Loading...
03-26-2003 -.,. .." CITY OF EDGEWATER ANIMAL CONTROL BOARD DANGEROUS DOG MEEnNG March 26, 2003 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM ~ CALL TO pRDI;R Chairperson, Donna Wagner, called a Dangerous Dog meeting to order at 7:08PM in the City Hall Conference Room. ROLL ~~L Members present were: Donna Wagner, Debrah Brazzell, Dr David Vanis, Karen Mason, and Elizabeth Dimascio. Also present were: Captain Jill Danigel, Board Secretary David Newell, Legal Assistant Robin Matusick, Animal Control Officer Brandi McNair, Councilman Jim Brown and Jean Delnegro. Witnesses Present for Mr. Newell: Richard Newell (defendant), Robbie Newell (brother), and Heather McKinney. Witnesses Present against Mr. Newell: Beneditto Delnegro. A 1S-minute recess was given so all board members could evaluate the information that was just given to them by Legal Assistant Robin Matusik. HEARlt,lG Robin Matusik made the board aware that there is going to be 2 hearings tonight. Mr. Richard Newell has requested a hearing to defend himself and his dogs (Moose and Sparkle) to the board and the complainants of his dogs. The board has the second hearing, which it will render the final determination as to the outcome of these two animals. Board Secretary David Newell made the following statement to the board and members present due to the fact that the Mr. Richard Newell is his cousin. "My name is David Newell and I am secretary to the Animal Control Board. As secretary, I have no interest or voting rights in any decisions of the Board. Even though there is no conflict of interest, nor have I been involved in the matter being heard before the Board tonight, I feel that I '-" ...., need to bring to the attention of the Board that the owner of the dogs in question, Richard Newell is my cousin. All witnesses as stated above and Brandi McNair were swore in: Do you solemnly swear and affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the Animal Control Board in regards to this case is true and correct to the best of your knowledge? All witnesses raised their right hand and stated "I Do" at the conclusion of the board secretary reading the above statement. Dr. Vanis stated that he wanted to abstain from voting because Mr. Newell was a customer in the past. Mr. Richard Newell is the owner of two dogs that reside with him at his Unity Tree house. Their names are Sparkle and Moose. wnt4t:ss 1 Animal Control Officer Brandi McNair gave her statement first. ACO McNair stated that she has had no involvement with Mr. Newell's dogs. The only reason she has brought this case before the board is because she has had 3 complaints since December of Sparkle and Moose intimidating a resident of Florida Shores, they scratched the leg of a local builder that was building a house on the street that backs up to his, and another report of a resident that said she picked up her 10 year old daughter when the dogs came toward them. ACO McNair has only met the dogs on one occasion, which was the incident when they scratched the builder. The dogs were both brought out to meet Brandi, one at a time and they were both very well mannered. WITNESS 2 Heather McKinney is the ex-fiance of Mr. Newell and resides in Port Orange. She does not reside on Unity Tree Drive, but one of the animals is in her name. Miss McKinney was under a time restraint is unable to stay for the whole meeting but stated that the one dog is deaf and utilizes the other for sense of direction. She advised that both of these dogs are just puppies (1 - 2 yr old) and they love to play. They have never hurt anyone and are big teddy bears. They slept with them at night and the only time they even bark is when someone that is not known to them is in the front/back yard. They are trying to protect their owners and home. The only reason we are here in her opinion is because these dogs are both very big animals and people often are intimidated by there size. She later states that if this case were about smaller animals charging at them, we would not even be here. She does believe Mr. Newell was being irresponsible ....." 'WI' and for that she does not believe the dogs should suffer. Since the last incident and Mr. Newell was made aware of the hearing about the dogs and consequences, he has placed the dogs at Miss McKinney's sister's house for temporary placement. The home can be permanent if the situation warrants it she states. WITNESS ~ Robbie Newell is the brother of Richard Newell and currently resides in Port Orange. Robbie started off by Jetting the Board know that he had animals all of his life and is currently in his last semester of becoming an animal tech assistant. He is then going on to veterinary school and has been working at an animal clinic for a few years now. He reinforced what was said by Miss Mckinney. He stated that when he comes over from time to time, the dogs jump up on him and want to play. They are not aggressive and states that even when the pizza delivery person comes to the door, they bark initially and then calm down. He goes on further to say that the door is even open while the dog is at his feet and they do not Charge the pizza guy nor do they try to even get out of the house. These dogs are Ioveable and all they want is attention. He says that it would be terrible if these dogs had to be confined or even put to sleep for nothing more than trying to have fun. WITNESS 4 Richard Newell is the owner of one of the dogs and has been the caretaker to both of them while residing at his Unity Tree address. Mr. Newell went on to reinforce everything that has been stated by his ex-finance and brother. He went into detail about the incident with Mr. Boren (builder). He stated that he was playing with the dogs in the backyard as he often does. He threw the ball towards the woods where Mr. Boren was exiting. When they saw him, they probrobly figured he was going to play and went over to him. The one dog jumped up onto his leg and did give him 2 scratches on the right leg. Mr. Boren then became irate and started "throwing his hands in the air." While he proceeded to contact the animal control officer he had both dogs sitting next to me with no aggression. "I then took both animals inside until Brandi showed up". He then goes on to say that he is looking out for the best interest of the dogs here tonight and not to punish them for his irresponsibility. On one of the incidents where the dogs where behind Mr. Newell's residence in a vacant lot on Tamarind, he was not home and he had a new roommate. He had taken down a portion of his new fence to allow the cable repair person to get in and without knowing his roommate opened the back door to let them out. They later returned home. He is unaware of the third incident. ..... ...." The board brought up a few questions about Mr. Newell's home and the 3 incidents. It was asked what type of fencing Mr. Newell had and was it adequate. He stated that he has a 6' stockade fence along the backside of his property and a 4' chain link fence along the sides. He went on to say that the chain link fence was only half put up and not very well. ACO McNair later agreed. Did the incident with Mr. Boren need medical attention? ACO McNair stated that there were only 2 scratches about 2 inches in length and did not need it. How many times has ACO McNair been out there? She stated she was there once to investigate the scratch and several follow up visits. \VUNESS 5 Beneditto Delnegro is a resident of 3130 Tamarind Drive and encountered both Sparkle and Moose on a late evening around 10pm. He stated that he walks his dog down Tamarind from his house to the comer of Roberts Road and back every night. On his walk down toward Roberts road on one evening 2 dogs on a vacant piece of property met him. He stated that the dogs were growling and barking at him and his dog. He then walked backwards away from the animals and finished his walk to the end of the block. He saw a neighbor outside and asked him to contact his wife and have her come and pick him up. After she picked him up and they drove past the area in which the encounter took place, the dogs were gone. Mr. Delnegro said he was afraid for his life and these dogs should be put to sleep. He later stated that he use to walk with a flashlight and did shine the light on both dogs that night, but he has now filed for his concealed weapons permit and carries an ax handle with him. He stated his dog is his best friend and a companion that words cannot describe. Mr. Newell asked Mr. Delnegro if either dog left that vacant property and Mr. Delnegro said "No". Mr. Newell said he often played with the dogs in the vacant property and they were taught not to leave the property or go on the road. The board also asked it if the dogs followed him and he stated "No". This was the conclusion of Mr. Newell's hearing. BOARD HEARING After hearing all the complaints and was able to evaluate all the complaints that were made and brought to the Board in the packet, the Board started by defining if this dog has met the dangerous dog requirements that are defined by Florida Statue 767. "Most of the time it is very simple to deem a dog dangerous because it has either already bite someone or has shown the aggression in front of the animal control officer", Donna Wagner said. This case seems to fall in the gray area and the only place within the statues that seem to be In question is ~ """" Florida Statue chapter 767.11 section D. Does the dog meet the criteria for "menacing''? Dr. Vanis stated that it could be considered and probrobly is menacing but is this enough to deem this dog dangerous. Everyone agreed that the major cause was the irresponsibility of the owner. The dogs never bit anyone or caused serious injury. After a lengthy discussion between the Board and Mr. Newell it was determined that there was not enough evidence to warrant these dogs being deemed dangerous. It was a unanimous 4-0 vote with Dr. Vanis abstaining from the vote. Prior to the dogs coming back to Mr. Newell's Unity Tree house, several restrictions were placed onto his residence and the dogs. In a unanimous 4-0 vote the motion was made to have a complete fence around the yard with a lock on it, dogs' vaccinations are to be up to date, sign the potential dangerous dog form, and get city tags and abide by all city ordinances. The Board instructed the Animal Control Officer Brandi McNair to ensure that all these items were met and to do periodical checks. Mr. Newell was given 60 days to complete all of the above mention items before returning the dogs. The Board Hearing for Mr. Newell's dogs (Sparkle & Moose) has officially been closed. New Business Robin Matusik provided material to the Board about an article in the Orlando Sentinel that spoke of feral cat problems. Ms. Matusik asked the Board to look at the material provided and give suggestions and direction for the city. Dr. Vanis stated that the only people who could put these animals to sleep would be a veterinarian or someone with a DEA license. He went further to say that he can't speak for all the vets but if you were to do one every once and a while would be ok, but if the city wanted to enter an agreement they could potentially be doing a lot. If word were to get out that a veterinarian was doing this, his practice could suffer. He also stated that when putting down feral cats it's a 2-step process and you are putting you and your employees at great risk. In the end it was determined to try and seek out a local retired veterinarian and see if he would be interested. Olel Business Robin Matusik gave an update on the Valerie White case and stated that per her conversation with the States Attorney's office, she has not been in contact with her parole officer, which is a violation. Upon a check of the residence by ACO McNair, there was another animal other than the one allowed by the court and ........ ...." she still has no proof of getting the heartworm treatment, current rabies vaccination, or city license. This has been past due since January 10, 2003. These are all violations and the States Attorney's office is now violating her probation. ~QJQURfiM~~r Motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Debrah Brazzell, seconded by Donna Wagner. Motion carried unanimous. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45pm. Next Meeting will be held on May 21, 2003 at 7pm. ..... ,.." Motion for dangerous dog classification should state: "Based on the requirements contained in Section 767.11, Florida Statutes, and testimony provided, there is sufficient cause for the Animal Control Board to deem "Sparkle" & "Moose" "dangerous dogs" due to the exhibition of aggressive behavior/tendencies". Therefore, I move that "Sparkle" & "Moose" be deemed "dangerous. Motion to deny dangerous dog classification should state: "Based on the requirements contained in Section 767.11, Florida Statutes, and testimony provided, "Sparkle" & Moose" have NOT exhibited the behavior required by statutes and therefore ARE NOT deemed dangerous! Additional Motion - However, the Board does suggest & require that the dogs shall be confined in a fenced area in good repair & owner will do whatever is required to make sure the animals stay confined. 17) Chair will announce for the record, the decision made by the Board. 18) Chair will announce the close of the public hearing. 19) Board will continue on with balance of agenda items. (Animal Control/Dangerous Dog Hearing) 2