Agenda - 09-04-2014 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8 1 to the public. She said previously there was also a recommendation to include appeals for 2 other types of enforcement actions, but after further reflection it was determined that the main 3 hole in the process is for the declarations for vicious and dangerous dogs, and so this was 4 dialed back a bit. She said the other recommendations are to provide more information to the 5 public about alternative routes of appeal for other types of action. 6 Bob Marotto said the administrative burden involved if the AS/ASAB were required to 7 provide quasi-judicial appeals for all of the citations issued would present problems with 8 carrying capacity. He said Professor Wall also said there could be liabilities from having 9 appeals provided by quasi-judicial bodies in all circumstances. 10 Bob Marotto said the group realizes that there is a need for some type of appeals 11 process all for citations; however they feel it is best to find the judicial venue in which this 12 should occur and to provide this information to residents. 13 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that for dangerous dog and vicious dog citations, there 14 will be a quasi-judicial hearing conducted by a subcommittee of the ASAB, and procedures will 15 be the same in both designations. He asked if it would be a process similar to the Board of 16 Adjustment. 17 Bob Marotto said he is not familiar with the process of the Board of Adjustment, but the 18 procedure would fit the criteria Commissioner Dorosin described. 19 Commissioner Dorosin asked if cases can be appealed to the superior court if someone 20 is dissatisfied. 21 Bob Marotto said this can be done under the statute, but he is not sure about the 22 ordinance. 23 John Roberts said the process sounds very similar to the Board of Adjustment, with 24 sworn witnesses and a formal process. He said he did not hear anything specific in the 25 ordinance that outlines a 30 day period for an appeal, like the Board of Adjustment, but there 26 are certainly other legal avenues with the court system if you have been through the process. 27 Commissioner Dorosin said if state statutes provide people that opportunity, then 28 something should be included about the right to appeal. 29 Commissioner Dorosin said he agreed that people who receive citations should have a 30 means of appeal. He said he is hearing that the ASAB has not determined what that means 31 should be, and this is open for suggestion. 32 Bob Marotto said that is correct. He said the recommendation would be to delineate 33 what appeal is available in the courts. 34 Commissioner Dorosin clarified that residents would get a citation from someone on 35 staff, and this would have a fine. He suggested the option of a written appeal to a higher 36 authority. He said if the person cited is dissatisfied with that, they would have the right to 37 appeal to a hearing from a higher authority, such as the Board of County Commissioners or a 38 subcommittee. 39 Commissioner Price asked how the ordinance defines the difference between a 40 potentially dangerous versus a vicious animal. 41 Bob Marotto said a vicious animal is determined by a bite, regardless of the severity of 42 the bite. He said that is not how potentially dangerous is determined under state statute. 43 Commissioner Price asked for the definition of a non-severe bite. 44 Bob Marotto said the language of the statute is very specific. He said if a bite does not 45 meet the specific criteria that it resulted in broken bones, disfiguring lacerations, or required 46 hospitalization or cosmetic surgery there are no grounds to declare the dog a potentially 47 dangerous dog under state statute. He said this is why the designation of vicious is important. 48 He said there are going to be many bites that occur that are less severe from a legal definition, 49 and these bites would have no coverage without that ordinance. .