Washoe County Animal Control Board DRAFT of Minutes Tuesday ~ March 13, 2018~ 2:00 p.m. WASHOE COUNTY REGIONAL ANIMAL SERVICES CENTER CLASSROOM 2825 LONGLEY LANE, RENO, NEVADA 1. CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL [Non-action item] MEMBERS Richard Simmonds, Chair Elaine Carrick, Vice-chair Trudy Brussard Linda Church Paul B. Davis Kathryn Hass Tim Stoffel Chair Simmonds called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. A quorum was established PRESENT: Elaine Carrick, Linda Church, Paul Davis, Trudy Brussard, Richard Simmonds and Tim Stoffel. ABSENT: Kathryn Hass Jen Gustafson Deputy District Attorney, was also present. Chair Simmonds noted that comment is limited to three minutes with slightly more time allotted to the applicants as deemed necessary. Chair Simmonds explained that questions to the board during the public comment portions of the meeting agenda could not be answered but could be added as future agenda item at the discretion of the body. However, Chair Simmonds believes this is the last meeting of the Washoe County Animal Control Board. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT (Non-action item) There were no public comments. 3. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 12, 2017, MINUTES [For possible action] Hearing no public comment Chair Simmonds asked for Board discussion or a motion. It was moved by Member Davis, seconded by Member Church, to approve the December 12, 2017, minutes as submitted. The motion carried with Member Haas absent. 4. KENNEL PERMIT APPEAL HEARING [For possible action] A review discussion and possible action to approve, deny or otherwise modify a kennel permit to allow Alexander Elrod to keep five (5) dogs at 13045 Kernite Street, Reno, Nevada. Cynthia Doak - Regional Animal Services, commented that the appellant had reduced to three dogs and that the permit was no longer needed. No specific action needed or taken. 5. KENNEL PERMIT APPEAL HEARING [For possible action] A review discussion and possible action to approve, deny or otherwise modify a kennel permit to allow Melanie Peck to keep nine (9) dogs at 1070 Tapadero Trail, Reno, Nevada.
Page 2 of 10 Cynthia Doak Regional Animal Services, noted that five objections had been received and that the initial call for service was due to an open door that resulted in the WCSO (Washoe County Sheriff's Office) responding and subsequently contacting Animal Services about dogs at large. During the initial call unsanitary conditions were observed. Officer Doak commented that Ms. Peck has taken steps to reduce the number of animals and clean the premises making a better situation for the animals. Officer Doak commented that Ms. Peck s daughter had come to help capture the dogs but did not have a key to the house. Officer Ueda can provide an update on the conditions of the animals and inside of the house as she conducted follow-up inspections. Officer Ueda commented that the residence had been cleaned and that the dogs did bark upon her arrival but quieted rather quickly. Although the fencing is in need of some repair the house did not show signs of feces with only a minor urine odor. All of the dogs were friendly and responsive. All but one of the dogs are Yorkie mixes with the largest of the dogs being an Australian Husky. Officer Ueda noted that while all the females are spayed, only one of the three males is neutered. Ms. Peck is working with rescue organizations to find homes and further reduce the number of dogs on-site. Chair Simmonds opened the public hearing. Melanie Peck commented that she believes her neighbors have legitimate complaints and that she is working to mitigate the issues. Ms. Peck noted that there were two unexpected litters from the same female in the course of four months. While she did find homes for some of the puppies one was returned in a starving condition that has made her hyper-responsible and cautious in finding homes. Ms. Peck then outlined the special needs of some of the dogs including a deformed cleft palate, white shaker syndrome and another with a massive overbite. Ms. Peck outlined measures she has taken to reduce the barking by only allowing the dogs outside when she is with them and drew attention to letters received from surrounding neighbors. Ms. Peck. Explained that she has eight dogs and that she will have the rest of the males neutered if required. Ms. Peck explained that she was not moving forward with finding new homes pending the outcome of the kennel permit hearing. Katherine Sanford recommended that the permit be approved as she never hears barking and lives across the street. George Bradley stated that his property is directly west of the applicant s back yard and that he is opposed to the number of dogs as he believes that three dogs are plenty. Mr. Bradley noted that as the breeze changes direction the odor is offensive. Although the instances of barking are now sporadic he still believes that anything more than three dogs is too many. Ray Black stated the he too was opposed to the permit pointing out that while there is less noise during winter months spring is on the way and the dogs will most likely spend more time outdoors and bark until they are let back in. Mr. Black commented that the noise makes it difficult to enjoy his backyard and that the odor is unpleasant. Mr. Black does not believe that it will get any better in terms of cleaning up the mess nor is her property the most sanitary in his opinion. Cheryl Schricker commented that while she loves animals this neighborhood is not the proper place for a kennel. Ms. Schricker noted that it was her husband that called WCSO when the front door was left open and dogs were running in and out. Of concern is leaving the dogs inside while Ms. Peck is
Page 3 of 10 away working without access to the outdoors. Ms. Schricker does not believe this is in the best interests of the dogs nor would it be sanitary or appropriate to the neighborhood. Chair Simmonds closed the public hearing. Member Davis commented that while he believes Ms. Peck to be a compassionate and caring person for the animals and is making an effort to address issues, he cannot support the request based on the testimony heard Member Stoffel questioned whether a compromise of reducing to five dogs in consideration of the neighbors. Jen Gustafson Deputy District Attorney, commented that the board could take action to limit the number of dogs to less than the eight being requested by the applicant. Member Brussard noted that special needs dogs would be difficult to adopt out and that the suggested reduction would alleviate some of the noise and smell concerns expressed by neighbors. Member Carrick noted that neighbors are entitled to having quiet and had expressed themselves very well. Member Carrick suggested a temporary 6-month permit with Animal Control Officers checking the situation every two weeks with a review in six months to determine whether there was any improvement and issue a final decision. Member Davis agreed that would be a nice compromise and asked if a reduction in the number of dogs would be favored. Ms. Gustafson pointed out that there was no mechanism to allow a temporary permit. Therefore, the Board needs to determine whether or not the permit can be granted. Ms. Gustafson pointed out that violations of conditions in approved kennel permits can result in the kennel permit being revoked. Member Church commented that while she cannot support eight dogs, she can support five dogs and emphasized that neighbors have a right to enjoy their property without noise and odor. Member Church favors a 30-day review with neighbors being contacted to determine whether the situation has improved. Member Davis commented that he believes this is a fair compromise that he can support. Member Stoffel suggested a modification to not only reduce to five dogs with a condition that it be completed in 45-days since there is no provisional permit.. In response to a question from Chair Simmonds Ms. Gustafson commented that it was up to the Chair to determine whether or not to accept additional public comment. During the discussion it was suggested that perhaps it would be better to have a 60-day review. As the discussion continued it was pointed out that while 30-days is probably sufficient 45-days is a good compromise for review.
Page 4 of 10 Chair Simmonds reopened public comment. Ms. Herndon noted that in 45-days neighbor s windows might still be closed. However the primary concern is the odor and noise once summer arrives and windows are open. Additionally, how are neighbors going to know which dogs are kept and which ones are adopted. Chair Simmonds explained that once the permit and conditions are issued neighbors may contact Animal Services to voice concerns and file complaints. Animal Services then has the ability to revoke the permit. Member Davis explained that the revocation would not come back to this body as it is being disbanded after tonight s (March 13, 2018) meeting. Ms. Herndon explained that she had no desire to be awakened in the middle of the night by barking dogs. Mr. Black commented that while he appreciates Ms. Peck s endeavors to resolve the issues it is his belief that reducing the number of dogs to five from eight will not make much difference and that the neighbors would have to start over. Therefore, Mr. Black believes that a decision should be made. Ms. Peck explained her confusion about continued barking complaints as she only takes the dogs out for a walk five at a time. Ms. Peck pointed out that she has tried to reduce the barking by keeping all the dogs inside over the past six weeks and that she appreciates the efforts of the Animal Control Board. Ms. Peck stated she would accept the compromise proposed by the board. Officer Doak explained that once a permit is issued a second violation issued within a year may result in suspension, fines and civil actions that can result in the revocation permit. Violations include dogs at large, barking and unsanitary issues. Ms. Schricker noted that barking can still be heard and that if bark collars are in use it would seem that no barking would be heard. Ms. Schricker stated that 5 dogs is still too many. Member Davis commented that he believes Ms. Peck has made a good faith effort to address concerns. Member Davis pointed out that an approved kennel permit can be suspended or revised and that he favors a compromise of not more than five dogs with a 45-day review. Member Carrick concurred with the reduction to five dogs with a 45 day review. Additionally, Member Carrick recommended that a Condition be added that all animals be spayed/neutered as male dogs tend to be louder and more aggressive if not neutered. Member Davis concurred with the proposed condition. It was moved by Member Carrick, seconded by Member Davis, that the kennel permit to allow Melanie Peck to keep five (5) dogs at 1070 Tapadero Trail, Reno, Nevada, be approved on the basis that the factual findings required by Washoe County Code 55.420 and 55.400(3) can be made based on the evidence provided by Animal Control Officers, the applicant and other witnesses. Member Carrick conditioned the permit: 1) not more than five dogs; 2) all dogs to
Page 5 of 10 be spayed neutered; and 3 that Animal Services will review the situation in 45-days to determine that barking has abated. Chair Simmonds stated that he would abstain as the applicant s father is a close friend. The motion carried: Members Brussard, Carrick, Church, Davis and Stoffel assenting; Chair Simmonds abstaining and Member Hass absent. Chair Simmonds read the appeal process into the record. Chair Simmonds stated that items 6 and 7 would be heard and discussed concurrently with separate motions. 6. KENNEL PERMIT APPEAL HEARING [For possible action] A review discussion and possible action to approve, deny or otherwise modify a kennel permit to allow Kitty McWilliams and Susan Hickman to keep six (6) dogs at 130 East Arroyo Street, Reno, Nevada. 7. CATTERY PERMIT APPEAL HEARING [For possible action] A review discussion and possible action to approve, deny or otherwise modify a cattery permit to allow Kitty McWilliams and Susan Hickman to keep twelve (12) cats at 130 East Arroyo Street, Reno, Nevada. Cynthia Doak Regional Animal Services, commented that Kitty McWilliams has had a kennel permit for about ten years before there was a regulation on the number of cats that could be kept without a cattery permit. Officer Doak noted that Ms. McWilliams had moved thus requiring both a kennel and cattery permit. Officer Doak noted that four objections had been received, including one with an attorney s address that Animal Services were unable to contact. Officer Doak noted that the permits are in both names with joint ownership of the animals. Nancy Ueda Regional Animal Services, commented that the house will be used as the kennel and that the dogs are mostly kept indoors. The applicants have been advised that the dogs cannot be outside unless supervised by an adult. The yard was clean upon inspection with the dogs in good condition. Officer Ueda noted that the property also has dog houses outside so that animals have shelter. The cats are typically kept in the basement area with outside access provided via a basement window to a screen enclosed area with perches. Officer Ueda noted that all animals are up to date on vaccinations and except those that are too elderly or have health conditions that preclude certain vaccines. A certificate of vaccination exemptions has been received from the veterinarian. Officer Ueda noted that the smell was minimal and that all animals appeared healthy. It appears that there is little interaction between the dogs and cats. Kitty McWilliams submitted photographs (copies on file) and noted that she had lived at the Sierra Manor location in the past with a number of her cats. Ms. McWilliams noted that Doctor Davenport of Pinion Animal Hospital is her veterinarian. Ms. McWilliams outlined her previous experience as a night keeper for elephants and big cats in San Andreas, California. Ms. McWilliams noted that she had moved the used litter container closer to her home and that she spent time daily cleaning cat boxes in the basement as well as cleaning dog feces from the yard. Ms. McWilliams noted that her daughter sometimes visits with her dog Moe that while not a problem barker has a high-pitched bark. Currently there are renovations underway to install new windows and siding that has caused the dogs to bark. However, that work is drawing to a close, hopefully in the next 30-days.
Page 6 of 10 Susan Hickman noted that she is the property owner and that she has talked to neighbors on either side and that Ms. McWilliams takes good care of the animals. Joanne Geron outlined her objections due to barking, odor, specifically the outdoor run for the cats. Ms. Geron noted that she had moved to a residential neighborhood not a kennel neighborhood and that she does not wish to live next to a kennel. Given the declining health of the neighbor (Ms. Hickman) she does not think it fair to the animals to grant the permit. R. J. Myers noted that he has been living next to the property owner since 1997 when she erected a 5-foot fence and built several structures on the property without proper permits. Mr. Myers drew attention to a structure that drains onto his property and that he is allergic to cats. Mr. Myers questioned the number of complaints that have been filed with Animal Services. Robert Salik commented that 34 cat carriers with cats and ten dogs were moved onto the property in the middle of the night. Mr. Salik explained that there has been a barkfest since the animals were brought onto the property and that the ladies have disrespected surrounding neighbors. Mr. Salik stated that he disagrees with allowing that many animals. Randall Miller commented that he had smelled animal waste and that he has to pass the house to get to his mailbox that causes the dogs to bark. Mr. Miller noted concerns about noise and odor associated with this number of animals. Chair Simmonds closed the public hearing. Member Carrick recalled comments about the location used for storage of used cat litter as well as noise issues. Member Carrick drew attention to the age of the animals noting that some of the issues may resolve themselves by attrition. Therefore, Member Carrick suggested that the number of animals be allowed to decline through attrition with a provision that no new animals may be brought in. Member Church gave credit for the care and experience of the applicant and noted her concerns about the number of dogs and cats in a single home. Member Church stated that due to the number of animals she could not support the request. Member Dais concurred with Member Church that there were too many animals. Member Brussard commented that the building permit issues were not pertinent to this body and that the applicant had good accreditation and history in the care of animals, which is hard to object to. Member Stoffel commented that it would be difficult to move the elderly animals and that he does understand the concerns of neighbors. Therefore, it is difficult to determine how he would vote. It was moved by Member Carrick, seconded by Member Brussard, that the kennel permit to allow Kitty McWilliams and Susan Hickman, to keep six (6) dogs at 130 Arroyo Street, Reno, Nevada, be approved on the basis that the factual findings required by Washoe County Code
Page 7 of 10 55.420 and 55.400(3) can be made based on the evidence provided by Animal Control Officers, the applicant and other witnesses. Member Stoffel recommended a condition that the number of animals be reduced by natural attrition to the legal limit. Member Carrick accepted the Condition that the number of dogs be reduced by natural attrition to the legal limit, Member Brussard accepted the condition. The motion carried: Members Carrick, Brussard, Stoffel and Chair Simmonds assenting; Members Church and Davis dissenting; and Member Haas absent. Responding to Member Brussard s inquiry about the number of cats, Officer Ueda explained that while the number of cats was not counted it was close to twelve. It was moved by Member Carrick, seconded by Member Stoffel, that the cattery permit to allow Kitty McWilliams and Susan Hickman, to keep twelve (12) cats at 130 Arroyo Street, Reno, Nevada, be approved on the basis that the factual findings required by Washoe County Code 55.420 and 55.400(3) can be made based on the evidence provided by Animal Control Officers, the applicant and other witnesses. Member Carrick conditioned the permit: that the number of cats be reduced by natural attrition. The motion carried: Members Carrick, Brussard, Stoffel and Chair Simmonds assenting; Members Church and Davis dissenting; and Member Haas absent. Chair Simmonds read the appeal process. The meeting recessed at 3:38 p.m. and reconvened at 3:44 p.m. 8. KENNEL PERMIT APPEAL HEARING [For possible action] A review discussion and possible action to approve, deny or otherwise modify a kennel permit to allow Florence Vazquez and Nadeen Vazquez to keep four (4) dogs at 7006 Mozart Court, Sun Valley, Nevada. Cynthia Doak Regional Animal Services, provided an overview of the request noting that there had been a complaint of dogs at large. Officer Doak also noted that there were previous Notices of Civil Penalty for failure to license that has gone to collections. Additionally, one of the objectors is the Highland Ranch Home Owners Association. Responding to Member Davis inquiry about objections from an HOA, Jen Gustafson Deputy District Attorney explained that while the Animal Control Board could not enforce HOA rules/regulations there may be information that is pertinent to the purview of the ACB and should therefore be heard. Jeff Brooks Regional Animal Control, outlined the inspection of the property on January 20, 2018, noting that the yard is unkempt and not landscaped. The applicant, who is not present, is aware that the dogs must be supervised by an adult when outside. Although the yard is unkempt there are no breaks in the fencing and does not appear to be unsafe for the dogs. The applicant was not present.
Page 8 of 10 Responding to Chair Simmonds comment that the simple solution would be to adopt out one of the puppies, Officer Brooks noted that there had not been any discussion about reducing the number of animals and that the applicant appeared to be fully vested in going through the kennel permit process. Officer Doak reiterated that previous fines have not been paid and have been sent to collection. Piper Case Highland Ranch HOA, submitted photos of the property noting that it appears that the property is being used as multifamily. Of particular concern is that the kennel license could lead to a commercial use. Ms. Case noted the ongoing issues with the property owner including property maintenance, debris and fencing issues. Additionally, there is a vehicle on the property with a broken window that could be detrimental to the animals welfare. Therefore, Ms. Case believes the permit should be denied. Ms. Case noted that the applicant has an extensive history of fines and violations. Ms. Case noted that Washoe County had required that the applicant clean up the property. Tyler Bolton Highland Ranch HOA, noted that the issues of concern to the HOA as it pertains to this body are the health and welfare of the animals that may be harmed by the broken windshield. Officer Brooks noted that the inspection did not indicate any excessive feces at the time of inspection. Mr. Bolton commented that property maintenance is a recurring issue and that he is opposed to the permit request. Jorge Munoz noted his concerns with the proposal noting that the dogs barking excessively and that there is damage to the fencing. The dogs appear to come out every 20 minutes or so and are not controlled in any fashion. Mr. Munoz commented that the traffic in and out of the property appears to be that of a drug house and that he has taken measure to protect himself. Therefore, Mr. Munoz is opposed to the request. Chair Simmonds closed the public hearing. Member Carrick noted that the applicant is allowed to have up to three dogs and that the two dogs that are not spayed/neutered could be an issue in the future. Member Davis commented that he would not support the request and voiced his concerns about the remaining three. Chair Simmonds reopened the public hearing. Mr. Munoz commented that he felt that the rule of three gave the applicant a reason to default in the future. Chair Simmonds noted that the Board could not require that the applicant not have any dogs and that it would be up to Regional Animal Services staff to investigate and take action on any animal welfare issues brought to their attention.
Page 9 of 10 Officer Brooks noted that the normal process allow up to 30 days to reduce after which the fine process begins, followed by a criminal citation that can then be taken to court. At that point a judge can issue an injunction, which is something that neither the ACB or Animal Services staff has the authority to do. Mr. Bolton noted that the applicant is not the homeowner and that it is unclear if the permit can be issued to a tenant of rental property. Chair Simmonds noted that an objection from the property owner would be needed before that could be used for denial. Member Stoffel pointed out previous issues with not paying fines and the applicant s absence at the public hearing making it difficult to support the request. Member Davis noted his concerns about animal health and welfare and the disregard of the applicant to previous citations and fines. It was moved by Member Stoffel, seconded by Member Brussard, to disapprove the kennel permit application of Florence Vazquez and Nadeen Vazquez, to keep more than three dogs at 7006 Mozart Court, Sun Valley, Nevada, due to: 1) failure to represent themselves at the hearing; and 2) failure to take care of obligations of previous citations. Member Davis noted his concern about the use of failure to appear as part of a motion that could be used to argue the denial. Member Stoffel withdrew the motion. Member Brussard withdrew the second. Jen Gustafson Deputy District Attorney, pointed out that the permit can only be denied when it violates state or local ordinance, endangers the health safety and welfare of persons living in the County and must be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. It was moved by Member Stoffel, seconded by Member Davis to disapprove the kennel permit application of Florence Vazquez and Nadeen Vazquez, to keep more than three dogs at 7006 Mozart Court, Sun Valley, Nevada, due to the inability to keep the animals in a safe and properly contained manner. During a brief discussion it was pointed out that this was the only option under current ordinance that could be taken. The motion carried: with Member Haas absent. Member Stoffel read the appeal process into the record. 9. UNCONTESTED KENNEL PERMIT APPLICATION APPROVALS [Non-action item] An informational update on the number of uncontested cattery/kennel permits issued by Animal Services since December 12, 2017.
Page 10 of 10 Cynthia Doak Regional Animal Services, commented that there have been no objections with one in the licensing process. Another pending permit has 72-hours to reapply and that ten new applications fall under the new ordinance. Officer Doak also explained that one permit had to be rescheduled and that the veterinarian clinic had to cancel and reschedule the appointment. 10. DIRECTOR S REPORT [Non-action item] - An informational update on the Department of Regional Animal Services programs, statistics, emerging developments, financial updates, and other matters properly related thereto. There was no Director s Report. 11. PUBLIC COMMENT [Non-action item] Shyanne Schull Director, thanked the Board for their service and handling of some very challenging applications over time and provided Service Award Certificates of Appreciation to the members present (Ms. Hass Award will be sent to her). Ms. Schull then invited members to stay for refreshments and a bit of socializing. Linda Church recalled coming to the board in June 2006 when Mitch Schneider was the Manager and is now training service dogs for Veterans with PTSD. Ms. Church noted that Bobby Smith had acted as Director until Mrs. Schull was brought in. Ms. Church commented that while she has never had or used a computer Officers Doak and Ueda have been very helpful in providing her with paper copies of the documents for the meetings. Ms. Church then recalled a telephone call from Robert Cox to the ladies serving on this board to assure their safe arrival home from a meeting on a snowy night. 12. ADJOURNMENT [Non-action item] Chair Simmonds adjourned the meeting at 4:20 p.m.