Justice: DENIED

The respondent appeared at the hearing. Mr. Budiac did not dispute the allegations contained in the notice of violation (NOV). Rather, he testified that the signage prohibiting leashed dogs on the cited lawn was inadequate. He states that the only signage prohibiting leashed dogs on the lawn was an 8 1/2" x 11" laminated sign hung from the wire mesh fence around the perimeter of the central lawn. The mesh fencing rings the lawn next to the pedestrian pathway around the lawn. The sign was posted about 10' from the entrance to the lawn, visible to pedestrians entering from that direction. Mr. Budiac states that because he entered the lawn from the other direction he did not pass by the sign and therefore was not adequately notified that he could not bring his dog onto the lawn. Mr. Budiac adds that the posted sign, referred to above, conflicted with the more visible, more permanent "Park Rules" sign posted at the main entrance to the park itself. That sign, in relevant part, simply restricts, "unleashed dogs, except in designated areas." The NOV is sustained. I find Mr. Budiac's testimony to be credible. However, he does not dispute the allegations contained in the NOV nor does he establish a defense to those allegations. I credit the sworn allegations contained in the NOV and find that on the date cited in the NOV a violation of the cited section of law did occur. Accordingly, the NOV is sustained and I impose the Board-approved penalty.