STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
|
|
- Katrina Sims
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Ocean Club Townhomes at Jupiter Condominium Association, Inc., Petitioner, v. Case No Robert Spiegel, Respondent. / follows: FINAL ORDER Comes now, the undersigned arbitrator, and hereby enters this final order as Procedural Statement The association filed its petition in this matter on March 6, The association alleged that the respondent s dogs are a nuisance based on their barking and menacing behaviors, are allowed to roam on the common elements, and soil the property, and regardless of the foregoing offenses, exceed the 50 pound limit contained in the documents. The petition also alleges that the respondent installed nonconforming railings on his balcony, replaced the glass portion of his garage door with nonconforming glass and patterns in a different color, changed the exterior light without permission of the association, and that respondent engages in activities that constitute a nuisance. The final hearing in this matter commenced via telephone conference on 1
2 October 22, 2001, and was concluded on November 13, The parties called a number of witnesses and offered a number of documents into evidence. This final order is based on the totality of the testimony and other evidence presented. Where there was conflict in the testimony, the findings of fact determined herein are based on the credibility of the various witnesses. There are 5 units contained in this condominium. Mr. Spiegel is the only owner who is not currently on the board of administration. Mr. Spiegel purchased his unit from the original developer at a distress auction. The Dogs Mr. Spiegel owns 2 Dobermans each of which exceed 50 pounds. The dogs prior to the time of the commencement of this proceeding were allowed to freely roam about the common elements without the benefit of a leash. After this proceeding commenced, the dogs have not been seen without a leash regularly on the common elements. The dogs have never actually threatened any unit owner but are very intimidating in appearance. They have ventured into the garages of the unit owners when the owners were present and have caused fear in the owners. When inside the unit, the dogs bark at times and disturb the adjoining unit owners. When allowed to roam on the common elements without a leash, the dogs have inevitably soiled the common elements. Based on the totality of the evidence presented, it is concluded that the dogs do not currently appear on the common elements without a leash. Also, the dogs do not currently constitute a nuisance. While they bark, there was no evidence presented that they bark more than any other dog, or that their barking significantly 2
3 impairs the ability of the owners to use and enjoy their units or the common elements. The fact that the dogs no longer enjoy unchaperoned access to the common elements has also diminished the potential nuisance value of the dogs. The respondent stipulated that his dogs weigh in excess of 50 pounds. There was no evidence that there are other dogs in excess of 50 pounds on the property. A different smaller dog was shown to on occasion wander on the common elements without a leash but in response to requests of the association, the other owner has tethered her dogs. The arbitrator finds that the documents were violated by respondent through his keeping of dogs in excess of 50 pounds. For this reason alone, respondent is required to remove the dogs unless exempted by the defenses of waiver or estoppel; the dogs must be removed on the basis of their size and weight alone unless some countervailing defense is shown to apply. There was no showing of selective enforcement defense that would otherwise excuse the respondent from complying with the weight restriction contained in the documents. Selective enforcement requires that the other violations shown by the respondent be closely related to the violation sought to be addressed in the instant case. See, for example, MacClary v. Carlton Towers Condominium Association, Inc., Arb. Case No , Final Order (February 27, 1995), in which the arbitrator ruled that where the association sought to remove a dog that exceeded the maximum weight restrictions, the fact that the association did not attempt to remove illegal cats and birds from the condominium did not establish selective enforcement. There is no selective enforcement shown in this case. 3
4 Much testimony was tendered regarding whether the developer approved respondent s pets prior to respondent purchasing his unit. The association provided testimony from an employee (Ms. Thiel) of the developer corporation providing that the developer did not approve of the pet violation prior to the purchase of the unit. The respondent himself did not unequivocally testify that the developer actually approved the pets or waived the restriction, but only that the developer was aware that respondent wanted to bring his dogs into the unit and failed to object. There was insufficient evidence to conclude that waiver of the pet restriction was a condition of the sale of the unit. Certainly there was nothing in writing granting respondent permission to bring the dogs into the unit, and there was a lack of evidence regarding any agreement at all. Respondent was aware of the pet restriction at the time of the purchase of the unit, and at a subsequent time when the association approached Speigel in an effort to obtain his vote as a unit owner on the matter of adding additional property to a phase of the condominium, respondent declined to provide approval unless the board, then under the control of the owners other than the developer, would agree that he could keep his dogs. In a certain sense, though not dispositive herein, this tends to undermine respondent s position that he always believed he had been granted an exemption from the pet restrictions. Based on the foregoing, respondent has failed to prove that the developer affirmatively approved his possession of the two Dobermans, or that he had the permission of the developer to keep the dogs. Moreover, the developer did not have the authority based on the documents to grant exemptions from the pet restrictions. It also was not shown as a general matter that the association, either under 4
5 developer control or under the control of the owners failed in general to enforce the pet restrictions regarding weight, thereby requiring the association to grandfather-in existing pets. In sum, there is no basis to find waiver or estoppel. If there had been any reliance on statements of the developer, the arbitrator finds that any such reliance was unreasonable, given the plain language of the documents prohibiting large pets. Whether Respondent himself is a Nuisance. Next, the association alleged that respondent himself has created a noise nuisance in his unit. Testimony established that respondent has in the past on occasion struck a punching bag at night and played a bass instrument or his electronic drums late at night that resulting in a thumping vibration resonating throughout the building. However, the association did not meet its burden of showing that such noises have substantially interfered with the property rights of the other residents. There was virtually no evidence of any recent disturbances. Respondent uses a headset while playing his drums and the punching bag is located in the garage where it has less probability of interfering with owners in the use of their units. Acknowledging that these instrumentalities are capable of producing nuisance conditions, and while respondent should use the drums and punching bag consistent with his obligation to be respectful of the other residents, there is no substantial evidence to find that he is currently producing nuisance conditions, or that he ever produced these conditions in the past. No relief will be entered in favor of the association on this count but respondent shall conduct himself in a respectful manner while on the condominium property. 5
6 Unapproved Modifications The association next alleges that the respondent installed nonconforming and unapproved features on the common elements including the railing on his balcony, an exterior light, and a glass panel on the garage door. Regarding the garage door alteration, the evidence showed that the respondent initially and without prior approval from the board changed the window in his garage door. When the association demanded its removal, respondent modified the window in an effort to restore its original design and appearance. The subsequent modification performed by respondent in response to the objections of the association closely resembles the original design and construction, and the parties essentially did not disagree through their testimony that affirmative relief is no longer needed in connection with the garage door. Regarding the exterior light fixture, respondent removed the original fixture and similarly replaced it with a nonconforming light fixture. The replacement fixture was oval and in no wise matched or approximated the earlier fixture. In response to the protests of the association, Mr. Speigel replaced the light with one that conformed somewhat to the original lamp. However, the replacement light differs in several respects from the original equipment. Both lights resemble antique carriage lights, but the respondent s current fixture has a bulbous knobby area protruding from the bottom support stem while the original equipment is not so adorned. The cover or top of respondent s light is rounded while the other lights are square. The glass in the respondent s ornament is clear while the association globes are beveled and cut in an effort to diffuse the light emitted from the bulb. The respondent s light is 6
7 crème colored while the association design is a flat white color. The differences between the two, although not shocking, appear significant enough to warrant entry of an order requiring respondent to locate a more suitable replacement. The final issue concerns respondent s nonconforming balcony rails. In essence, when the respondent was in the planning phase for adding balcony rails to his patio, he approached owner/board member Elaine Mordas who had previously installed railings on her patio. She informed Mr. Spiegel on behalf of the board and with the approval of the board that he could install railings, but that they must conform exactly to the specifications of her railings. She permitted the respondent to borrow her own specifications and drawings, and when the respondent constructed his balcony railings using the same contractor as she had earlier utilized, he built the railings to the exact specifications she had provided. However, as was developed in the testimony, when she had built her own railings, she had failed to follow her own specifications, for whatever reason. Her balcony features 6 vertical support beams distributed equally along the horizontal railing material, while respondent s balcony features only 5 vertical support posts as is shown in the plans and specifications. Obviously, respondent relied on the advice and diagrams given to him by board member Ms. Mordas. The board cannot now be heard to complain that the balcony does not conform to specifications approved by the board. Respondent did literally everything within his means to ensure that the board edicts in this respect were pursued, and the association must bear the penalty for it miscommunication. The respondent will not be penalized. The association is estopped from now changing its position. In any event, it cannot be said that the absence of one vertical rail as a 7
8 whole in this condominium with its variable and nonconforming appearance constitutes either a material alteration to the common elements or a material deviation from Ms. Mordas balcony. WHEREFORE, it is ruled that respondent must permanently remove his oversized dogs from the condominium within 30 days hereof. Respondent must remove the nonconforming light and replace it with one that more closely conforms to the original design within 30 days hereof. Respondent is not required to modify his balcony railings. DONE AND ORDERED this 20 th day of December, 2001, at Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. Karl M. Scheuerman, Arbitrator Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing final order has been sent by U.S. Mail to the following persons on this 20 th day of December, 2001: Steven M. Selz, Esquire 214 Brazilian Avenue, Ste. 210 Palm Beach, Florida V. Donald Hilley, Esquire Prosperity Farms Road, Ste. 124 Palm Beach Gardens, Florida Karl M. Scheuerman, Arbitrator
9 Right of Appeal In accordance with s , F.S., this final order may be appealed by filing, within 30 days of the rendition and mailing of this order, a petition for trial do novo in a court of competent jurisdiction located in the circuit in which the condominium is located. This order does not constitute final agency action and is not appealable to the district courts of appeal. 9
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION STONE S THROW CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION CAMELOT TWO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION The Fairways at Emerald Greens Condominium
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION WIMBLEDON AT JACARANDA CONDOMINIUM NO.1,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION RIVIERA CONDOMINIUM APARTMENTS, INC.,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION SOUTH BAY CLUB CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION SUNRISE LANDING CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Lakeside Condominium Association No. 3,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION OCEAN RIVIERA ASSOCIATION, INC., Petitioner,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION RIVCO AT RINGLING CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION The Claridge Condominium Association,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Royal Stewart Arms Condominium No. 5, Inc.,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES FINAL ORDER
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA CONDOMINIUMS, TIMESHARES AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION Scottsdale Cluster Condominium III Association,
More informationSTATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION DIVISION OF FLORIDA LAND SALES, CONDOMINIUMS, AND MOBILE HOMES IN RE: PETITION FOR ARBITRATION SUNSET GROVE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,
More information(2) "Vicious animal" means any animal which represents a danger to any person(s), or to any other domestic animal, for any of the following reasons:
505.16 VICIOUS AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS (a) Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the interpretation and enforcement of this section: (1) "Director of Public Safety" means the City official
More informationORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ALBANY MUNICIPAL CODE (AMC) 6.18, "DANGEROUS DOGS," AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
ORDINANCE NO. 5769 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ALBANY MUNICIPAL CODE (AMC) 6.18, "DANGEROUS DOGS," AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. WHEREAS, current ordinances concerning the classification and disposition of dangerous
More informationORDINANCE NO
ORDINANCE NO. 2013-15 AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING OR REGULATING THE OWNING OR KEEPING OF DANGEROUS ANIMALS INCLUDING PIT BULL DOGS AND PROVIDING FOR REGISTRATION FOR CERTAIN DANGEROUS ANIMALS, AND PROVIDING
More informationTitle 6. Animals* Chapters: 6.05 Dangerous Dogs 6-1. * For nuisance provisions regarding animals, see LMC , , and
Title 6 Animals* Chapters: 6.05 Dangerous Dogs * For nuisance provisions regarding animals, see LMC 8.10.040, 8.10.050, and 8.10.180. 6-1 Lyons Municipal Code 6.05.020 Chapter 6.05 Dangerous Dogs Sections:
More information93.02 DANGEROUS ANIMALS.
93.02 DANGEROUS ANIMALS. (A) Attack by an animal. It shall be unlawful for any person's animal to inflict or attempt to inflict bodily injury to any person or other animal whether or not the owner is present.
More informationTAUNTON HOUSING AUTHORITY PET POLICY
TAUNTON HOUSING AUTHORITY PET POLICY Residents of units owned and managed by the Taunton Housing Authority (the "Authority") may own and keep common household pets, provided, that they manage such pets
More informationTIMBER RIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION POLICY RESOLUTION 2008 CONTROL OF PETS
TIMBER RIDGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION POLICY RESOLUTION 2008 CONTROL OF PETS WHEREAS, Article, III. Paragraph (1) of the By Laws grant the Board, Officers of the Association, specifically conferred upon
More informationDOG CONTROL AND LICENSE LAW OF THE TOWN OF CAMPBELL Local Law No. 2 of the Year 2010
DOG CONTROL AND LICENSE LAW OF THE TOWN OF CAMPBELL Local Law No. 2 of the Year 2010 A Local Law Relating to the Control, Confining, Leashing and Licensing of Dogs. Section 1. PURPOSE. The Town Board of
More informationCHAPTER 6.10 DANGEROUS DOG AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG
CHAPTER 6.10 DANGEROUS DOG AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS DOG CITY OF MOSES LAKE MUNICIPAL CODE Sections: 6.10.010 Title 6.10.020 Applicability 6.10.030 Definitions 6.10.040 Defense 6.10.050 Declaration of
More informationPLEASE READ ENTIRE AGREEMENT BEFORE SIGNING ACADIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. PET AGREEMENT
PLEASE READ ENTIRE AGREEMENT BEFORE SIGNING ACADIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. PET AGREEMENT Owner(s) Address: Unit No: OF ACADIA CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., SUN CITY CENTER, FLORIDA Identification
More informationSection 3: Title: The title of this law shall be, DOG CONTROL ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF BOLTON.
ORDINANCE #33 DOG CONTROL ORDINANCE FOR THE TOWN OF BOLTON Adopted: December 7, 2010 Local Law No.3 for the Year 2010 Amended: March 1, 2011-Local Law No. 1 for the Year 2011 Section 7(C) only Published:
More informationTown of Niagara Niagara, Wisconsin 54151
Town of Niagara Niagara, Wisconsin 54151 ANIMAL ORDINANCE Ordinance # Whereby, the Town of Niagara, Marinette County, does hereby adopt Ordinance #, Animal Ordinance, for the purpose of regulating certain
More informationLOCAL LAW NO. 1 DOG CONTROL LAW OF THE TOWN OF STRATFORD
Town of STRATFORD, FULTON COUNTY, NEW YORK Local Law No. 1 of the year 2017 SECTION 1. Purpose The Town Board of the Town of Stratford finds that the running at large and other uncontrolled behavior of
More informationAPPENDIX B TOWN OF CLINTON DOG ORDINANCE
APPENDIX B TOWN OF CLINTON DOG ORDINANCE TOWN OF CLINTON DOG CONTROL ORDINANCE ADOPTED NOVEMBER 7, 2000 REVISED JUNE 8, 2004 SECTION l. PURPOSE: This ordinance is adopted in the exercise of municipal home
More informationLOCAL LAW. Town of Alfred. Local Law No. 2 for the year A Local Law Entitled Dog Control Law for the Town of Alfred
LOCAL LAW Town of Alfred Local Law No. 2 for the year 2010 A Local Law Entitled Dog Control Law for the Town of Alfred Be it enacted by the Town Board of the Town of Alfred, Allegany County, New York,
More informationTOWN OF LANIGAN BYLAW 2/2004
BYLAW 2/2004 A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF LANIGAN TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROHIBITION OF DANGEROUS DOGS AND THE REGULATION AND CONTROL OF ALL OTHER DOGS INCLUDING LICENSING, RUNNING AT LARGE AND IMPOUNDING. The Council
More informationRESOLUTION: BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDAINED That the City of Shelton adopt the Vicious Dogs "Gracie's Law" Ordinance as follows following Ordinance:
PROPOSED VICIOUS DOG ORDINANCE: RESOLUTION: BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDAINED That the City of Shelton adopt the Vicious Dogs "Gracie's Law" Ordinance as follows following Ordinance: A. Definitions: Animal Control
More informationORDINANCE NO WHEREAS, the City of Hamilton (hereinafter referred to. as the City ) is empowered to enact ordinances to protect
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-2 WHEREAS, the City of Hamilton (hereinafter referred to as the City ) is empowered to enact ordinances to protect and to promote the general health and welfare of its citizens and is
More informationPLEASE READ ENTIRE AGREEMENT BEFORE SIGNING FAIRFIELD A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. PET AGREEMENT
PLEASE READ ENTIRE AGREEMENT BEFORE SIGNING FAIRFIELD A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. PET AGREEMENT Owner(s) Address: Unit No: OF FAIRFIELD A CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., SUN CITY CENTER, FLORIDA Identification
More informationORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCATA PERTAINING TO VICIOUS, POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND PUBLIC NUISANCE DOGS
ORDINANCE NO. 1365 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCATA PERTAINING TO VICIOUS, POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS AND PUBLIC NUISANCE DOGS TITLE V SANITATION & HEALTH CHAPTER 2 ANIMALS ARTICLE 1 DOGS
More informationBISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE DOG CONTROL ORDINANCE NO BISHOP PAIUTE RESERVATION BISHOP, CALIFORNIA
BISHOP PAIUTE TRIBE BISHOP PAIUTE RESERVATION BISHOP, CALIFORNIA DOG CONTROL ORDINANCE NO. 2009-02 ADOPTED June 24, 2009 Bishop Paiute Tribe Bishop Paiute Tribal Ordinance No. 2009-02 Regulating the Vaccination
More informationIN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF GALLIPOLIS, onto
IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF GALLIPOLIS, onto STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff Case No. 14 CRB 157 AIL -vs- JASON HARRIS Defendant MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANT, JASON HARRIS Pursuant to this Court's Order, Defendant, Jason
More informationBILL NO. ORDINANCE NO.
SUMMARY: An ordinance amending Washoe County Code Chapter 55 by vacating the animal control board; and by amending provisions related to a variance permit to keep more than three dogs and/or seven cats
More informationPLEASE READ ENTIRE AGREEMENT BEFORE SIGNING FAIRBOURNE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. PET AGREEMENT
PLEASE READ ENTIRE AGREEMENT BEFORE SIGNING FAIRBOURNE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC. PET AGREEMENT Owner(s) Address: Unit No: OF FAIRBOURNE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., SUN CITY CENTER, FLORIDA Identification
More informationHOUSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY PET OWNERSHIP POLICY
2640 Fountain View Drive Houston, Texas 77057 713.260.0500 P 713.260.0547 TTY www.housingforhouston.com HOUSTON HOUSING AUTHORITY PET OWNERSHIP POLICY A. EXEMPTION FROM THE PET RULES FOR ASSISTIVE ANIMALS
More informationORDINANCE NO. 14,951
ORDINANCE NO. 14,951 AN ORDINANCE to amend the Municipal Code of the City of Des Moines, Iowa, 2000, adopted by Ordinance No. 13,827, passed June 5, 2000, and amended by Ordinance No. 13,854 passed August
More informationPet Policy of the Stonehenge Subdivision
Purpose: Pet Policy of the Stonehenge Subdivision www.stonehengecondoassociation.com The purpose of these rules, effective May 15, 2011, are to establish reasonable requirements for the keeping of dogs
More informationINSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS WITNESS STATEMENT
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING THIS WITNESS STATEMENT 1. Include the Animal Care and Control case number on the upper right hand corner. 2. Please be as accurate and detailed as possible in outlining the
More informationMONAHANS HOUSING AUTHORITY PET OWNERSHIP POLICY (Revised 6/14/2016)
MONAHANS HOUSING AUTHORITY PET OWNERSHIP POLICY (Revised 6/14/2016) A. EXEMPTIONS These rules do not apply to assistance animals needed by a person with a documented disability who has a disability-related
More informationCITY OF LACOMBE BYLAW 265
CITY OF LACOMBE BYLAW 265 Consolidation to January 14, 2013 A Bylaw to authorize the Municipal Council of the City of Lacombe, in the Province of Alberta to provide for the keeping and registration of
More informationArticle VIII. Potentially Dangerous Dogs and Vicious Dogs
Sec. 7-53. Purpose. Article VIII. Potentially Dangerous Dogs and Vicious Dogs Within the county of Santa Barbara there are potentially dangerous and vicious dogs that have become a serious and widespread
More informationSec. 2. Authority. This ordinance is enacted pursuant to the authority granted in 7 M.R.S.A. s3950 and 30-M.R.S.A.s3001.
September 26,1996: Revised Proposed Town of Limerick Dog Ordinance. PASSED Town of Limerick Dog Control Ordinance Sec. 1. Title. This ordinance shall be known as the Town of Limerick Dog Control Ordinance.
More informationDOG BYLAWS. 3. There will be a late charge per dog for licensing after March 31 st. There will be no exceptions to this requirement.
DOG BYLAWS Section 1: Licensing: The owner or keeper of a dog kept within the Town of Heath shall cause the dog to be licensed individually or part of a kennel license, as provided in this Bylaw and Chapter
More informationORDINANCE AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA
ORDINANCE 2015-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA AMENDING CHAPTER 18, ANIMALS, BY AMENDING ARTICLE 111, COMMERCIAL ANIMAL ESTABLISHMENTS BY CREATING SECTION 18-17 TO BE ENTITLED
More informationFRISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY PET OWNERSHIP POLICY (Latest revision: 8/2017)
FRISCO HOUSING AUTHORITY PET OWNERSHIP POLICY (Latest revision: 8/2017) A. EXEMPTIONS These rules do not apply to service or companion animals needed by a person with a documented disability who has a
More informationTOWN OF POMFRET DOG ORDINANCE Originally Adopted May 22, 1984 Amended December 19, 2012 Amendment adopted October 1, 2014 Effective November 30, 2014
TOWN OF POMFRET DOG ORDINANCE Originally Adopted May 22, 1984 Amended December 19, 2012 Amendment adopted October 1, 2014 Effective November 30, 2014 SECTION 1 AUTHORITY This ordinance is adopted by the
More informationA DIRECTOR S GUIDE TO PETS IN CONDOMINIUMS
OUR CONDO EXPERTISE A DIRECTOR S GUIDE TO PETS IN CONDOMINIUMS PRACTICAL ADVICE, CREATIVE SOLUTIONS, COST EFFECTIVE LASHCONDOLAW.COM A DIRECTOR S GUIDE TO PETS IN CONDOMINIUMS It is estimated that over
More informationTITLE 10 ANIMAL CONTROL CHAPTER 1 IN GENERAL
10-1 TITLE 10 ANIMAL CONTROL CHAPTER 1. IN GENERAL. 2. DOGS. 3. VICIOUS DOGS. CHAPTER 1 IN GENERAL SECTION 10-101. Running at large prohibited. 10-102. Keeping near a residence or business restricted.
More informationPerry County Housing Authority PET POLICY Effective April 1, 2013
Perry County Housing Authority PET POLICY Effective April 1, 2013 1. APPLICATION Perry County Housing Authority will allow tenants to have pets in their units, provided PCHA has been notified and issued
More informationORDINANCE NO
ORDINANCE NO. 2014-07 Item 2-5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LEMOORE AMENDING SECTIONS 3 AND 77 OF CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 5 AND ADDING SECTIONS 80, 29, 30 AND 31 OF CHAPTER 1 OF TITLE 5 OF
More informationTOWN OF LUDLOW, VERMONT DOG ORDINANCE
TOWN OF LUDLOW, VERMONT DOG ORDINANCE 1. Enabling Authority 2. Definitions 3. Licensing 4. Confinement / Control 5. Authorized Agent 6. Dog in Heat 7. Animal Control Officer Duties 8. General Violation
More informationSt. Paul City Ordinance
St. Paul City Ordinance Title XX. Chapter 200. Section. 200.11. Potentially dangerous animals. (a) Potentially dangerous animals. A potentially dangerous animal is an animal which has: (1) When unprovoked,
More informationIN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA
Filing # 35984288 E-Filed 12/29/2015 03:25:17 PM IN THE COUNTY COURT IN AND FOR BAY COUNTY, FLORIDA BAY COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL, Petitioner/Appellant vs. Case No.: 2015-2797-CC JOHNATHON JONES, Respondent/Appellee.
More informationMEMORANDUM JOHN ROGERS, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR HEATHER WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID HIRSCH, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL JOHN ROGERS, RECREATION SERVICES DIRECTOR HEATHER WHITHAM, CITY ATTORNEY DAVID HIRSCH, ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING SECTION 12.20.080
More informationDog Control Ordinance
Dog Control Ordinance TOWN ORDINANCE Article 7 of the Agriculture and Markets Law of the State of New York DOG CONTROL ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF BERKSHIRE SECTION 1. PURPOSE: The Town of Berkshire, New
More informationContract. You may print this document and fax or mail to: Nina M. Fetter Mowery Rd. Lima, Ohio 45801
Contract You may print this document and fax or mail to: Nina Fetter 5350 Mowery Rd. Lima, Ohio 45801 Cell (419) 230-7604 Office (419) 221-0046 - Fax (586) 601 2551 A G R E E M E N T This agreement is
More informationTITLE 17 B HEALTH AND SAFETY CHAPTER 7 ANIMAL CONTROL
TITLE 17 B HEALTH AND SAFETY CHAPTER 7 ANIMAL CONTROL Legislative History: 17 T.O.C. Chapter 7 - Animal Control, was adopted by Resolution No. 07-025 effective January 21, 2007; amended by Referendum 02-12
More informationPage 47-1 rev
47.01 47.11(1) CHAPTER 47 ANIMAL CONTROL 47.01 Title. 47.02 Purpose. 47.03 Authority. 47.04 Administration. 47.05 Application. 47.06 Definitions. [47.07-47.10 reserved.] 47.11 Rabies Vaccinations Required.
More informationReferred to Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government
HEARING 6/4/13 11am State House Rm 437 & 1pm State House Rm A2 SUPPORT SB1103 An Act Relative to Protecting Puppies & Kittens [Sen. Spilka (D)] SUPPORT HB1826 An Act Relative to Protecting Puppies & Kittens
More informationADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF WAKE 13 OSP JANET STARICHA, Petitioner,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS COUNTY OF WAKE 13 OSP 19693 JANET STARICHA, Petitioner, v. FINAL DECISION THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL, Respondent. The
More informationGrand Rapids Housing Commission Ransom Tower Pet and Service Animal Policy
Grand Rapids Housing Commission Ransom Tower Pet and Service Animal Policy Residents who live in Ransom Tower Apartments are permitted to own common household pets defined as A domesticated animal, such
More informationCORYELL COUNTY RABIES CONTROL ORDINANCE NO
ORDINANCE NO. 2010-03 Section 1.1 Authority. SECTION 1 INTENT AND AUTHORITY These regulations are adopted by the Commissioners Court of Coryell County, Texas, acting in its capacity as the governing body
More information1 SB By Senators Livingston and Scofield. 4 RFD: Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry. 5 First Read: 25-JAN-18.
1 SB232 2 190459-2 3 By Senators Livingston and Scofield 4 RFD: Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry 5 First Read: 25-JAN-18 Page 0 1 190459-2:n:01/25/2018:KBH/tgw LSA2018-479R1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 SYNOPSIS:
More informationSOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GERMAN SHEPHERD RESCUE ADOPTION CONTRACT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GERMAN SHEPHERD RESCUE ADOPTION CONTRACT The undersigned adoptive person(s) (the "Adopter") hereby adopts the following described dog (the "Dog") from Southern California German Shepherd
More informationLOCAL LAW NO. 2 OF 2010 LICENSING AND SETTING LICENSING FEES OF DOGS
LOCAL LAW NO. 2 OF 2010 LICENSING AND SETTING LICENSING FEES OF DOGS 1.01. STATUTORY AUTHORITY SECTION 1.0 LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY This local law is enacted pursuant to the authority vested in the Town Board
More informationCHAPTER 4 DOG CONTROL
CHAPTER 4 DOG CONTROL SECTION: 5-4-1: Definitions 5-4-2: License Required (Repealed) 5-4-3: License Fees (Repealed) 5-4-4: Unidentified Dogs Running at Large 5-4-5: Record of License (Repealed) 5-4-6:
More informationANIMAL CONTROL CITY ANIMAL ORDINANCE
ANIMAL CONTROL CITY ANIMAL ORDINANCE Definitions At Large A dog shall be at large when not confined to the premises of the owner or under restraint when away form the premises of the owner. Confinement
More informationNoise Nuisance October 2016
Noise Nuisance October 2016 THE PROBLEM Noise nuisance is not a crime and the District Council is the most appropriate agency to deal with noise nuisance as Police Powers are very limited. If you have
More informationREASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PET POLICY ELDERLY/DISABLED PROJECTS. Feeding of stray animals will be considered as having an unauthorized animal.
REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION PET POLICY ELDERLY/DISABLED PROJECTS INTRODUCTION The purpose of this policy is to establish the BHA's policy and procedures for ownership of pets in elderly and disabled units
More informationTitle 6 ANIMALS. Chapter 6.04 ANIMAL CONTROL
Title 6 ANIMALS Chapters: 6.04 Animal Control 6.08 Hunting, Harassing, Trapping Animals Chapter 6.04 ANIMAL CONTROL Sections: 6.04.005 Animal Control 6.04.010 License required. 6.04.020 Licenses, fees,
More informationORDINANCE # WHEREAS, backyard and urban chickens eat noxious weeds and insects; and
ORDINANCE #2009-01 AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 17.00, ZONING, WITH THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 17.52, KEEPING LIMITED NUMBERS OF FOWL, SPECIFICALLY HEN CHICKENS FOR EGGS AND ESTABLISHING MAINTENANCE
More informationA BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF LANGHAM TO REGULATE & LICENSE DOGS AND CATS
A BYLAW OF THE TO REGULATE & LICENSE DOGS AND CATS The Council of the Town of Langham in the Province of Saskatchewan Enacts as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS a) Administrator means the Town Administrator of
More informationCity of San Mateo BARKING DOG COMPLAINTS
San Mateo Police Department 200 Franklin Parkway San Mateo, California 94403-1921 Support Services: (650) 522-7620 www.cityofsanmateo.org Dear San Mateo Resident: Enclosed in this Barking Dog Complaint
More informationExhibit 6-2 Policy Overview
Exhibit 6-2 Policy Overview Old Policy New Policy Chapter 14 and Exhibit 14-1 Exhibit 6-2 14.1 Nomenclature 14.1.A Is the Animal a Pet or Assistive 6-2.1 Pets versus Assistive Animals Animal? 14.2 Family
More informationCHAPTER 2.26 ANIMAL CONTROL
CHAPTER 2.26 ANIMAL CONTROL SECTIONS: 2.26.010 Definitions 2.26.020 Dogs at Large 2.26.030 Setting at Large Prohibited 2.26.040 Notice of Impounding--Procedures 2.26.050 Redemption of Impounded Dogs 2.26.060
More information6.04 LICENSING AND REGISTRATION OF DOGS AND CATS
TITLE 6 - ANIMALS 6.04 LICENSING AND REGISTRATION OF DOGS AND CATS Contents: 6.04.010 License Fee. 6.04.020 Penalty for Overdue License Fee. 6.04.030 Registration - Tags. 6.04.035 Violation of 6.04.030
More informationCHAPTER XII ANIMALS. .2 ANIMAL. Animal means every living creature, other than man, which may be affected by rabies.
CHAPTER XII ANIMALS 1.0 PURPOSE. The purpose of this chapter is to promote a harmonious relationship between man and animal through established conduct and procedures when man and animals interact so as
More informationCHAPTER 604 TOWN OF SCARBOROUGH ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
CHAPTER 604 TOWN OF SCARBOROUGH ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE Adopted 02/16/2000 Amended 05/19/2004 Amended 04/20/2011 Amended 05/07/2014 604-1 Purpose... 1 604-2 Definitions... 1 1. ABANDONED ANIMAL:... 1
More informationAddendum J PET OWNERSHIP POLICY
Addendum J PET OWNERSHIP POLICY A. Pet Rules The following rules shall apply for the keeping of pets by Residents living in the units operated by the Housing Authority. These rules do not apply to animals
More informationPET POLICY Background Assistive and Medically Necessary Companion Animals for Residents with Disabilities
PET POLICY Background This policy sets forth requirements for residents who wish to keep common household pets such as dogs and cats in their CMHA dwelling units. All residents who desire to keep a pet
More informationCORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE BY-LAW NUMBER Being a By-law for the Control and Licensing of Dogs
CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF HUNTSVILLE BY-LAW NUMBER 2012-103 Being a By-law for the Control and Licensing of Dogs WHEREAS The Municipal Act, R.S.O., 2001 section 103 authorizes the Council of a municipality
More informationPet, Service Animal, and Assistance Animal Policy
I. INTRODUCTION The Worcester Housing Authority ( WHA ) Pet, Service Animal, and Assistance Animal Policy provides rules and guidelines for the ownership and care of common household pets, and explains
More informationCHAPTER 2 ANIMALS. Part 1. Keeping of Dogs
CHAPTER 2 ANIMALS Part 1 Keeping of Dogs 2-101. License Required 2-102. Requirements; Compliance with Rabies Prevention and Control in Domestic Animals and Wildlife Act 2-103. Dog Catcher 2-104. Possession
More informationSUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BYLAW NO A Bylaw to regulate the keeping of dogs within the Keats Island Dog Control Service Area
SUNSHINE COAST REGIONAL DISTRICT BYLAW NO. 691 A Bylaw to regulate the keeping of dogs within the Keats Island Dog Control Service Area WHEREAS the Sunshine Coast Regional District has established a service
More informationORDINANCE NO NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO. 29-14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DELRAY BEACH, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 91, ANIMALS, BY ENACTING A NEW SECTION 91.18, RETAIL SALE OF DOGS AND CATS TO PROVIDE FOR
More informationTOWN OF WOODSTOCK ORDINANCE REGULATING DOGS AND WOLF-HYBRIDS
TOWN OF WOODSTOCK ORDINANCE REGULATING DOGS AND WOLF-HYBRIDS SECTION 1. AUTHORITY. This ordinance is adopted by the Select Board of the Town of Woodstock under authority of 20 V.S.A. 3549, 24 V.S.A. 2291
More informationLOCAL LAW NO. 4 OF THE YEAR A Local Law entitled Local Law No. 4 of the Year 2010, Dog Control Law of the Town of
LOCAL LAW NO. 4 OF THE YEAR 2010 A Local Law entitled Local Law No. 4 of the Year 2010, Dog Control Law of the Town of Wappinger. BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Wappinger as follows: Section
More informationTOWN OF GOLDEN BYLAW NUMBER WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Golden deems it desirous to regulate the keeping, care and licensing of animals;
TOWN OF GOLDEN BYLAW NUMBER 1157 Being a bylaw of the Town of Golden to regulate the keeping, care and licensing of animals in the Town of Golden WHEREAS the Council of the Town of Golden deems it desirous
More informationBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHAFFEE COUNTY COLORADO RESOLUTION NUMBER
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CHAFFEE COUNTY COLORADO RESOLUTION NUMBER 2001-4 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE CONTROL OF DOGS, VACCINATION OF DOGS AND THEIR IDENTIFICATION, CONTROL OF VICIOUS DOGS AND
More informationCHAPTER 5 ANIMALS. Owner: Any person, group of persons, or corporation owning, keeping or harboring animals.
CHAPTER 5 ANIMALS ARTICLE I. IN GENERAL 5-1. Definitions Animal impoundment officer: The person or persons employed or contracted by the Town as its enforcement officer or officers, or the person of persons
More informationTown of Northumberland LOCAL LAW 3 OF 2010 DOG CONTROL LAW
Town of Northumberland LOCAL LAW 3 OF 2010 DOG CONTROL LAW Purpose The Town of Northumberland finds that the running at large and other uncontrolled behavior of licensed and unlicensed dogs has caused
More informationTHE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
ORDINANCE NO. 1_8_1_9_:_{ O An ordinance amending Sections 53.18.5 and 53.63 and adding Section 53.34.3 to Article 3, Chapter 5 of the Los Angeles Municipal Code (LAMC) to authorize the Department of Animal
More informationAnimal Control Ordinance
Animal Control Ordinance Town of York, Maine Most Recently Amended: May 19, 2012 Prior Dates of Amendment: November 2, 2010 May 20,2006 Date of Original Enactment: November 2, 1993 ENACTMENT BY THE LEGISLATIVE
More informationWHEREAS, The Municipalities Act, 2005, provides that a Council may by bylaw:
TOWN OF KIPLING BYLAW 11-2014 A BYLAW OF THE TOWN OF KIPLING FOR LICENSING DOGS AND CATS REGULATING AND CONTROLLING PERSONS OWNING OR HARBOURING DOGS, CATS, AND OTHER ANIMALS This Bylaw shall be known
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF COUNTY JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, TERM, 20 Petitioner vs. [Respondent 1] [Respondent 2] [Respondent
More informationTOWN OF LUMSDEN BYLAW NO A BYLAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING, CONTROLLING, REGULATING AND IMPOUNDING OF DOGS.
TOWN OF LUMSDEN BYLAW NO 11-2016 A BYLAW TO PROVIDE FOR THE LICENSING, CONTROLLING, REGULATING AND IMPOUNDING OF DOGS. The Council of the Town of Lumsden in the Province of Saskatchewan enacts as follows:
More information