Board of Ordinance Appeals I

CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Ordinance Board of Appeals held a public hearing at 7:00 p.m. on Monday June 22, 2015 at the Sterling Heights Municipal Center, 40555 Utica Road, Sterling Heights, MI in the Council Chambers, 586-446-2360. At this meeting the Board (1) considered variance requests of petitioners and (2) conducted hearings on abatement of nuisances relating to the property and property owners itemized on the following agenda. AGENDA 1. Chairman Pitrone called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm 2. Roll Call John Pitrone - Chairman, Joseph DiGaetano – Secretary, Robert Ervin, Kathryn Jiles, Denice Gerstenberg - City Development Director, Paul Geiger - Code Enforcement Officer, Dana Vietto – Recording Secretary 3. Report from City Liaison – Denice Gerstenberg a. All petitioners were notified by first class mail about tonight’s meeting. Remove the following items from the consent agenda as they have been cleaned up prior to the meeting – G15-0101, G15-0104 G15-0105, G15-0106, G15-0108, G15-0113, G15-0114, G15-0115, G15-0117 & G15-0118 4. Removal of Consent Items to New Business a. Moved item 3 to New Business 9a. G15-0095 Metro Real Estate, LLC.– 8244 Metropolitan Parkway b. Moved item 7 to New Business 9b. G15-0099 Protas, George E & Lynn– 36459 Samoa Drive c. Moved item 24 to New Business 9c. G15-0116 Vonseggern, Todd W – 40038 Eagle Drive d. Moved item 27 to New Business 9d. G15-0119 Cheema, Kausar S. – 39050 Hyland Court 5. Approval of Agenda Motion by Ervin, supported by Jiles, to approve agenda Yes: All. Motion carried. 6. Consent Agenda Moved by Ervin, supported by DiGaetano, RESOLVED, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended: 1. To approve the minutes of the regular meeting of June 8, 2015, as presented. 2. G15-0094 Brighton Enterprises DBA Knights Inn – 7887 Seventeen Mile Road RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 7887 Seventeen Mile Road and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 3. G15-0096 JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. – 33827 Timmy Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 33827 Timmy Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 4. G15-0097 Madonna, Nicholas S. – 36816 Adele Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 36816 Adele Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 5. G15-0098 Bashi, Sabah & Wilcoxson, Reese/Statin-Wilcoxson – 13301 Fifteen Mile Road RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 13301 Fifteen Mile Road and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 6. G15-0100 The Huntington National Bank – 39627 Dorian Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 39627 Dorian Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and Ordinance Board of Appeals June 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 2 approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 7. G15-0102 Thornton, David – 3521 Franklin Park Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 3521 Franklin Park Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 8. G15-0103 Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp – 39856 Pinebrook Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 39856 Pinebrook Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 9. G15-0107 Secretary of Housing and Urban Development – 33500 Morrison Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 33500 Morrison Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 10. G15-0109 Kirma, Fouad – 33066 Twickingham Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 33066 Twickingham Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 11. G15-0110 Jarvis, Richard & Jacqueline – 33869 Twickingham Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 33869 Twickingham Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 12. G15-0111 Elias, Fadi– 34078 Tyler Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 34078 Tyler Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 13. G15-0112 Colorado Investors Group, LLC – 13023 Kinlock Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 13023 Kinlock Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. 14. G15-0120 Shull, Laura B. – 11550 Silver Drive RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 11550 Silver Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding immediately. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. Ordinance Board of Appeals June 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 3 7. Public Hearing a. G15-0093 Weitz, Sarah J. – 9152 Birkhill Drive Fence Variance- asking Board approval to allow a wood sight obscuring fence 9 feet from property line on side yard along Canal Road. Sara Weitz, owner, was present. Ms. Weitz stated that she would like to build a sight obscuring privacy fence that encloses the back yard. They need the variance to allow 24 feet instead of ten feet from the house to enclose their concrete slab. They would be nine feet back from the property line. Mr. Weitz stated that they need the variance, otherwise the fence would go across the concrete slab or they would have to remove the slab. Mr. Pitrone stated that he had no issues with the variance. Moved by Ervin, supported by DiGaetano RESOLVED, to approve case G15-0093 at 9152 Birkhill Drive with the following conditions: 1 – that the petitioner agrees to abide by and comply with all applicable rules and regulations and orders of every lawful agency or governing authority having jurisdiction, 2 – that the decision of the Board will remain valid and in force only as long as the facts and information presented to the Board in public hearing are found to be correct and that the conditions upon which the motion is based are maintained as presented to the Board. Yes: DiGaetano, Ervin, Jiles, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. 8. Old Business 9. New Business a. G15-0095 Metro Real Estate, LLC.– 8244 Metropolitan Parkway Code Enforcement Officer, Paul Geiger, stated as of today there were some changes to the property. Pictures were shown at this time. Manog Drora, owner, was present. Mr. Drora stated that they are in the process of replacing the doors in a month or two months. Mr. DiGaetano asked Mr. Drora what efforts in the last two months were made to fix the gates. Mr. Drora stated they did not have the money then. Moved by DiGaetano, supported by Ervin RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 8244 Metropolitan Parkway and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding after July 22, 2015. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. Yes: DiGaetano, Ervin, Jiles, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. b. G15-0099 Protas, George E & Lynn– 36459 Samoa Drive Code Enforcement Officer, Paul Geiger, stated as of today there were some changes to the property. Pictures were shown at this time. George Protas, owner, was present. Mr. Protas stated that he has been working on the property. He paid a company last year to fix the pool and this year the pump is broken. He is in the process of getting it cleaned up. Moved by Jiles, supported by Ervin, RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 36459 Samoa Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding after June 29, 2015. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. Yes: DiGaetano, Ervin, Jiles, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. Ordinance Board of Appeals June 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 4 c. G15-0116 Vonseggern, Todd W – 40038 Eagle Drive Code Enforcement Officer, Paul Geiger, stated as of today there were no changes to the property. He added landscape trim repair and firewood to agenda statement. Pictures were shown at this time. Brandy Vonseggern, owner, was present. Ms. Vonseggern stated that she just got back into town. They have been gone since September. They are moving to Colorado and planning on fixing up the house and selling it. Mr. DiGaetano stated that she does not seem confident in getting all the violations done. Ms. Vonseggern stated they can get it done, they just need some time. Mr. Ervin stated that this was a complaint and no one is living there and a house needs maintenance. Ms. Vonseggern stated that she can fix some of the issues this weekend but needs some more time. Moved by Ervin, supported by DiGaetano RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 40038 Eagle Drive and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding after June 29, 2015 for nuisance growth, trim, paint, siding, firewood and landscape trim. Shingles on the garage after August 24, 2015 The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. Yes: DiGaetano, Ervin, Jiles, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. d. G15-0119 Cheema, Kausar S. – 39050 Hyland Court Code Enforcement Officer, Paul Geiger, stated as of today there were some changes to the property. Pictures were shown at this time. Kausar Cheema, owner, was present. Ms. Cheema stated that this property is a rental property. Since they have received the notices they have hired a contractor. The tenant stated that she is working on the landscaping. Mr. Pitrone stated that the nuisance growth needs to get cleaned up and ultimately it is the homeowners’ responsibility to take care of the property. Moved by DiGaetano, supported by Jiles RESOLVED, to declare that a public nuisance exists on the property commonly known as 39050 Hyland Court and to direct the Code Official to abate the violations identified in the attached staff reports which give rise to this finding after June 29, 2015. The Board also authorizes and approves the imposition of a lien against the property, in the amount of the cost of abatement incurred by the City, as permitted by the applicable city ordinance. Yes: DiGaetano, Ervin, Jiles, Pitrone No: None. Absent: None. Motion carried 10. Public Hearings II a. G15-0121 Crowell, Paula – 2040 Logan Drive Dangerous Dogs – Appeal of dangerous dogs determination Matt Virgadamo, Animal Control Officer, was present. Mr. Virgadamo stated that on June 12, 2015 he was dispatched to 38062 Douglas regarding the caller being attacked by five dogs. The caller went on top of his vehicle with no injuries. One of the dogs remained at the address and the other four ran thru the park. While in route to the location he was advised by dispatch that the four dogs were on Sumpter attacking a cat and going after the neighbors. One of the neighbors fired a shot into the ground to try to get the dogs away. The dogs continued to eat the cat. Upon arrival he observed the four Cane Corso’s on the front lawn at 2722 Bainbridge with the dog’s owner, Paula Crowell, and the cat on the ground. Paula was trying to restrain the dogs and he threw her a leash to assist her because she did not have a leash with her. He had her put three of the dogs in his vehicle and one in her vehicle that she arrived in. Once the scene was secured, he checked on the cat and it was deceased. He issued Paula citations for; the incident regarding the dogs running at large, the five dogs considered dangerous and the number of animals permitted in the city. Mr. Pitrone asked how many animals are permitted. Mr. Matt stated that the city allows a four animal limit. Sherry Crowell, home owner at 2040 Logan, was present. Christine Rizzo, her attorney, was Ordinance Board of Appeals June 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 5 present. Ms. Rizzo stated that two of the dogs were not the homeowners, they are her friends dogs. They were watching the dogs for a couple of days. The dogs broke out of the gate. The gate is fixed now and they added extra support. The two dogs that are not theirs will not be returning to the property. They are willing to reimburse the cat owners for their cat. They have come up with $2000 to give to the cat owner. They are willing to take their dogs to an obedience class in the area. Mr. Pitrone stated that this involved a lot. Sounds like a vicious attack, a pack mentality. It involved someone shooting a firearm at the scene, a cat being mauled to death, people being chased, attacked, jumping up on their cars, damaging their cars. Ms. Crowell stated that they are willing to pay for the damage to the car. Mr. Pitrone stated that he is more concerned about future damage to people and people’s health and well being. Ms. Rizzo stated that the animals have never been in an incident involving a human being. They did not attack any people in the neighborhood. The people’s reactions are their reactions. It is scary to have dogs running wild. They are friendly animals. Unfortunately from what she understands the cat was trying to protect its owner and it was a bad incident with animals. Mr. Pitrone stated that the reports of witnesses that were there would dispute that. They say they were attacked, chased, fearful and that’s why they jumped up on their car and ran into their homes screaming. A man comes out and shoots a firearm in the vicinity. It is all really dangerous. Fortunately no person was hurt. It’s unfortunate about the damages and the cat. Ms. Rizzo stated that the instigating dogs will not be returning to the property. Mr. Pitrone stated that no one knows which dog was the instigator. Paula Crowell, dog owner, was present. Ms. Crowell stated that she noticed that they got out and ran down the street. She found one of them and went home to call 911. They told her that there was an incident on Bainbridge. When she arrived on the scene she did not realize that they had killed the cat. She tried to get them into the animal control car. The dog that she thinks killed the cat is not aggressive towards any one or other dogs, she just does not like cats. Ms. Crowell stated that she will take them to training classes to show that they are not aggressive. The puppies were just following the big dog. Mr. Pitrone noted that Ms. Crowell called 911. Ms. Crowell stated they were out and she did not know where they were at. Mr. Pitrone stated that she knew that they were dangerous. Ms. Crowell stated that she was worried about her dog and she did not want them to get hit or do anything. She was worried about everybody and wanted to make sure everything was fine. Ms. Gerstenberg asked Ms. Crowell which two dogs will not be coming back to the house. Ms. Crowell said, Maximus and Ajax. Ms. Gerstenberg asked Ms. Crowell if the dogs have had any training at all yet. Ms. Crowell said, “No.” Ms. Gerstenberg asked Ms. Crowell if any of the dogs are fixed. Ms. Crowell said, “One female.” Ms. Crowell stated that Queen is licensed and Ajax is licensed because she had them at her house last year. Ms. Gerstenberg asked Ms. Crowell if she has any more dogs in the house. Ms. Crowell stated that she has a pit bull and a cairn terrier which are both licensed and fixed. Ms. Gerstenberg stated that she is only allowed four dogs. Ms. Crowell stated that she realizes that and she only has one dog over the limit because the other two are not hers. She is waiting for her friend to get her house together to take the dog. Ms. Jiles stated that in the police report Ms. Crowell stated that one of your dogs is mean. Ms. Crowell stated that the large one is aggressive but he would not attack someone. Mr. Pitrone asked Ms. Crowell when the dogs were around the car and the human was on top of his car, what were the dogs trying to do. Ms. Crowell stated that they were probably trying to chase him because he ran up on the car. Mourad Rizik, cat owner, was present. Mr. Rizik stated that his wife was attacked by four dogs. She was trimming branches off of her tree in the front yard. The four dogs came running up to her and surrounded her. She was scared and started screaming. One neighbor came out with a shovel trying to scare the dogs to get away from his wife. The dogs would not move. The other neighbor came out with a gun and fired two shots into the ground to scare the dogs. The dogs started attacking the neighbor with the shovel, and he ran to his garage. His wife ran into the house. When she opened the door the family cat ran out and the dogs mauled it. The dogs mauled the cat in front of his wife. The wife could not do anything because if she went back out she could have been attacked. His wife has been having panic attacks and distraught. The dogs were huge and almost up to her chest. Mr. Rizik stated that this is the first time they heard anything about receiving money for their cat. He stated that it is not acceptable for what has happened. Mr. Rizik stated that his cat was very brave and those dogs could have went down the road and hurt a baby or a kid. The cat cannot be replaced with money. Mr. Pitrone asked if they Ordinance Board of Appeals June 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 6 live close to Logan. Mr. Rizik stated that Logan is across the park. The dogs traveled through the park before reaching Bainbridge. Mr. Pitrone asked how they feel about the possibility of any of the dogs being returned to the property. Ms. Rizik stated that would be very dangerous, the dogs are huge. Mr. Pitrone asked if they would be able to relax on their own property. Ms. Rizik said, “No way.” Ms Rizik stated that she is scared to death from being surrounded by four huge dogs on her property. Mr. Rizik stated that two incidents in the same day is too much. If she knew the limit was four dogs then why did she agree to watch more dogs? Mr. Pitrone stated that the other limit in the city is on dangerous dogs and the city does not allow dangerous dogs. Mr. Ervin stated that the Animal Control Officer did a good job determining that these dogs were dangerous. Mr. Ervin read what is considered a determination of a dangerous dog. 1- It exhibited aggressive behaviors that resulted in further incidents or complaints after having been determined to be a potentially dangerous dog. 2- It caused severe injury toward a person or domestic animal (permanent, serious disfigurement, serious impairment of health, or serious impairment of a bodily function). 3- It killed a person or domestic animal. 4- It was used in the commission of a crime. Mr. Ervin stated that when the owner of the dog was up here she stating they will get the dogs training. The training is when the dog is determined to be a potentially dangerous dog. Then you would have these options of training and having a chip put in. Once the animal has killed an animal or a person, now we are under dangerous dog. Mr. Ervin stated that is what we have here “a dangerous dog.” He commended the neighbors that they got involved and did not get hurt. This could have been a very bad situation. In the paper a jogger was killed by two of these types of dogs in Metamora. If these neighbors did not get involved this could have been a catastrophe. As far as the determination of a dangerous dog, how can we determine who killed the cat. They were all there. The determination of the animal control officer was appropriate. Mr. Pitrone stated that the Metamora couple is facing prison time and the state dropped the murder charge against them because their two dogs killed a jogger. Another case in Macomb Township with a fifth degree black belt had a gash from a vicious dog and they got rid of the dog in a lawsuit. They failed to put in that there would be no other dogs at that address. They have another vicious dog at that address now. Mr. Pitrone stated that we have to handle this case and see that it is a dangerous situation as it is in the police report. People were attacked and frightened. The city gave the Board three options. The second option has a lot of conditions which the Board can add to. Mr. Pitrone stated that he could not see releasing the dogs anywhere in the city of Sterling Heights. Ms. Rizzo stated that the two dogs would not be residing in the city of Sterling Heights they would go back to Detroit. Mr. Pitrone stated that this scene is one thing but what about tomorrow or next year. Ms. Rizzo asked that the dogs not be euthanized and instead separated and adopted out and be trained properly. Mr. Pitrone stated that he will not vote to have any of these dogs back in the city after everything he has just heard. Ms. Crowell asked why they can’t be released outside the city. Mr. Pitrone stated that one condition could be to have written permission to allow the dogs into a different city. Ms. Crowell stated that one of the dogs was not involved in the cat attack. Mr. Virgadamo, Animal Control Officer, stated that there were five dogs on Douglas. Paula was able to get one of the dogs, Sissy, before they went over to Sumpter and Bainbridge. The four dogs that went over to Bainbridge were Ajax, Queen, Baby and Maximus. Ms. Rizzo asked the Board to release Sissy since she had nothing to do with it and is not a dangerous animal according to the Boards definition. Mr. Pitrone asked Mr. Virgadamo if he could tell which dog was which. Mr. Virgadamo stated that when he arrived on scene he took Paula’s word for it. Ms. Crowell stated that she took Maximus and Sissy home. The Animal Control Officer came to her house and said he had to take all of the dogs to the animal shelter. She followed him to the animal shelter and took the dogs there. Sherry Crowell stated that they only have the two normal dogs at home now. Ms. Rizzo stated that Sissy had nothing to do with the attack and deserves to be allowed to go thru the obedience training. The other two dogs will not be coming back to the city. Mr. Pitrone stated that if the Animal Control Officer agrees that there is one dog that is not a dangerous dog and falls under potentially dangerous dog then maybe the Board could vote to allow the one dog back to the resident with conditions and the rest of the dogs would have to leave the city at a minimum. Mr. Virgadamo stated that Sissy could fall under the potentially dangerous dog because of the chasing of an individual. She would be referred to a dog trainer and the owner would pay out of her own pocket. The trainer will determine if she is potentially dangerous or workable. If Ms. Crowell is willing to do that since “Sissy” was not involved with the killing of the cat. Mr. Ordinance Board of Appeals June 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 7 Virgadamo stated that “Ajax” is a dangerous dog due to past incidents on June 26, 2014. An individual was bitten by him and there was a report filed with that. Ms. Crowell stated that she said she was bitten but it was a scratch. Mr. Pitrone referred to the story about the couple facing prison time in Metamora because of their dogs killing a person. He stated that those dogs bit a few times before this incident and the dogs obviously were dangerous and the couple was originally from Sterling Heights. Mr. Virgadamo stated that they cannot determine which dog killed the cat. There were reports of two of the dogs being the aggressors. Based on Mr. Virgadamo’s professional knowledge and visiting the shelter several times Baby, Sissy and Maximus are cowering in the corner versus Ajax who if the cage was open he could possibly attack you. Queen will bark at you until she sees you and is not as aggressive as Ajax. Mr. Virgadamo stated that if Paula is willing he could maybe work with the younger ones. He does not feel comfortable with the dogs returning until we can officially say they are dangerous or not. Mr. Virgadamo stated that he would like to reach out to a rescue for Baby, Maximus and Sissy to see what they can do and try to give them a second chance. If they are not workable then he would suggest euthanizing them because we cannot have them running on the streets or in a house. Mr. Ervin asked the Mr. Virgadamo about the dog that was not involved in the cat mauling. Mr. Virgadamo stated that Sissy could be considered a potentially dangerous dog based on the witness statement of the gentleman being chased on top of his car on Douglas. Ms. Gerstenberg noted that the City attorney was present if anyone had any legal questions regarding this case. Ms. Gerstenberg stated that the Animal Control Officer is saying that Ajax is a dangerous dog based on his interactions at the shelter. The other four dogs need additional training because they need socialization. That would be a reason that they could be classified as potentially dangerous dogs. The size the dogs are and their personality types they need to be socialized and the way they are reacting to Mr. Virgadamo in the shelter is not appropriate. Mr. Virgadamo said, “That is correct.” Mr. Pitrone asked Mr. Virgadamo to clarify the 2014 incident. Mr. Virgadamo stated that on June 26, 2014 there was a pack of Cane Corso’s running at large. Ajax bit a resident on Foresdale. The resident was trying to keep them out of the street and one of the dogs jumped on her and bit her on the shoulder. Ms. Jiles asked what other animals were running wild with Ajax. Ms. Crowell stated that Kato (Ajax’s brother that she got rid of), Kleen and three puppies that were two or three months old. Mr. Pitrone asked Ms. Crowell if she is running a business out of her home with breeding, boarding or watching dogs. Ms. Crowell stated that puppies just kept coming. She stated that she has the moms fixed now. Mr. DiGaetano asked Mr. Virgadamo if four of the five dogs were involved in the attack on the cat but was there two dogs doing most of it. Mr. Virgadamo stated that according to witnesses there were two of the dogs that were more involved. There was four dogs total and two were more aggressive. They were unaware of which dog was which on scene. Don Denault, city attorney, was present. Mr. Denault stated that there is a process as we all know of as due process but no one really knows what that means. It is the process which is due to somebody before something of theirs is taken from them. Our system of government allows for a notice of a charge against you, reasonable opportunity to be heard and some form of hearing which is being done today. A determination was made by a governmental official. A person has a right to appeal that and that appeal starts here. It is their burden to prove to you that the administrative official was mistaken or wrong or should be reversed or modified in some way. If they have not met that burden and it receives a majority vote then the decision will stand. They certainly still have the right to seek redress from a circuit court. That would be their next avenue of appeal. If this was unsatisfactory to them tonight, they could file a petition with a circuit court it would be called an appeal. The record of this hearing would be used for the circuit court judge to determine whether your decision was supported by competent material and substantial evidence. If the court was satisfied that it was, that is the end of the matter at that point. They could seek leave to appeal from the court of appeals. It is unlikely that would be granted in a case like this but you never know. If it ended there then it would revert back here to the city to take possession and ownership of the dogs, if that was the final outcome of the hearings to determine what to do with them and how to dispose of them. It is a very long answer to a very short question but “Yes” there is one more step in the process because we do afford everyone due process in cases like this. Mr. Pitrone stated that he has not heard anything that would convince a reasonable person that the Ordinance Board of Appeals June 22, 2015 Regular Meeting Page 8 animal control officers initial findings and the reports that they have seen to not be true. They sound like five dangerous dogs. The case gets worse now that we know that there was a prior incident. Even if it was a different dog something goes to the homeowner as well to be responsible. He questions the judgment of the owner just in the fact that there are five dogs and possibly seven dogs at a time there. Mr. Pitrone stated that he would not vote to overrule the animal control officers’ expert opinion on what took place there. Moved by Ervin, supported by Pitrone RESOLVED, the determination by Animal Control that the dogs (all of them) are dangerous as defined by City Ordinance is upheld. The dogs are therefore deemed forfeited to the City and shall be humanely euthanized. After the motion Ms. Jiles stated that she feels horrible about this decision. She feels that these dogs were not given a fair chance having so many in one home. Ms. Jiles thinks that this is the right decision and these dogs cannot be returned home. They are very large scary dogs at seven months and this has happened multiple times. Yes: Ervin, Jiles, Pitrone No: DiGaetano. Absent: None. Motion carried. 11. Public Participation 12. Adjournment Motion by Ervin, supported by DiGaetano to adjourn the meeting. Yes: All. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm Respectfully submitted. John Pitrone Joseph DiGaetano John Pitrone, Chairman Joseph DiGaetano, Secretary Ordinance Board of Appeals Ordinance Board of Appeals