Orange County NC Website
9 <br /> Attachment B(2) <br /> APP6AL PROCESS(Part 1) <br /> Scope and Form of Appeal <br /> Background <br /> Commissioners appeared to support the availability of an appeal process for civil citations for code <br /> violations(e.g.,failure to vacci nate a dog or cat for rabies)and administrative actions taken under the <br /> authority of the ordinance(e.g., a vicious animal declaration). Also,there were no strong concerns <br /> voiced about the process being quasi judicial,that is, involving residentswho had been appointed to a <br /> board with the function of providing an appeal venue for administrative decisions. <br /> However,there was no agreement on how to provide administrative appeal. Some Commissioners <br /> favored having the Animal Services Advisory Board provide the appeal process(as it now does for <br /> potentially dangerous dog declarations made under North Carol ina's statutes) recognizing the subject <br /> matter familiarity of board members and in order to avoid creating another county board. <br /> Other Commissioners asked about the merits of other formats for the appeal processor whether there <br /> should be a two-step process of administrative appeal. Fblated tot his approach are concerns raised by <br /> some residents that the dose relationship between Animal Services staff and theAS4B may bias any <br /> administrative appeal process offered under the proposed ordinance. <br /> The meeting with Professor Wall and Mr.Tyner made Animal Services staff and the ASAB realize the <br /> downsidesto a comprehensive administrative appeal process for the proposed ordinance. Two <br /> especially notable concerns are 1)the potential liability to the county of providing such an appeal, and <br /> 2)the administrative burden that such a processwould place upon Animal Services and other county <br /> staff. <br /> Agreement emerged from the discussion with Professor Wall and M r.Tyner that it would be beneficial <br /> to better define(or articulate)what appeals exist for residents through the court system. These are not <br /> well known to residents and Animal Services staff has been counseled to not refer residents to civil court <br /> to appeal civil citations and penalties. There was also agreement that it made the most sense to begin <br /> by extending the scope of administrative appeal in the proposed ordinance to the area in which such an <br /> appeal now applies in state law, namely, animals posing a danger to the public. <br /> Animal Services presently declares dogs potentially dangerous or dangerous under state law on the <br /> basis of reports of bites or aggressive incidents that occur off the property of a dog owner. Animal <br /> Services may also declare an animal vicious under a county or municipal ordinance and in some <br /> circumstances this declaration is made to fill a void because state law does not apply even though there <br /> has been a bite. This is especially true with bites that occur on the property of the dog owner which do <br /> not result in"broken bones or disfiguring lacerations or require cosmetic surgery or hospitalization." <br /> Mate law guarantees the owner of a dog declared potentially dangerous a right of appeal and a <br /> committee of the AS4B constitutes a three person board for such appeals. By contrast,there is no right <br /> or mechanism of appeal for the owner of a dog declared vicious under the county's current animal <br />