HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016582.jpg

Code Enforcement Board Meeting Minutes 07/17/08 dogs are not in the area. He said he was bitten by Duke a couple of years ago. He was talking with Dr. Lynn and the dog just reached out and bit him, tore his pants and broke the skin. He said he had been friends with Dr. Lynn and Margrit for many years but it was just unsafe for anybody and any animals in the area. Bobby Goodnough said he was jogging in the area and the dog lunged at him causing him to have to dive through a twelve (12) foot hedge to get away from it. He said he just thought it was a matter of time before the dog got a person or a child. Sgt. Krauel asked if Mr. Goodnough had reported the incident to the police department or had a time frame for when it occurred. Mr. Goodnough said he had not made a police report but it occurred about two (2) years ago. Laura Klein, 130 Seaspray Ave., said she had lived here for 12 years, having moved here from Washington, D.C. for a sense of security. She said she was now in the process of installing surveillance cameras. She said she could no longer walk her dog without constantly looking around, worrying if Duke had once again escaped from the open gates. She said it is a privilege to own a dog and dog ownership and responsibility should go hand in hand. She said Dr. Lynn was issued a citation in August of 2002 for locking his dog in a car with the windows rolled up. She said she mentioned this to prove his irresponsibility. She said his voluminous file from Animal Care and Control would attest to this. She said no one was safe while Duke is in Palm Beach. James Merola was present on behalf of Dr. Lynn and said he was present on a revised Notice of Code Violation and Hearing dated July 15, 2008. He said he was not denying there were incidents with Duke. Palm Beach County had the dog taken into custody and the hearing was held June 5, 2008. At that hearing, it was agreed upon by the County and Dr. Lynn that the dog would be classified as dangerous. The dog was classified as dangerous which required certain restrictions on the dog which Dr. Lynn complied with and the dog was returned to him. In the event Duke has another incident, pursuant to state and county law, but some reason not Town law, the dog would be taken into custody and euthanized. Mr. Merola said Dr. Lynn feels very badly about the situation and agreed with the County to do what they required. Mr. Merola said Dr. Lynn then received a letter, dated June 16, 2008 from the police department, mentioning the order of the County and stating for the first time, the Town was declaring the dog dangerous and giving him ten (10) days to appeal, which he did not. On June 20, 2008, four (4) days after the dog was declared dangerous by the Town, the police department sent a second letter, citing 10-45 (i), advising that since the dog already had two incidents, they wanted it removed or euthanized. The dog had not done anything since being declared dangerous. This letter did not mention an appeal, but he sent a letter anyway, stating that they did not agree with that. He said the dog was declared dangerous on the 16", requirements were imposed and they complied with those, including the filing of a $1000 bond and they did not agree the dog should now be removed. There was a Town Council hearing on August 8" and the Council said they needed to have the dog removed or euthanized. Mr. Merola went into detail about the requirements of 10-45 and said 2 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016582