HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022_04_07 AWC Hearing MinutesSouth Bend Animal Welfare Commission
Hearing Minutes
April 7, 2022
1810 Hours
County City Building
4th Floor
227 West Jefferson Blvd
South Bend, IN 46601
Hearing Case Number 2022-04 City of South Bend v. Lin Bradbury and Steven
Overman (Order Issued March 25, 2022)
Animal Control Commission Members Present: Pam Wesolowski, Dr. Mariah
Covey, and Barb Leavell
City Staff Present:Lindsey Cuellar -SBARC Shelter Manager, Tom
Panowicz-Attorney for SBARC, and Kylie Connell and
Ashley Snidecki- Attorneys for Commission
1. The hearing was called to order by the Hearing Officer at 1810 hours.
A. Hearing regarding Habitual Animal Offender residing at 426 West
Navarre Street, South Bend.
B.Respondents are Lin Bradbury and Steven Overman.
C.File opened in 2017.
2. Service was made and accepted by Hearing Officer.
A.Respondents brought evidence that they are moving out of state
within the next two weeks.
3. Tom Panowicz called SBARC Manager Lindsey Cuellar to give testimony
regarding the this case.
A. Respondent file was opened in 2017.
B.SBARC stated that Respondents have been in noncompliance since
2017 with numerous violations including; unlicensed in the city,
no proof of rabies vaccines, running at large which have lead to
bites and attacks, not following mandatory spay/neuter contracts,
breeding without a permit and failure to follow bite protocols.
C.Respondents became known to SBARC when they came to claim reclaim
one dog that was caught as a stray.
D.Respondents have bred one dog to sell puppies but not obtaining a
breeder’s permit until after being cited.
E.SBARC noted that the permit has not been renewed since its
expiration date in October 2021.
F.SBARC noted that the dogs have three bite reports on record, two
for running loose and attacking a person and another dog being
attacked severely.
G.One dog owned by Respondents was brought into SBARC severely
emaciated and malnourished, when Respondents came to reclaim dog
they were told due to the severity of dogs condition they could
not have their dog back.
H.SBARC seeking to have Respondents labeled Habitual Animal
Offenders within a minimum of ten years of animal ownership
prohibition.
4.Respondents stated dogs escaped due to kids running in and out of the
house and not latching the door.
A.Respondents stated that one dog was put into SBARC custody
due to dog sitter not watching the dog while they were on
vacation.
B.Respondents stated they tried to contact SBARC regarding
getting one dog back but couldn’t reach them.
C.Respondents are having a hardship financially causing stress
taking care of the dogs they have.
5.A motion was made by the Commission to label the Respondent a Habitual
Animal Offender, with a ten year ban, on owning any additional animals
within South Bend proper.
A.Respondents can keep dogs they have but not to add any new
dogs.
B.Respondents need to send in proof of rabies to SBARC before
they move.
C.Respondents must pay fees owed to city.
D.Respondents need to notify SBARC when they’re gone from the
state.
E.Respondents need to schedule an inspection of the property.
F.Should Respondents move back to South Bend they must notify
SBARC.
G.Motion regarding this case was made and carried by all on
the Commission.
Adjourned at 1935 hours.