Minutes 10-01-2013 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

Commissioner Dorosin asked if the ordinance could pass without unanimous vote at a subsequent meeting. John Roberts said yes. Commissioner McKee asked for clarification on Michelle Walker's comment regarding lack of a due process for appeals. Annette Moore said the state statute requires an appeal process for dangerous dogs; she said the current ordinance does not have an appeal process. Commissioner Price asked for clarification regarding the terminology of owner versus keeper. She asked why it is required that someone over 18 be the person responsible for caring for the animal. Bob Marotto said experience shows that there will be some people who are keepers, rather than designated owners. He said the keeper notion has some applications that can be helpful, such as in transfers of ownership. Annette Moore supported Bob Marotto's statement with past examples. John Roberts referred back to Commissioner Dorosin's earlier question. He said if the board votes on this tonight and it does not pass, it is defeated. However, if the Board votes tonight and it passes without a unanimous vote, then it will need to come back for a second reading, where it will only need a majority vote to pass. He said if this is sent back with further changes and no vote, the vote at the next meeting will still have to be unanimous. Commissioner Dorosin referred to the watch dog issue. He noted that under current ordinance, there is a blanket lack of liability for an owner if someone comes onto their land. He said the concern of dog owners is that this will be turned 180 degrees to imply a strict liability if the dog bites anyone. He said these are two extreme positions. He said the case of a break-in is clear, but the case of a neighbor's child is not so clear. He said he does not think the goal is to give land owners blanket liability, but to give language that allows for a case by case analysis. He is not in favor of this "blanket immunity." He said the purpose of the appeals process is to make case by case determinations. Commissioner Dorosin said if the appeals process is honed, it is reasonable that it be done with the ASAB. He said members of the public serve on this board and advice is available from legal counsel. He said if this quasi-judicial process is implemented, this is the place to do it. Chair Jacobs noted that time is limited and it seems that Commissioner Dorosin has brought up the issues that most Board members are concerned with -watch dog/trespassing and the appeals process with the ASAB. He asked if these items could be discussed in order. Commissioner Rich said she likes this idea. She agrees with Commissioner Dorosin on the watch dog issue. She would like an expanded definition of a watch dog. She said she is in the middle of the two extremes. She would like to find out what happens to that person in the middle- the owner with the dog that doesn't normally bite and then does bite. She said she would like to keep the ASAB as the appeals board. Commissioner Pelissier said she agrees with the other Commissioners' comments. She said taking out the watch dog definition will take out one of the extremes, as people will not be able to excuse any aggression because their dog is a "watchdog." She said people are upset that their dog may be deemed dangerous, when the only requirement is that residents put up signs or fence the dog. She said the ASAB will assess each case individually and will look at the whole situation. She asked that the board look at how many cases have come under the new ordinance and then assess how it is working with balancing people's right to have dogs. Commissioner McKee said the wording will be hard to define. He said security dogs are trained to attack. He said there are hundreds or thousands of dogs in the County that are