08/12/2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Douglas Vitunac, Esquire, Collins, Brown, & Caldwell, representing the Petersons, declared that the Board Meeting was not the appropriate forum to seek an override of Code Enforcement's decision; such appeals go directly to Circuit Court. He revealed that Diana Peterson had filed a lawsuit regarding this matter, which was in Circuit Court. Attorney Vitunac provided legal definitions of a kennel; discussed County Code; and asserted that Dog Kidz was a kennel, and as such, must follow Code, and keep all dogs away from the adjacent property line for 75 feet. Attorney Vitunac also noted that although Ms. Blakley's attorney, Mr. LeJoie, was in attendance, neither he, nor his client, had received any notice of today's meeting. Discussion." Chairman Bowden pointed out that this item had been placed under "Public Diana Peterson, 6990 77th Street, explained how Dog Kidz was interfering with the quiet enjoyment of her neighboring property, due to noise from the dogs and increased traffic on the street. She believed that the neighborhood was zoned for five -acre single-family ranchettes, and that it was a problem to have a booming commercial business in the middle of the neighboring homes. She informed the Board that if she had known about today's meeting, her neighbors and husband would also have been present. County Administrator Joe Baird clarified that anyone can get on the Agenda and speak on any item, no action is taken, and the County does not normally inform anyone. He affirmed that this matter should be resolved by Code Enforcement. County Attorney Will Collins stated that the Board did not have the jurisdiction to overturn a Code Enforcement Board decision. An appeal of the Code Enforcement's Final Order would have to go to Circuit Court for review of the record under which Code Enforcement came to its decision. 25 August 12, 2008