Street stating that two dogs came up to a fence and were barking and would not leave. He stated he chased them away with a shovel. The officer made contact with a dog owner, Gary Dunn, at 216 Albert Street and advise him if he caught his dogs running loose he would be fined. Noted that Mr. Dunn has already been issued a warning, and wrote the report for information only and passed it on to the code board. So that is an additional case that you don't have in the list that I started the presentation with. Jeffords: That's the gentleman that got bit. MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 9 OF 14 Schneider: Thank you for the information. Would you like to step up to the mike? You can bend it down and state your name and address for the record please. M. Jeffords: Michael Jeffords at 223 Sherry Avenue. Schneider: Can you add anything to your mother's testimony that is different than what she has already talked about? M. Jeffords: Yeah, they have been abused. He takes a knife, a little pocket knife about this long, and he goes up to the dog every time it's bad and just goes (slicing motion) and just cuts it, I can see it being cut, and the dogs actually bit him, and he takes a boot and hits him in the head with a boot and he kicks the dog, and the dog on the chain is going to end up hanging himself because he does jump the fence, and the chain is only so long. Schneider: The chain is long enough for the dog to make it over the fence? M. Jeffords: On his hind legs, yes. On his hind legs he'll stand up like this with the chain on him. Schneider: On the other side of the fence? M. Jeffords: On the other side ofthe fence. Lyzen: Michael, have you actually seen the knife yourse1:t7 M. Jeffords: Yes, I have. I took the garbage out one day, and while I was doing that I let my dog out to the bathroom and seemed not to be afraid of the dogs, he goes right in the backyard and does his little thing. While I was waiting for him to come back, I seen the guy come out yelling at his dog, and I just happened to watch and he just kind of goes (slicing motion) just cut the dog. Schneider: You have a dog? M. Jeffords: Yes Schneider: Do the rottweilers come over the fence, have ever come over the fence to get to your dog? M. Jeffords: No, not really, they haven't. Schneider: Is your dog ma1e or fema1e? M. Jeffords: My dog is a ma1e. Schneider: Thank you very much for your information. M. Jeffords: No problem. Schneider: Would you like to say anything? Could you bend the mike way down and state your name and address for the record. R. Jeffords: My name is Ronny Jeffords, and I live at 223 Sherry Avenue. I witnessed when we were on the swing set at the neighbors house. The dogs kept on barking at us when we were swinging on the swing set, and he came out there and then he started punching the dog in the stomach and stuff. Schneider: The dog on the chain or the dog that was loose? R. Jeffords: The dog on the chain. Schneider: Thank you. We've heard testimony from the witnesses. Any further questions that the board may have, now is the time to ask them. Gray: I have a question. When the dog is quarantined what do they really do, other than just lock it up for a certain amount of time? Pieper: That's it. Just lock it up, keep it away from other anima1s. Keep it secure, and monitor it for signs of being rabid. Schneider: But I thought this was home quarantine? Pieper: Vh-huh, which if you look in your package, I don't quit understand it myself. But in the report written on 07/14/97 by anima1 control officer Cheryl Tumer, it talks about the bite investigation, and it says dog lives here, rotty just jumped fence, bit a man cutting trees, origina1 caller is Debra from 223 Sherry, two (2) rotty's smaller on chain, larger one bit. Action taken- 845 quarantine home. Comments-no home quarantine as dog jumps fence to get out. Verified MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 10 OF 14 bite and took report. No one home-will return 7/14, 17:43. Flip over to the next page, that's an animal control report generated on 7/24 that states in the complaint bite investigation. CAT does not refer to a feline, that's a catalog number. 2408 release on quarantine on male rott "Bear". So one animal control officer recommends no home quarantine because the dog is a jumper, and yet it was kept at home on home quarantine for ten (10) days. And just for your information, animal control was also invited to be present at this meeting and offer their input, and declined. Lyzen: Captain Pieper, did they give a reason why? Pieper: Al? White: They just weren't available. Gray: Other than trying to find out if the dog is rabid or not, do they actually try to access whether the dog is vicious and a threat to the community? Pieper: That's not a question I can answer for them. Gray: I would think that a dog that has bit two people is a minis to the community. Pieper: Well in the police report that we have from Mr. Graham in March, it doesn't mention a bite. So we don't have a bite report in file. This says that the dogs were barking at him and would not leave, but the officer that wrote this report does not mention a bite. Now, whether that's because Mr. Graham didn't want to make an issue of it at the time or the officer failed in some way to adequately report this. I'll have to check into it myself. But I believe at this juncture we have presented more than a prima facie case that an animal owner has allowed either ? or through failure to exercise due care and control of his animals to run at large on public property, and the private property of others. Schneider: We have heard all of the testimony, we've heard the city's case. If there is no further questions for captain Pieper, Al, or the witnesses, I think we are prepared to hear a motion. (Finding of Fact) Motion: In the case of CEB# 97013309 of the City of Winter Springs, the Code Enforcement Board has read the complaint filed and the written information prepared by the Code Inspector, and heard at this meeting the swom testimony of the Code Inspector, and other parties involved in this case. Based upon these proceedings, I move that Hamid F. Fard and Jon Feshan along with Capstead Mortgage Corporation, and Gary Dunn and Sylvia Tyson of 216 Albert Street are in violation of Section(s) 4-1 (20.23) of the Code of the City of Winter Springs, and that an appropriate Relief Order be issued at this meeting. Motion by Haines. Second by Gray. Schneider: Discussion? Lyzen: Yes, the violation is right now, is it? Because like the witness said, she hasn't seen the dogs over the fence since July 14th. So would you consider that it's corrected tonight, but we need a relief order for future violations, or what do you think, I'm just throwing it out? Schneider: My feeling is based on the testimony of the witnesses saying that there has been no ? action by the owners to change any conditions that existed before the bite report which was a month ago, that I do not see that they are in compliance at this time, the dogs are still not under control anymore than they were three or four months ago. That's my opinion. Reilly: I agree with Anne. Krebs: I agree also. Schneider: I'm looking at this as an ongoing problem. We have a motion and a second. Please call the roll. Vote: Lyzen, aye; Haines, aye; Gray, aye; Krebs, aye; Schneider, aye; Reilly, aye; Clinch, aye. Motion passes. MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 11 OF 14 (Relief Order) Motion: In the case of CEB# 97013309 of the City of Winter Springs, Hamid F. Fard and Jon Feshan along with Capstead Mortgage Corporation, and Gary Dunn and Sylvia Tyson having been found to be in violation ofSection(s) 4-1 (20.23) of this City, I move that Hamid F. Fard and Jon Feshan along with Capstead Mortgage Corporation, and Gary Dunn and Sylvia Tyson upon due notification by this board be given five (5) days to come into compliance with regard to this violation. If compliance is not achieved by that date, a fme of One hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) will be imposed per day until compliance is achieved, as verified by an officer of the city. Furthermore, any and all future recurrence(s) of this violation after compliance has been achieved will immediately cause the stated fine to be imposed until compliance is again achieved, as verified by an officer of the City. Schneider: Before we hear a second I would like to ask a question of the motion. One hundred and fifty dollars per day or per violation? Haines: Per violation, I'm sorry, per violation. Schneider: Do you amend your motion? Haines: I amend it. Gray: And I'll second it as amended. Pieper: Question. So it is your intent, Mr. Haines, that if these dogs are out three times in one day, that it is $150 times three. Haines: That's correct, per violation. Pieper: Thank you. Gray: And if both dogs (interrupted) Pieper: Per dog? Haines: Yeah, I can amend it. Schneider: We have a motion and we have a second. Your motion stated that if there is a violation it will be a hundred and fifty dollar fine whether, if a dog or both dogs are loose that is a violation. Haines: That's correct. Schneider: I don't know if we really need to go into per dog. Haines: It's some antics Pieper: I have to disagree, I think that the police department, the code inspector all look at a dog being loose as a violation, two dogs being loose are two violations. I reference that by the fact that when they quarantined, or when they picked up the two loose dogs, they charged them twice for the impounding fee, not once. They charged them $25.00 per dog, not $25.00 per occurrence. So I think the same rule applies if you are going to have two dogs running loose in the neighborhood the owner is responsible for two violations. Gray: I agree with Captain Pieper, and that is the way I read the code. Lyzen: I agree too. Schneider: Ken, it's your motion, how do you call it? Haines: I call it the way I read it. If any dog is out it is a violation, if it's two dogs it's one violation, my feeling. Schneider: That's the motion. We have a second. Any further discussion? Please call the roll. White: May I ask a question? If these are so dangerous is it wise to give them five days after notification, or would you rather not take on the liability of giving him five days to comply? I think he needs to be notified and immediately. What do you think? Schneider: It doesn't really matter exactly what I think, the motion is on the table, we can call the roll, and Ken wishes to amend his motion, he may at this time. Haines: Can we discuss? What is the board's feelings? Krebs: I agree with AI. They haven't shown up here, they haven't shown any interest al all. They really don't care obviously. They've been told on four separate times, here's the dates: 1/25, 3/15, 3/27, and 4/20 that if they didn't correct the problem they were going to be fined, and they haven't done it. MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 12 OF 14 Gray: We still have to give them a reasonable amount of time to find a place to put the dogs, if that's what they are going to do, if they are going to board them or (interrupted) Lyzen: Yeah, but Bob, they could still chain both of them up until they could find a place. In other words, immediately after notification, I think, that's my opinion. Reilly: Even if you gave them a twenty four hour notice, we're not looking at going out and buying a new six foot fence to put in within a twenty-four hour notice. It's to secure the dogs either to keep them in the house or to chain them adequately. Sounds to me like he has the one dog chained up now, a long enough chain to where it can almost clear the back fence. Gray: You still have to give them enough time to put in another post or another chain. Haines: I'll amend the motion to one day, 24 hours, upon notification. Gray: I'll withdraw my second, and floor's open. Are we really intending to dictate to the police the way they read the code, in other words, we are changing it to (interrupted) Haines: No Schneider: I don't think we are changing any of the code. Gray: But if we are interpreting to mean that both dogs are out and it's still only $150.00 then that is different than what police department is going to be (interrupted) Schneider: Well, it's what animal control does, and that's the way they call it. Reilly: Then what do we ask? If you got a call on a police call, and an animal was at large, and there was three dogs out owned by the same person would the police department threaten to give them a fine for each dog or all three? How would the police department handle that when they go out? Pieper: Oiscretionarily. It's officer discretion whether he issues one citation for the violation of city ordinance for the occurrence or a citation for each animal that's in violation. I don't think iron clad uniformity. I think that's part of the discretion that we have to allow the officers to exercise. Now if Mr. Haines wants to amend the motion to say per occurrence that kind of takes whether there's one or two dogs out of the picture. If it's per violation, then that's going to be subject to the interpretation and discretion of the officer that responds. Schneider: Right now it stands per violation. Haines: My feeling is if this gentleman, if these people are not going to take heat on a hundred and fifty dollars per violation then it is going to get real costly. I understand your point, and I'm willing to change it to per occurrence. Which actually lessens would the fine. Reilly: We have to go the other way because if he is not adequately chaining up his animals, is that an occurrence? You know what I mean, is that a violation? Pieper: If the dogs don't leave the owners property it doesn't matter how they behave on the property. This is a matter of being off property. Schneider: And I think it is boiling down to the question of if one dog is off the property, is that one violation? If two dogs are off the property is that two violations? Gray: I think it is really two violations, but if you make it occurrence then you taken away from the two fines. Lyzen: The way I understand it if per violation it is up to the officers discretion whether he should do it once or twice, right? Pieper: that's correct. Lyzen: So we should leave it per violation? Schneider: However, in the case of a relief order that's outstanding and two dogs get out and it's written per violation, what discretion does the officer have? It's a relief order, he's not writing a $50.00 citation this time. Pieper: No, but that was an example that was given in response to Ms. Reilly's question about how will the police respond to it? And the answer is that it would be the discretion of the officer that responded. In this case, if you want to be clear in your semantics about whether this is per violation or per occurrence, I know that being Mr. Whites quasi-supervisor for the time left of that relationship, if the relief order was per violation, I would instruct him, if both dogs were out, to fine the person for both dogs. If your relief order is per occurrence, then you've made it clear MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19,1997 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 13 OF 14 that if one dog is out it's an occurrence. If that dog goes back in and both dogs come out then that is another occurrence. They both go back in, and one comes back out that is a third occurrence. Schneider: Well, that's pretty clear Ken, you can pick it. Haines: I would say we leave it at per violation. Gray: And I'll second it. Schneider: Now we have a motion and a second. Twenty-four hours, one hundred and fifty dollars per violation. Any further questions? In that case, could you please call the roll. (Amended Relief Order) [l1mended Motion: In the case of CEB# 97013309 of the City of Winter Springs, Hamid F. Fard and Jon Feshan along with Capstead Mortgage Corporation, and Gary Dunn and Sylvia Tyson having beenfound to be in violation of Section(s) 4-1 (20.23) of this City, I move that Hamid F. Fard and Jon Feshan along with Capstead Mortgage Corporation, and Gary Dunn and Sylvia Tyson upon due notification by this board be given one (1) day (24 hours) to come into compliance with regard to this violation. If compliance is not achieved by that date, a fine of One hundred and fifty dollars ($150.00) will be imposed per violation until compliance is achieved, as verified by an officer of the city. Furthermore, any and all future recurrence(s) of this violation after compliance has been achieved will immediately cause the stated fine to be imposed until compliance is again achieved, as verified by an officer of the City.] Vote: Gray, aye; Clinch, aye; Lyzen, aye; Krebs, aye; Schneider, aye; Haines, aye; Reilly, aye. Motion passes. Schneider: That's our only case for this evening. Lyzen: Can I ask AI something? Schneider: We have other business to attend to this evening, the meeting is not adjoumed. I just want to make sure that Mrs. Jeffords' and her family understand what happens now. Has AI talked to you about that? Jeffords: I understand, but what happens, like someone said they didn't even show up, so what happens if they say I'm not going to pay that fine. Schneider: That is a matter for the city to collect their money, but what will happen now is that there is a registered letter, or certified mail? Pieper: Or hand delivered. White: We will hand deliver this because the severity of this situation requires that we have a verbatim set of minutes to take to animal control. We also need your relief order as soon as possible so that we can hand deliver it to the owner of the dogs so that we don't want to wait a week or two, we need to do it ASAP. Schneider: That will also nail down exactly when they are notified, and when the twenty-four hours start so they will be aware of the fine and what they have to do to come into compliance. Then if the dogs escape again, and it is witnessed by an officer of the city, now an officer of the city is not necessarily a police officer. AI is an officer of the city as well. If it is witnessed by an officer of the city, then the fine kicks in every time the dogs get out even if it's more than once per day. Okay? Jeffords: Is this like an on-going thing? Eventually, this comes down to they have to maintain their dogs? In other words, if the dog gets out and reported, they pay the fine, and yet it bites somebody, you know. Schneider: The way the Code Board works is the imposition of a relief order, a monetary fine for a violation for a section of the code is considered a deterrent for this dog owner of leaving their dogs to run around loose, and that's how we work, and that is what this board does, that is much as we can do. MINUTES CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AUGUST 19, 1997 - REGULAR MEETING PAGE 14 OF 14 White: One of the reasons for verbatim minutes is to initiate an investigation with animal control concerning these animals as vicious animals. Because there are provisions to handle vicious animals. Reilly: Abused too. Schneider: And there's the abuse problem. Pieper: Correct Schneider: That will also kick in another investigation, or at least a sidelight on the same one. Pieper: That's what Mr. White and I were discussing earlier, is that there is some information that came to light through testimony that was not available to us earlier. This report that we have that the officer wrote up simply is a loose dog, we're being told it's another bite case, that's another bite case that animal control is not aware of that would make two which would change the way they view this. There is the testimony provided as to the treatment of the animals, and that is why I instructed Mr. White to have the clerk prepare a set of verbatim minutes so that he could get with them and initiate an investigation, not only into whether these are vicious and fierce animals and require special confinement criteria, but for the animals welfare, and the abusive treatment that it is allegedly receiving of the hands of it's owner. And we need to put that into place as soon as possible. We're going to start with that tomorrow if we can get verbatim minutes transcribed as quickly as possible. Schneider: Okay, thank you. Very good. Thank you all for coming tonight. Lyzen asked about the illegal signs on the comer of Shepard Road and Sheoah Blvd. White stated that the case has been temporarily put aside until the building department evaluates a permit to allow the sign. 16. Adjournment Chairperson Schneider adjoumed the meeting at 8:05 p.m. The items of this meeting were presented in the following order: 1,2,3,6, 15,4,5, and 16. Items 7-14 were not presented. Item 15 is transcribed verbatim. Minutes submitted by: Martha Jenkins, Deputy City Clerk