HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016583.jpg

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes 07/17/08

Dr. Lynn had complied with all of those. Then the letter of June 20th came, requiring Dr. Lynn to remove the dog or euthanize it. Mr. Merola read subsection (h) into the record and said the Code Enforcement Board did not have any jurisdiction over subsection (i) as subsection (h) just mentioned (d) through (g). The Town has filed a lawsuit and he and Mr. Randolph were before Judge Hoy this morning. The Town is asking to have the dog removed or euthanized and asking for a permanent injunction, stating an emergency situation. Judge Hoy gave them a hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Tuesday where it will be determined whether the dog is a nuisance, whether 10-45 (i) even applies to the situation and if the Board have authority over 10-45 (i). If the Judge says the dog has to go, they are not going to argue with the Court but he believes they have a right to present their case. He does not believe that the Town’s position that the fine should start tomorrow is correct. He believes the Board can only find violations of subsections (d) through (g) of 10-45. There have been no allegations that Dr. Lynn has violated subsections (d) through (g). Mr. Merola believes it is clear that the Code Enforcement Board has no authority under (i). Mr. Merola then addressed 10-6 and said he believed that since all precautions have been taken under 10-45, the dog does not constitute a nuisance. Mr. Merola said that he has an injunction relief request before the Judge to stop the Board from making this decision. Mr. Merola said Mr. Randolph has asked them to determine these two (2) ordinances separately and he does not believe 10-45 (i) is in the Board’s purview, and as to the nuisance, the dog has to be a nuisance now and it is not. This is all going to be determined Tuesday and he is asking the Board to either deny the Town’s recommendation because the Town cannot prove the dog is a nuisance now or reset this case until next month’s hearing.

Sgt. Krauel advised he wanted to make a rebuttal to some of Mr. Merola’s comments. The service of notice Mr. Merola referred to in declaring the dog dangerous was when the police department spoke with Dr. Lynn on June 12, 2008 and had been told Duke was being housed at a kennel in Palm Beach County. A notice could not be served to Dr. Lynn to have him come into compliance with something he was already in compliance with. The dog was not in the Town. The police department did not find out the dog was in Town until June 20th when Laura Klein reported the dog attempted to break free of Dr. Lynn to attack her and this is when the letter was sent out requesting compliance with Section 10-45. Dr. Lynn was given the entire ordinance on June 10th, not just sections or specific acts that he needed to comply with. Duke was not on the property at that time and no notification to remove the dog from the property could be served at that time because the dog was not there. As far as the police department was concerned, Dr. Lynn was in compliance with the ordinance. Sgt. Krauel pointed out that the Town does not abide by the state and the county ordinances, that the Town has the ability to enforce more stringent and strict ordinances and that is what we have done here.

Sgt. Krauel said he was prepared, based on Counsel’s recommendation, to recommend a motion to find Dr. Lynn in non-compliance with Section 10-6 and move to postpone 10-45 (i) until after further consideration by the Circuit Court

10

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016583