HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016625.jpg

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes 07/17/08

Merola went into detail about the requirements of 10-45 and said 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 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 has 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
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 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 was 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 then 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
on Tuesday. The Town recommends administrative costs in the amount of

10

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016625