Animal Matters Hearing Board | www.charlescountymd.gov

www.charlescountymd.gov

Charles County, Maryland

Animal Matters Hearing Board

Minutes
Tuesday, September 15, 2015

ANIMAL MATTERS HEARING BOARD

FOR CHARLES COUNTY, MARYLAND

MINUTES OF MEETNG

Tuesday, September 15, 2015

 

The regularly scheduled meeting of the Animal Control Board for Charles County, Maryland, was convened by the Chairman at 6:30 p.m. in the County Commissioners Meeting Room, Charles County Government Building, with the following Board members in attendance.

 

Andrew Parker, Chairman

Sean Brown

William Van Blarcum

Kristin Lake

Carl Blumenstein

Maria Padgett

Lyn Cianflocco

Edward Tucker, Chief, Animal Control Services

Melody Miles Haynes, County Attorney

Maria Team, Clerk

 

A quorum was declared based upon the presence of a majority of the appointed Board Members.

 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
 

The minutes of the Animal Matters Hearing Board for September 1, 2015 were approved and adopted. 

 

            Citation No. 6522 – issued to Bridgett M. Rice, 13401 Edgemeade Road, Brandywine,  Maryland 20772, for the alleged violation of Section 230.10.C of the Charles County Animal Regulations.  Ms. Rice was present at the hearing and represented by counsel, Todd Pounds. Testimony was heard from Officer Alison Budd and Bridgett Rice. Uncontroverted evidence was that Ms. Rice’s Commercial Establishment License had expired in 2014. Personal issues and other circumstances hindered Ms. Rice from compiling all the necessary vaccinations, photos, and vet records.  Entered into evidence was an expired commercial establishment license marked County Ex. 1, a letter from Animal Control Services marked County Ex. 2, a cease and desist order marked County Ex. 3, six pages of documents from the internet marked County Ex. 4 and numerous emails from Officer Budd to Ms. Rice, marked County Ex. 5. Also entered into evidence were 6 photos and rabies certificates for six dogs, marked Owner Ex. A, a checklist to Ms. Rice’s caretakers, marked Owner Ex. B, a soil test from Waypoint Analytical, marked Owner Ex. C, and photos of kennels taken on 9/14/2015, marked Owner Ex. D

Based on the testimony heard, the Vice Chair made a motion to find Ms. Rice in violation of Section 230.10.C of the Charles County Animal Regulations with a fine of $250.00. A second was made and the vote passed unanimously. Ms. Rice satisfied the $250.00 at the end of the hearing.

 File No. 15-23 – The case of Angel Graves against Steve Claggett was called. Both parties were present at the hearing and not represented by counsel. Testimony was heard from Ms. Graves and Mr. and Mrs. Claggett. Ms. Graves stated that the owner's dog was constantly in her yard. Mr. Claggett admitted there were possibly three photos of their dog unattended but could not be sure of the location of the photos. Ms. Claggett felt the allegations were retaliatory in nature since they had recently been before the Board for Ms. Grave's dog (who had been shot by Mr. Clagget.) Entered into evidence were 15 photos marked Complainant Ex. 1.

Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Chairman made a motion to find Mr. Claggett in violation of Section 12.4.A.1 of the Charles County Animal Regulations for his dog “Lucky Lu” with a fine of $25.00 and to abate the nuisance of his dog being at large. A second was made and the vote passed unanimously. Mr. Claggett satisfied the fine of $25.00 at the end of the hearing.

File No. 15-18 – The case of Gregory Posey against Ruth Montgomery was called. Both parties were present at the hearing and not represented by counsel. Testimony was heard from Jeannette Posey, who spoke for the victim and Ruth Montgomery.  The parties are related and Mr. Posey was visiting a relative when he was attacked and bitten. Entered into evidence were 16 pages of documents marked Complaint Ex. 1 and two photos on cell phone marked Complainant Ex. 2.

Based on the testimony heard and evidence presented, the Chairman made a motion to find Ms. Montgomery in violation of Section 230.12.5.A.1 of the Charles County Animal Regulations for her dog “Bear” and fine her $500.00 all suspended on the condition that she comply with the requirements of Section 230.12.5.E.1, 2, 3, 5 (a) and (b) and 6 and obey all laws.  A second was made and the vote passed unanimously.

File No. 15-22 – The case of William Rosenbaum against John Freeny was called. Both parties were present at the hearing and not represented by counsel. Testimony was heard from Mr. Rosenbaum, Steve Walker (witness) and John Freeny and Venetia Freeny. Entered into evidence were nine photos marked Complainant Ex. 1.  Mr. and Mrs. Freeny believe their gate was tampered with, possibly by construction workers that allowed their dog to get out of their yard and Mr. Rosenbaum was attacked while walking his dog,

Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Chairman made a motion to find Mr. and Mrs. Freeny in violation of Section 12.4.A.1 and Section 12.5.A.1 of the Charles County Animal Regulations for their dogs “Zeus” and “Zena” with a fine of $25.00 and that they comply with the requirements stated in Section 230.12.5.E.1, 3,5 (a) and (b) and 6 and obey all laws. A second was made and the vote passed unanimously.

File No. 15-16 – The case of Suzanne Meeker against Dave and Kathy Krahling was called. All parties were present and not represented by counsel. Testimony was heard from Ms. Meeker and Mr. and Mrs. Krahling. Entered into evidence was a log of dates and times, marked Complainant Ex. 1. Ms. Meeker stated there was an unreported incident from two other attacks/altercations. However, no witnesses or victims were present and Ms. Meeker appeared to be an eyewitness only to the aftermath of the alleged encounters.

Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the Chairman made a motion to find Mr. and Mrs. Krahling in violation of Section 12.4.A.1 of the Charles County Animal Regulations for their dog “Kiko” and to abate the nuisance of their dog running at large by putting up a fence as soon as possible.  A second was made and the vote passed unanimously. No fines were imposed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

There being no further business, the Chairman adjourned the hearing at 9:00 p.m.