Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 09/09/1981CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 9, 1981 The South Burlington City Council held a regular meeting on Wednesday, September 9, 1981 at 7:00 pm in the Conference Room, City Hall, 575 Dorset St. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, Martin Paulsen, William Burgess Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Richard Spokes, City Attorney; David Spitz, City Planner; Sonny Audette, Street Department; Margaret Picard, City Clerk; Ruth Poger and Judy Hurd, The Other Paper; Jerry & Carol Parot, Norman Reuse, Kenny Burrows, William & Ethel Schuele, Georg Mona, Jack & Nancy Provencher, Kirk Woolery, Mr. Reuss Meet with City Attorney to discuss pending litigation At 7:15 pm Mr. Flaherty moved to go into executive session for the purpose of hearing from the attorney on legal matters concerning the city. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and it carried 3-0. During the executive session, Mr. Burgess arrived. At 7:45 pm the Council came out of executive session and met in regular session. Minutes of August 24, 1981 The August 24, 1981 minutes were approved on a motion by Mr. Paulsen, a second by Mr. Flaherty and a unanimous vote. Disbursement orders Disbursement orders were signed. Hearing on vicious dog complaint Mr. Szymanski said that on August 19 a child was bitten by a dog and in conjunction with that two signed complaints about the dog were received, which is the reason for this hearing. Ms. Carol Parot said her son was in their yard when the dog in question, Hobo, owned by the Provenchers, came out and attacked him. The bite broke the skin and caused a good deal of concern over the possibility of rabies. She said the dog was very sensitive to children. She had seen the dog loose many times before but had never complained before. She stated that she had not seen the dog for over two weeks now. After the 10th day of observation, it was released into the custody of the owners. Mr. Reues complained that the dog had been unleashed and running around, although he acknowledged that he had not seen the dog since the incident. Mr. Provencher said that the neighborhood children teased the dog. Since both he and his wife work and the yard is not fenced, boys sneak around to the rear of the house and tease the dog during the day when he is tied outside. He said he has seen them do it. Mr. Provencher said his family had been away from home for most of the summer, so the dog has been contained, either with them camping, or tied inside the house, for that time. The family has previously let the dog out and Mr. Provencher said that from time to time the dog has nipped at the Reusses as they run and has gone after some children. The dog had been contained during the period in which the Parot boy was bitten, but the Provencher's 2 year old let him out that day and he ran into the Parot's yard. Mr. Provencher said he had agreed to put the dog in the pound for observation, but when he investigated the incident he found that the Parot boy, David, had chased the dog with a plastic shovel from the Parot yard into the Reuss yard. The dog is a little aggressive, Mr. Provencher said, and when David turned around with the shovel, the dog bit him. Mr. Provencher acknowledged that the dog had not been registered, had not had its shots yet, and was out. He said the dog had bitten David not on Parot land, but on Reuss land. He said David was swinging the shovel at the dog and when he turned around, the dog bit him. Mr. Farrar noted that all parties agreed that the dog was out, it did bite the child, the dog was not licensed and had not had its shots. Norm Reuss, David's best friend, said he had been in his bedroom when he heard the dog run across his yard and into the Parot yard. He saw David get off his bike and run farther into the Parot yard with Hobo chasing him. He then saw the dog and boy running back with. David trying to hit the dog. He assumed that the dog bit the boy in the Parot yard but said he did not actually see David get bitten. Mr. Farrar asked whether Norm Reuss saw the dog run over the Reuss land to the Parot land and he later saw the dog run back with David chasing him with the shovel. Norm Reuss said that was right. He did not see the dog bite David, nor did he see David hit the dog. David stopped chasing the dog at the fence which borders the Reuss land. Mr. Farrar then read statements from the Provenchers (copies attached). Ms. Provencher said boys threw sticks at the dog as it was tied in the yard. She caught them teasing the dog three times. This summer he was in the house or with them camping. The dog is now licensed and has had its shots. Ms. Parot said the Reusses had admitted that the dog nipped at and chased people and she was concerned that it would happen again in the future. Ms. Provencher said she had planned to have the dog get its shots the week after the bite had occurred. She said he was only 4-5 months overdue. They had not licensed the dog because they have had a lot of doctor's bills recently. They have had the dog for 2 years. Mr. Provencher said he planned to fence the yard next year. Mr. Szymanski said the statutes stated that if a dog bit an individual without provocation, the municipality could dispose of the dog, muzzle it, chain or confine it. Mr. Farrar said the Council had to determine whether the dog bit without provocation and Mr. Flaherty felt that was a gray area in this case. Mr. Burgess wanted to talk with Vern Wamsganz, who saw the incident, and perhaps with some of the neighborhood children who might have seen the biting. He said the statements the Council had received seemed to indicate that the boy chased the dog rather than the other way around. Mr. Burgess moved to continue the hearing until the next regularly scheduled meeting at which time the Council will ask Vern Wamsganz and the people who have allegedly made statements as witnesses to appear before the Council to give verbal testimony. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion. Ms. Parot said the Parots were not on speaking terms with Mr. Wamsganz and he might not be a good witness. The motion carried unanimously. The next meeting on this issue will be Monday, September 21 at 7:30 pm. Mr. Farrar said the law in the city was that dogs had to be under their owners' control and that loose dogs should be reported to the police or the dog catcher. Regarding the question raised before about procedures, Mr. Farrar said that the state statutes were vague on the question of whether dogs had to be impounded in the case of a bite. He said the city would change the ordinance so that the police would have the power to impound in that case. Another deputy health officer will also be appointed, so that there will be three such officials in the city. Meet with representative of Planning Commission to discuss highway needs Mr. Farrar said that at the last meeting on the subject it had been noted that the priorities for roads which were listed by Mr. Audette came from the standpoint of the physical condition of the streets. The Planning Commission's priorities for roads might come from a traffic standpoint. Mr. Mona said that was correct and he added that he did not want it to sound like Mr. Audette was looking for 3/4 of the pie and the Commission was also looking for 3/4 of it. He said perhaps the Council had to bake 2 pies. Mr. Mona saw no conflict between the projects listed in the Capital Budget and the Commission's list, which is on page 54 of the Master Plan. He noted, however, that the Budget listed an interchange at I-89 and Hinesburg Road and that the Commission felt a northbound on ramp at Kennedy Drive was needed. Mr. Farrar said the Council as a body had not wanted to take on the engineering of the ramp project and make that engineering decision without help to be sure it was the right solution. They therefore asked the state's opinion on whether one or the other or both were needed. Mr. Mona also noted that some of the items in the Capital Budget were put there assuming 90% non-local funding and he felt that was not likely to come about. He stated that the Southern Connector was the only one of the Commission's projects to be listed for state funding. Mr. Farrar felt that Shelburne Road now is like Williston Road 20 years ago. If city officials had looked far enough ahead at that time, they could have solved the present problem by constructing another east-west corridor. That is no longer a viable option for Williston Road, but he felt the potential to do that was still present on Shelburne Road, which is why the Council feels the road is a high priority. Mr. Mona said the Commission priorities were based on today's situation. Mr. Mona noted that contributions from developers for road improvements could only take the city so far. There are some areas which need improvement which are unlikely to see any more development, and therefore, contributions, taking place. Mr. Farrar asked whether Mr. Spitz' chart and the Houghton report said that Williston Road would have to be upgraded by 1990. Mr. Spitz felt it would but noted that the report was written in two sections, and each section addressed the problems a little differently. Mr. Farrar noted that the Commission and street department both had rebuilding Dorset St. as their number 1 priority. Mr. Woolery said that if it came to an either-or choice between the Southern Connector and all the other projects, the Commission would rather see some of the other projects. Mr. Farrar felt realistic construction of the Connector was probably 7 years away. Mr. Spitz said Mr. Houghton's firm had evaluated road section improvements, taken the cost and the benefits, and ranked them. The Commission had changed the rankings and then made them part of the Plan. Mr. Woolery asked the Council not to forget sidewalks. Mr. Schuele brought up the question of the city sometimes asking the developer to contribute to fix problems and sometimes recommending that the Council pick up the cost. Mr. Farrar felt that if it were a question of a developer degrading a level of service below an acceptable level, the Commission would not approve the development until there were a plan to correct the problem. The Council expects the Commission to follow that general procedure, he said. Mr. Spitz wanted to look into other possible funding sources, now that the rules are changing. Consider amending city parking ordinance to increase illegal parking fees Mr. Farrar said, a memo from the police department and city manager had been received requesting that the fee for a first time offense go from $1-$5, for multiple offenses from $2-$15, and that the period considered for multiple violations go from a calendar year to 30 days. Mr. Flaherty moved to accept Lt. Searles' ordinance amendments pertaining to traffic violations as stated in the memo from him dated July 31, 1981. Mr. Paulsen seconded the motion and it passed 4-0. This will be warned and a hearing scheduled. Sign Resolution of Commendation for John Towne Mr. Flaherty moved to sign a resolution of commendation for John Towne. Mr. Burgess seconded and all voted aye. Discuss the possibility of a Special Election this fall for Southern Connector bond issue and any other issue Mr. Szymanski said he had checked into it, and Lauren Jones of the State Highway Department had said he saw no special need for a special election on the Connector, so there will be no special election for this issue unless there is another item on the ballot. Discuss procedure for selecting a new Councilman to fill John Towne's unexpired term Mr. Farrar assumed that the Council would follow the same procedure it had followed in the past - they will advertise the position and then appoint a person to serve until May. The Council felt it would know by the next regular meeting whether it would have to have special meetings to interview candidates. Appointing someone by the first meeting in October was mentioned. Review Planning and Zoning agendas There were no comments. Old business There was none. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works. <,/ < ( City of South Burlington 575 Dorsct Strnt SOUTH BURLINGTON, VERMONT 05401 ?EL. 863-2891 August 28, 1981 Mr. and Mrs. Sack A. Prwencher 7 Mide Drive '3 South Burlington, Vmt 05401 OFFICE W CITY MAHAM* WILLIAM J. LtYMAN5KI Dear Mr. 6 Mrs. mwencher: The City has received a written rxmplaintwhich allege8 that yaP dog "ttobo" a dachshund, bit a resident of South Burlhgtm. The City has undertaken to investigate that canpla.int and hes scheduled a hearing on the ratter for Wednesday, Sepe 9, 1981 at approximtely 7:30 P.M. in the City Hall Conference Roan at 575 Dorset Street. At that hearing the City Council will review the results of the investigation and receive any statement which ycm or any 0th~ interested individuals wish to make. hlrsuant to Title 20, Vcmt Statutes Anr;atated, Sectim 3546, the Council has the authority to make an "order for the prOtOctiOn of pcrsans as the facts and ci~tances of the case rray require, in- cluding without 1imitat.i.cn, that the dog be disposed of in a hmam way, nuzzled, chained or COnfW." very *-&,.w WY . William 3. s ' 'SOUTH BURLINGTON POLICE DEPARTMENT S WTH BURLINGTON. VERMONT 1 COMPLAINT NO. C-21400 , LOCATION 11 Wdside Drive NATURE I)og Bite Ehrlinqton, COMPLAINANT'S NAME Glml Pamt VT I COMPLAINANT'S ADDRESS 11 W>3dside . Drive PHONE 8644032 \ - REC 'D BY Levenson ASSIGNED Lavallee TIME 1401 PATE 08/19/81 I COMPLAINT~~S~ was bitten by a d~g. SUDJECT(S) INVOLVED: Jack and Nancy PKrvenchar I 7 Woodside Drive INVESTlGATION I South Burlington . , I At 1401 hoiirs on 08/19/81 this departmnt received a telephone call fm Carol Parot adVishg 11~1~ her son had bccn bitten by a dcg belonging to Jack and Nancy Prwencher of 7 WDcdside 'kivc. I was asked to met m. P-t at her residence in approximately one half haY wfren st= arrived km. I Ppcting with hcr at 1441 hours she advised that her son David, age 12 was in their cwn fmt lyard wllcn the Pmvenchcr's dog c~me and chased him biting his heel.and breaking the skin. She dvised that there *re other youths in the yard which had seen the incident occur. Parot, Michael Klaven of Clover Stnct and Jamie TNbeault of OakGlMd Drive advi8ed tJut thcy were in the front yard when David was on his bicycle, he stopped to pick up a 8- on tllc lakn whcn the Provcnchcr's dog caw ming across chasing David. David irdicatd bit t= had done nothurg to provoke the dog into biting him. Mrs. Parot advised th& the rw is a brown Daschund and has a collar but no tags. I 5 tJicc.11 wnt to the Prwencher residence at 7 Wxdsidc Drive and spoke to Nancy harcncher. p'tie advised that they have had the dsq for approximately one and half years and they have lcvcr ixid any shots for tk dog for rabies or disttqxr.. She advised that they obtained the ~XJ fm Nmcy hshey of Essex wta had obtained the dog fran the Uumne Society. Mrs. hvnm3cr also indicatd that the dog was not licensed with the city. She advised that 9lc. dq was appro-tely nine mths old when tky got it, so evidently it may have had kirst sbt for rabies wkn it was released from the Humme Society tRlt there have been rn rho& since that tire. I advised her that the dcq would have to be tied up fo.r a period of 1c.n cl.1~~ SO it auld bL' observed. MIX. Pmencher advised that the dog is usually tied either lulsiclc or else inside the bse, however on this date her txo year old daughter had let the 1%~ out of the busc. She also indicated that tk neighbrhood children, including David :riot tcascd the dcq and thnm things at it and that the dog had to defend itsklf. Shc advised wt her childrcn had ken in the yard when the incident occurred. I spoke to bth children, l?iq Urah ad Jack Prwencher Jr. Also then, was Jdie MaWhessault of 4 Broom Drive. ihcy indicated that the dog came into the yard ~IK? bit David Pamt and that David tms alga knging a plastic shwel at the &g. Q~I further question, appirently this occurred aft= he dPg had bit David an the heel that he started swinging the sml a=? it w. I -, 4. c+ INVESTIGA?IUG OFFICER - r EN- TRANSFERRER -EDED UNFaJNDED CLERRED BY -ST ?--- , - -- - -- I ' SOUTH BURLTNGTON POLICE :DEPART~T COMPLAINT ,SUPPLENENT :~J!*INT NO .a400 PAGE NO.- ?his officcr thcn called the Hurrwne Socicty to ascertain if they hild any mrds as to'bkthr or tux my slots hs*l ~XXI-I given to the dq before he was released so it could be ascertained !if the rabies shts =re still in effect. I have not as yet been able to find the mrds pf wlm the dog was released but if is ap,pilrcnt the dog was less than a year old when it was ifilc~cd so thorefore any shot that h might have been given would have only been effective !for onc ymr. 1Int cvcning I spoke to Carol Pamt again and &vised her that the Prwenchers wuld be becuring the dDg at their residence for the duration £0 the ten days, bever she was not Iray satisfld with the Brranqcnmt. She advised that tt~ Pravenckers are unable to umtml tlr%jr dy and unable to control their own kids. She becam very upset with the fact: that Uu! ElOg muld be mintdined at the owners residence feeling that the dog axlld easily run hwdy again or bite saneone else. I dlm spoke to a neighbor, ~ary Milkey-Reuss of 9 Woodside Drive. She ca-@ained that the bq wring at large many tires and that she had made mtion tm then during ~uly to keep the :log lock~d up. She also indicated that her husband has been chased by this &g while he was pjgmg. vhcn this officer spoke to MKS. Pmchcr she had indicated that this was first turc hcr ckq had bcen loose in approximately a mnth when she spoken to by Mrs. Milkey-R~USSS kut locking it up. Thus Mrs. Pamt and Mrs. Milkey-Reuss's allegatians that the dog Has ilways bccn running looose with.in the area do not sean to bld true as the pxoblen seen~~3 to mve bccn taken care of when it was mtianed to the hwenchers. ttat cvcn~ng ~cs. parot and ,~ack prwrar Sr. brought the dog to the Pet Iadge ar tonRoSawhcreehedog~lockedwforthaten~periodtob~4bservlsdW behsvbr. UNFWED TRANSFERRED 'ENLZOS~--, a& BY AEZSST 1 .Re I/Soutlh Burlington Police ~e~ar't'ment ;g at1 William Szymanskl, City Manager - .f,~. r76~ Date: Aug. 24. 1981 From: Brtan Searles ! $' Subject: Parot/Provencher - Dog Bite Case Enclosed please find three statements concerning the biting of David Parot, the 11 year old son of Carol Parot and other complaints concerning . a dog owned by the Provenchers of 7 Woodside Drive. A final report on tha . . matter is not complete, but will be fjled by Ptl. Lavallee in the next couple of days. The dog was apparently not innunized or registered in violation of T. 20, Sec. 4003, Y.S.A., when the bite occurred on R-19-81 at 1:45 p.m. . . T. 20. Sec. 4004 is the statute that provides the Vermont State Board of Health with the authority to establish regulations concerning the reporting, confinement, observation and disposition of potentially rabid animals. The statute is not specific about where the confinement or observation should take place but current regulations say that observation for a period of 10 days is required by a responsible person. In this case, observation is being done by personnel at Goldset Kennels on ordeps of City Councilman Martin Paulsen. Mr. Paulsen apparently talked with Chief Carter after getting a call from Mrs. Parot. T. 20, Sec. 3546 states that the complaint of 3 legal residents about an attack on a person by a dog shall require an inlestigation by the governing body of the municipality withln seven days. A hearing shall be held and if It is determined that the attack was without provocation the council could order the dog disposed of, muzzled, chained, or confined. If this order was not followed the owner could be fined up to $250.00. I wSll forward the ftnal police report as soon as It is available. .' . . , . ' ' : ' /'* SW~ BURLXNGMN POLICE DEPARTMENT , ' .. I. I ; P' South Burl ington , Vermont , . . , , . . , $0 . , . , , . Statement Fonn B . . ... , . - " ,. , . 'd , , ' . ., t Name NPKN\~~ V. 2~055 Complaint Number ,. ~ddressq WDa,\tme c >P .L e pate 8-19'bl DOBI G. I- 4) Time %,-:co >N\ . -1 , . The fo1l;wing statenrent ie the truth to the betat of my lmovledger : -5 ~ . ~-~ ~---~ .,. , . ; ,,.' . . , I". J' '," ,' . . . . ' , . ,. , . '.. '.! . ' / SWTH BURLINGTON POLICE DEPAR- ,, . ' .. , .. . , South Burlington, Vem~t a '.* I ' ' ' .' a' ". .;,. , 1 ,. , , .;, ..., , ,.a. / Statement om B . . . !.I. ..,:', ' ' .. 3' I ' Comgla int Number . .. . ate T - a 19 .. S/ .I - DOB: 5o-F Time I 0. w. <,< FOB I Officer . The ,. fOllowing statement is the truth to the bet of my howedge, , r I Cto 'I , . 4 A- . 1 1 . I I I I I I . m I f I ' a South Burlington Police Department b1 I SMO '1.0. William Szy~~~anski, City Manager From: Lt. Brian Searles w Date: July 31, 1981 ../C ,. :. . , , Subject: Ordinance Amendment (New - underlined; Old - brackets) < / < Per our discussion of the other day I am recomnending that Section 9 of the South Burlington Parking Ordinance, entitled Penalty be re-written as allowable under a 1978 amendment to Title 23, V.S.A., Section 1749, to read as follows: "A oerson who violates anv orovision of this chaoter r-~. ~- . , relating to the parking of motor vehicles shal be^ fined Five ~ollars~$5.00) [one dollar ($l.OOk for the f irstvib~~at;'-on. and Fifteen Dollars ($15.00) Btwo dollars ($2.003, for-anysubsFent violation within 30 -Kin any calendar yearg." - Please place this on the council agenda at your convenience.