Minutes 04-08-2014 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Michelle Walker said state statute requires that an appeal be available for any person whose dog has been declared potentially dangerous. She said the County's current ordinance also provides a provision for an animal to be declared vicious. She said in order to be declared dangerous under the state statute a dog on its owner's property has to break bones and inflict incredibly severe injury. She said the County ordinance is intended to provide for an additional designation as a vicious animal for an animal on the owner's property that does bite but does not rise to that severe level. She said this provides for a bit more enforcement ability. She said the impact of this declaration allows for designated fencing and muzzling requirements. Michelle Walker said one hole that the proposed ordinance is trying to fix is having an appeal process for the vicious animal, and they wanted to make it clear what the options were to the public. She said previously there was also a recommendation to include appeals for other types of enforcement actions, but after further reflection it was determined that the main hole in the process is for the declarations for vicious and dangerous dogs, and so this was dialed back a bit. She said the other recommendations are to provide more information to the public about alternative routes of appeal for other types of action. Bob Marotto said the administrative burden involved if the AS/ASAB were required to provide quasi-judicial appeals for all of the citations issued would present problems with carrying capacity. He said Professor Wall also said there could be liabilities from having appeals provided by quasi-judicial bodies in all circumstances. Bob Marotto said the group realizes that there is a need for some type of appeals process all for citations; however they feel it is best to find the judicial venue in which this should occur and to provide this information to residents. Commissioner porosin clarified that for dangerous dog and vicious dog citations, there will be a quasi-judicial hearing conducted by a subcommittee of the ASAB, and procedures will be the same in both designations. He asked if it would be a process similar to the Board of Adjustment. Bob Marotto said he is not familiar with the process of the Board of Adjustment, but the procedure would fit the criteria Commissioner porosin described. Commissioner porosin asked if cases can be appealed to the superior court if someone is dissatisfied. Bob Marotto said this can be done under the statute, but he is not sure about the ordinance. John Roberts said the process sounds very similar to the Board of Adjustment, with sworn witnesses and a formal process. He said he did not hear anything specific in the ordinance that outlines a 30 day period for an appeal, like the Board of Adjustment, but there are certainly other legal avenues with the court system if you have been through the process. Commissioner porosin said if state statutes provide people that opportunity, then something should be included about the right to appeal. Commissioner porosin said he agreed that people who receive citations should have a means of appeal. He said he is hearing that the ASAB has not determined what that means should be, and this is open for suggestion. Bob Marotto said that is correct. He said the recommendation would be to delineate what appeal is available in the courts. Commissioner porosin clarified that residents would get a citation from someone on staff, and this would have a fine. He suggested the option of a written appeal to a higher authority. He said if the person cited is dissatisfied with that, they would have the right to appeal to a hearing from a higher authority, such as the Board of County Commissioners or a subcommittee.