Final Comment From Owner of Three Fifty Bakery Regarding No Pets on the Patio Sign


“Dear PoPville,

I’ve been reading all of the comments on your post regarding our ‘No Pets’ sign. I’ve tried to comment and let people know why this happened. Many people have basically called me a liar and ‘shady’ for blaming DC Code and say that DC allows pets on patios.

The facts: A customer took a picture of a dog on our patio and I assume turned us in. A person from the DOH paid us a visit and was very nice about it, but informed me that it was against health code. He had run out of signs, so he emailed them to me. I felt the signs were very harsh and unfriendly [see example above], so I made my own. Now that there is so much chatter and negative comments towards me and the bakery, I wanted to send the signs to you and thought maybe you could update your post with the sign….just so people know that it wasn’t just me. I’m very dog friendly and want to have them on the patio, but I don’t want to be shut down for Health Code violations.

I hope everyone can understand that I had no choice in this matter….unless I risk being fined or closed.

Jimmy Hopper
ThreeFifty Bakery”

1926 17th Street, NW

149 Comment

  • It’s pretty clear from the other comments section that the owners are correct here. I have met the owners of Three Fifty and they are friendly, good people. Just small business owners doing their best (and making great baked goods).

    • It’s also pretty clear from those other comments that everyone in DC is an expert on everything, and everyone else is wrong, especially on the health code.

    • I’m on the Board of my building and I never cease to be amazed at the blanket statements people make about what’s legal and what isn’t. And in the process, they often leave themselves (and our building) open to litigation.

  • I don’t blame you at all. Can’t believe some people left such harsh comments against you. Why on earth would you want to risk getting shut down? Anyway, love your bakery, coffee and baked goods. Please stay in business as you are a great addition to the neighborhood!

  • Sounds fair enough to me. Just a small business owner trying to comply with DC government requirements.

  • justinbc

    Props to the business owner for being socially in tune with the internet (it’s amazing how many ignore this aspect of doing business, or completely bungle their response), and for replying in a way that isn’t derogatory to the number of ignorant masses who lambasted them without knowing the facts and likely won’t return to this post to redact their ill-informed opinions.

  • Thank you, Jimmy. Thoughtful of you to respond.

    And seriously DOH: “no ducks or geese”?

    Reminds me of the “no martinis with olives” graphics on some of the DCPR signs.


  • So why are dogs allowed on some patios but not others? Did DOH explain this?

    • Two possibilities about why: 1) The owners don’t care about the code when it comes to pets on patios and allow customers to do it anyway; or 2) If it’s bar and doesn’t serve prepared food, I am fairly certain there is nothing prohibiting it (could be wrong about that though).

      Truthfully, I don’t get why aren’t allowed on patios. I think that should be at the discretion of the establishment instead of a DOH regulation. May need to have a conversation with our new councilmember.

      Oh, and I actually think the DOH sign is sorta funny (which is what I think they were aiming for with the inclusion of the duck).

      • ” I don’t get why aren’t allowed on patios”

        I’m thinking that since the Department of Health is involved, it’s a health issue. Animals + food = potential sanitary issues. Yeah, I know you prepare and cobsume food around your animal all the time. Doesn’t mean everyone else in a restaurant has to.

      • justinbc

        Outside of health code reasons, many people are allergic to dogs, cats, geese (?), etc… I know I’m very allergic to dogs, so when I’m dog sitting, or going to a friend’s house who has a dog, I pop a Zyrtec and I’m all good. But if I’m not doing one of those things I don’t take it because I don’t expect to encounter dogs in my daily routine. If I show up at a patio of a restaurant, bar, cafe, whatever, and your dog is slobbering all over me, thanks, you’ve just caused me to break out. And that’s just one of the unpredictable things that pets do, out of many. People shouldn’t be forced to interact with your pet (I don’t mean you specifically here just posting under your thread) just because it’s convenient for you.

        • Idk – I think that gets to be a slippery slope. With all these crazy allergies these days where does it stop? Some schools don’t even allow peanut butter anymore. I can’t live my life based upon someone else’s allergies. No offense, but that’s your problem not mine.

          • A former neighbor of mine was complaining allergy attacks triggered by the adorable orange tabby that roamed the neighborhood. Wasn’t really sure what to tell the guy. Lots of people suffer from pollen allergies but you don’t see them getting upset over people planting flowers.

          • justinbc

            Actually, yes you can. If you’re allergic to peanuts and you’re at a restaurant then you ask them if it has peanuts. Same with gluten, soy, or whatever other “crazy allergy” you’re referring to. Millions of people are allergic to cats and dogs, and since they’re not EXPECTED to be at a restaurant, bar, or cafe, then those people should feel relatively comfortable going there and not having to worry about allergic reactions. The only real comparable scenario would be if you compared peanut [email protected] to [email protected] park.

          • Sorry but if your allergy is that bad, you should be prepared for it. Also sorry for not being clear, by “crazy” I meant severe. To me, it’s extreme that some schools are banning peanuts due to the allergies of a small number of children. Similarly, I do not think dogs should be banned from patios due to the allergies of a few – like you implied above. Just like I don’t think flowers should be banned on the street due to the allergies of a few. I think the story that the owner tells above makes perfect sense, and for the record I do have a dog, but consider him way too much of an a**hat to take to a restaurant.

          • justinbc

            They aren’t banned because of allergies, they’re banned because the Department of Health deems them unhygienic to an eating environment. Me using allergies was just another example of why they should not be allowed, outside of the health code reasons (which was clearly stated in my first sentence). And again, you’re missing the point by making silly analogies. People who have seasonal allergies take regular allergy medicine because they know they can’t avoid going outside. I know that I can avoid running into animals at a restaurant because the DOH specifically forbids it. If you bring yours along anyway it’s irresponsible and narcissistic to think that other people should have “prepared better” for it.

          • I still don’t get your point. Like you just walked outside one day and realized there were animals at restaurants? Come on man, you’ve been here longer than that. I’m not buying that it’s a surprise to you. An inconvenience or annoyance, even ILLEGAL sure. But surprising – no.

          • justinbc

            What are you even talking about? Surprised by what?

          • JFC. The presence of dogs.

          • justinbc

            Dogs are not allowed on restaurant / bar patios. So yes, if I saw one there I would be surprised. It wouldn’t shock me in the sense of “oh my gosh, what do I do now!”, but more like “well, this restaurant likes liberal interpretations of health laws”.

          • Not a patio but an airplane. Flying internationally I had a choice of 30+ special meals. Remember when it was only regular, then came kosher, and then they added veggie. Now they provide for many allergies, conditions, and tastes.

          • @justin – does your ass get jealous if the shit that comes out of your mouth? Lol you’re a trip.

          • Wow… the reason schools don’t allow peanut butter is because some kids are so severely allergic that they can have a fatal reaction to even minute amounts (traces of PB on a doorknob for example, and we all know how good kids are about washing hands). I have neither kids nor allergies, but can sure manage to give up my PB&J if someone could actually DIE from it.

        • I understand why people might not want to eat around dogs as that is their right, but it should also be the right of the establishment to decide whether or not they’ll allow dogs. If you don’t like it, don’t eat there. We’re not talking second-hand smoke here.

          As far as the health concerns go, I guess I’ll keep an eye out for a epidemic of dog-borne diseases from the numerous places that (apparently illegally) already allow dogs on their patios.

          • justinbc

            In some states it probably is their right. DC has laws that say it’s not though, and if you want to operate here in DC you have to follow those laws (or pay a fine, or risk being temporarily or permanently closed).

          • “dog-borne diseases”
            You mean Lyme Disease, which is often brought into homes via ticks attached to dogs?

          • I’m not arguing that it is legal in DC, which is why I said it SHOULD be the right of the establishment to decide.

            As far as Lyme disease goes, it is a tick-borne illness, not a dog-borne illness. It’s no more a dog-borne illness than a human-borne one, as people also often bring ticks into their home when they’ve been outside. I don’t see anyone getting in a movement to ban people from patios.

          • We’re far more likely to get sick from the other people at the restaurant than the dogs.

          • Mice are more likely to bring tick-borne illnesses into homes than dogs are.

        • What if the dog isn’t “slobbering all over you”? What if the dog is just sitting at a table next to you?

          I have cat allergies, but they only really bother me if i touch the cat a lot or am sitting in an enclosed space where the cat has spent a lot of time. If someone brought a cat to a sidewalk cafe where I was eating, it really wouldn’t bother me at all.

          • justinbc

            You don’t ban things because they generally are harmless, you ban them because they’re unpredictable and can cause harm. I love dogs and cats, and honestly their appearance on a patio doesn’t bother me at all, but it’s the potential for them doing undesirable things (for example, leaping up on my table to snag my sandwich if I look away, or deciding it’s time to take the 30th piss of the hour) which is why they’re not allowed, and shouldn’t be.

          • @justinbc – that is a scary logic “you ban them because they’re unpredictable and can cause harm”… I can think of so many things that are “unpredictable” and “can cause harm” that are not banned including alcohol (prohibition didn’t work), cars, drivers, marijuana, etc. If you think about it, everything is unpredictable and “can cause harm”

          • justinbc

            Those other things cause harm when a human interacts with them and does the harm. Dogs and cats on the other hand think on their own, and we don’t have a way to read their minds or predict their behavior. If you’re going to make analogies please stay within the realm of related subject matter.

          • I guess you are the decider of the “realm” of relevance? What about out door cats? Wild animals? Chemicals that can cause harm without intended contact? My point goes back to the other comments regarding banning flowers that some people are allergic to, can’t do it. By the way, a small patio area with a permeable fence in a densely populated city will not keep your allergies in check when dogs simply walk by you. I think the solution to your concern is you should nnevereat outside. I’d go so far to say it sounds like you shouldn’t leave your house in case something interacts with you.

          • justinbc

            I’m pretty sure most restaurants don’t allow feral cats either. And we do have prohibitions on dangerous chemicals, such as lead, or asbestos. I’m failing to see you make a working connection here.

        • Tsar of Truxton

          You don’t encounter dogs on your daily routine? I find it hard to believe you can get anywhere in this city without encountering one or more dogs. They are everywhere. If you are not touching and petting the dog, you are unlikely to have any sort of allergic reaction when not in an enclosed space. Its not like these dogs are walking around with clumps of fur flying up your nose. Restaurants get around this rule by letting people tie the dogs up outside the “enclosed” area and giving them a table next to the pup. You don’t see people keeling over from allergic reactions at these establishments.

    • Reading between the lines, I would say that the answer to your question is that dogs are “allowed” on the patios of restaurants until someone complains about the restaurant to DOH. I guess the restaurants you are talking about have been lucky enough, to this point, to not have any customers drop a dime on them, and to not have any DOH inspectors show up when there were dogs or other pets on the premises.
      The irony is that the volume of the pro-pet complaints made this a bigger story than it should have been and has probably increased the likelihood that the places who are allowing pets on their patios will be reported and have to abide by the rule.

    • I see dogs on patio space that doubles as sidewalk, but not like the one pictured above. I’m fine with it, i dont need someone else’s dog at my feet while eating.

  • wandafish

    We get it. You love your dog. But I don’t love your dog next to me while I’m eating in a public place. Even though the ThreeFifty owner is using a technicality here, we shouldn’t have to apologize for not wanting animals around in outdoor restaurant spaces. Many people are allergic, barking is annoying, etc.

    • Exactly. I love my dogs, but people are allergic and even though my dogs would probably just sit there calmly, other dogs might not. Businesses have to do what’s best for their business and follow the law. I wouldn’t put it past the DOH to make a big problem for three-fifty if they received complaints, even though the wording of the law is a bit murky. FWIW, have been to many restaurants that allow me to sit on the patio with my dog sitting OUTSIDE the patio fence (basically on the sidewalk). Works for everyone, and if my dog started being an asshat, I would leave before it bothered other people.

    • I could say the same thing about kids. Except that unfortunately parents are given free reign to allow their brats to scream and run around a nice restaurant inside or out. I’ll take sitting next to a dog over people with kids any day.

      • +10000000000000. Well behaved dogs >>> any bratty screaming kid anyday. I’m also allergic to children

      • maxwell smart

        just restaurants? more like everywhere!

      • justinbc

        While I 100% agree with you on sitting next to a dog vs children, it’s a lot harder for the government to regulate annoyance vs health standards.

        • You think children aren’t a health hazard? This week I watch a toddler at CVS open mouth cough a significant amount of fluid (approx 20 ml). Give me dog hair any day of the week.

          • Sat near a kid (with its parent) on the bus who was wet coughing the whole ride with an open mouth. I’ll be getting sick in 3… 2…

          • justinbc

            I’m pretty sure I never made that claim. Lots of adults in my office don’t wash their hands after using the bathroom either, but banning humans from things is significantly more difficult.

        • kids are full of germs and probably #1 cause of the norovirus

        • not to mention the kids i have seen sneezing all over the communal foods and service areas INSIDE restaurants…

        • Tsar of Truxton

          Dogs aren’t really health hazards (see, e.g., service dogs). The biggest health concerns are employees petting the dogs and not washing their hands and the dog going to the bathroom in the restaurant. Either way, states are starting to change their laws in this regard, so don’t be surprised to see things change in DC.

          • Service dogs are specially trained to do things like stay put under subway seats, restaurant chairs, etc. and to resist the lure of various temptations and distractions.

          • Tsar of Truxton

            There are plenty of well-trained non-service dogs. Just like there are plenty of nuisance humans (as others have pointed out). The fact that a dog sits nicely under a table doesn’t make it more or less of a health hazard.

            And for the record, not all “service dogs” go through training. You can make your dog a service dog by having a doctor say you need the dog for “stress.” Voila, you can take your dog anywhere, including airplanes.

          • Until recently, “service dog” has been generally understood to mean a guide dog for a blind or deaf person.
            People who abuse the system by getting dubious “service” certification for their pets are screwing things up for everyone. Places that forbid animals other than service animals should be able to have a reasonable expectation that service animals are highly trained.
            Yes, there are highly trained animals that are not service animals. But it’s simpler for places of business to say “No animals except service animals.” The assumption is that people with service animals NEED those animals to get around, and that that’s the reason for the exception.

      • i have actually been told by a restaurant patron that my dog is better behaved than most children – i have definitely witnessed that is the case in most situations with kids anywhere…

      • Isn’t this why we have boarding schools? Let them deal with the kids.

      • Do I really need to point out that children are human beings while dogs are not? This comment is bigotry, pure and simple. Just replace “children” in your sentence with “blacks,” “gays,” or “Jews” and this will be patently obvious, if it is not already. Shame on you.

        • Yes children are humans, but they are humans who do not yet know how to behave appropriately in public. Combine that with the fact that many of today’s parents view their children as special snowflakes who should have free reign to do whatever their little hearts please, the situation can become not only completely obnoxious but downright dangerous for restaurant staff and whoever else is around including the child. I have seen FAR more badly behaved children than dogs in restaurants and I think it’s a much bigger problem than what is being discussed here.
          Oh, and by the way, let me guess: You are one of those parents who thinks their kid should be able to do whatever he/she wants and anyone who disagrees is an awful child-hater. If you consider the desire to enjoy a meal in relative peace without a toddler running and screaming between tables and practically knocking over wait staff bigotry, then that is extremely sad.

          • I think that person went a little overboard too, but your points are just as ridiculous. Not all dogs are well-behaved and not all children are well-behaved. Both can be very annoying. The difference is children are people. If a parent leaves the kid at home to go to the cafe, they’ll be arrested and the child will be taken away from them. Children are banned from a lot of places, but usually for the safety of the child. Making the argument that kids are annoying, in no means validates the reason that dogs should be allowed in restaurants.

    • I will still never forget the dog at the table next to us who threw up on the patio as its owners were paying the check and they left without cleaning the puke up so the busboys had to do it. It was awesome.

    • Agreed, no apologies should be necessary. Pets are not human beings and I don’t appreciate having anyone’s non-service animal pet forced into a people space without the consent of all parties. I’m very fond of animals, but I find it quite rude to assume everyone else loves them, too.

      • But even if you don’t like dogs, why is it a problem to have a well-behaved dog within a few feet of you? You don’t have to interact with it or touch it. What specifically is the problem?

        • Perhaps you were bitten or menaced by a dog at some point. Even if not, by virtue of being an animal (and potentially a strong and/or dangerous one at that), there is no reasonable expectation that animal will act rationally. Walking down the street, I expect dogs to be on a leash under positive control of a person, but that’s rarely the case in these situations. Why should that be my concern when I’m in a restaurant or on a plane? I have no idea how well that animal is trained or how responsible the owner is.

    • Yes Wanda, but don’t you know that their dog ______:
      1. Doesn’t Bite
      2. Doesn’t Bark
      3. Doesn’t misbehave
      4. Is better than a child
      5. Is their child (or they are a daddy/mommy)
      6. Can sit on a patio without issue, you know because
      7. Is the smartest
      8. Is only a dog when it does something bad, otherwise it is always perfect and should be treated like a human in all other circumstances

      In a world populated by all these perfect dogs, one must ponder why the DOH must implement such Draconian rules. I mean if I Google “dog bites dc” nothing would be returned, right?

      I’m sure these dog owners, oops I mean dog parents or is it the VIcar of Canine? Anyway, these people were also members of a fraternity that “wasn’t a stereotypical frat”, or their law firm isn’t like most firms, or the member of the Congress they work for really does care about his people, or they are not cool with Republicans socially but still vote because they are fiscally conservative (at the same time work for the government but who’s position is actually important and shouldn’t be cut, obviously).

  • Kudos, Jimmy. I’ll be showing my support to Three Fifty by putting it on my weekend ‘shop small’ list.

  • Can anyone tell me how you call DOH for a food safety inspection? I tired to figure it out once, and didn’t get anywhere (tried emailing and calling them too) The “File a Complaint” link under DOH’s Food Safety page brings you to a form about health care facilities…

    • The probably used the DC Gov’s 311 smartphone app. It allows you take a photo and attach it to your complaint.

  • I think we’re ignoring one of the most annoying storylines here: that some annoying, awful neighbor took a picture and sent it to the health department seemingly without first confronting the business itself. That sort of non-confrontational gutlessness is all too common nowadays, when some basic human interaction could probably get it done with less damage to any party. The bakery was lucky not to have gotten a significant fine from an overzealous inspector due to a grey area in the law.

  • I’m not going to name myself or my business here, but I also own a food-service establishment in the District, with a patio. When were going through the permitting for the outdoor space, we asked everyone involved about dogs on the patio, because we’d read the code saying no animals on the premises. A couple bureaucrats said they didn’t know, it wasn’t their department, but they see lots of dogs on patios so it’s probably ok. And then the health department lady said that the patio does not count as “premises” because no food is prepared or stored or displayed there. So she gave us what we considered our official sign-off on allowing dogs on the patio. And no one from the dept who has inspected us since then has contradicted her.
    I feel bad that Three Fifty got a much harder-assed inspector, and that their neighbors were jerks. But varying, official interpretations of the code are a real thing.

    • This is the real problem (well, we have larger problems in general, but as it relates to this specific topic). They (the DC govt “luminaries”) need to reword the code so it isn’t a vague mess.

    • Wow. Because “premises” is actually defined in the health code to include the facility and contiguous land, as long as the land is under the control of the licensee. Apparently your DOH person didn’t bother to read her own regulations. I wouldn’t expect the oral assurances of that DOH person to stand up against the type of complaint that Three Fifty got in this case (I do agree that the customer acted ridiculously, however).

    • 25 DCMR 3620.8 Violation of any of the following provisions of 25 DCMR Chapters 28 through 32 (Subtitle F: Physical Facilities) shall be a Class 4 infraction:

      (c) 25 DCMR § 3214.1 (failure to prohibit live animals on the premises, except as specified in §§ 3214.2 and 3214.3)

      If you search online for DCMR 3214.1, some of the links go to inspection reports of the DC establishments that have been cited for violating the section.

      3214.1 is a Non-Critical violation and it looks from the past inspection reports that inspectors usually give the owner time to correct the infraction rather than issuing a fine.

  • In the UK we normally prepare food in hygienic kitchens, not on patios 😉 fairly sure you do the same thing here. That’s why in every country pub you’ll see dogs happily sitting down with their owners inside with or without food. DC code sucks.

    • Not to mention your lack of open container laws. And in France, I saw many cats and dogs alike *in* restaurants with no problems.

      Ugh, to live somewhere other than this puritan hellhole of a country.

    • …And I very much miss going to those country pubs and playing with the dogs while I ate my mutton sandwich and drinking my bitter by the peat fire, not to mention the pub’s house cats – really wish I could do that at more places in the US.

  • funny thing is, as far as germs/food contamination are concerned, that parents and babies spread more norovirus (via poop diapers->hands->mouth/not washing properly) and dogs on patios spread, well, nothing comes to mind regarding any type of possible food contamination from dogs on patios…

  • I have, um, no dog in this fight but aren’t a lot of the dogs accompanying their owners out actually parked just outside the patio, and thus technically not on the premises, while contributing to the appearance of al fresco canine ubiquity?

  • pcat

    I am afraid of dogs and am happy that the DC laws do not allow them on patios. I will definitely go to Three Fifty simply because they enforce the no pets rule.

    • Being afraid of all dogs is pretty ignorant. That’s like me saying I’m afraid of Muslims.

      • actually it’s not. Fear of dogs, kinda not the same thing as xenophobia…

        • First of all, you misused the word xenophobia (fear of people from other countries). There are obviously American Muslims. Second of all, both are irrational fears. Could a dog hurt you? Sure. Could a Muslim hurt you? Sure. Will all dogs hurt you? No. Will all Muslims hurt you? Of course not.

      • haha Doc HAS to be a troll. There is no way someone actually believes the things he/she has posted here

        • People who don’t agree with you aren’t trolls…

          Being afraid of dogs is an irrational fear. Just like being afraid of spiders or snakes or blonde people or skinny people or Catholics.

      • Ignorant? Respecting and fearing powerful animals is eminently sensible. Blindly trusting one because they appear docile is completely irrational.

        • Respecting animals, yes. Fearing them? Dogs are domesticated animals. Sure, you could get attacked by the dog on the patio, but you could also get stabbed by a patron on the patio. Are you afraid of people too?

          • Completely false equivalency. Human beings are expected to act rationally and civilly unless they demonstrate otherwise. Dogs are animals, period. Domestication is a mitigating factor, but it’s foolish to make that your sole basis for considering an animal you’ve never met before safe. So, yes I think it’s completely rational to fear an unknown dog.


  • It would be great if POP could follow up with an interview with DOH to clarify this issue. If it is a law, it should be applied equally to all establishments and not just when someone complains. My dog and I have enjoyed plenty of DC patios including Three Fifty. I feel badly that Three Fifty has to change their preference (to be dog friendly) when dog owners can go enjoy other places in the same neighborhood.

  • Glad the owner was able to clear this up. It never really bothered me – even though I own a dog and have brought it with me once or twice to 350 to enjoy a coffee outside. It was nice to be able to do two things at once – take the dog out for exercise and enjoy a morning treat for myself – but we’ll both live without being able to do so and I’ll still stop by for their delicious pastries.

    Sometimes I really wish there were more sidewalk windows to buy things from like the Dolcezza on 14th has (had?)…..

  • jim_ed

    Thanks for the clarification. Now what you need to do is head up to Baltimore and pick up some copies of “Stop Snitchin!” and put them for sale by the register, so your neighbor knows whats up for next time they drop the dime.

  • This is incredibly frustrating. A friend of mine wanted to get clarification on the issue a few months back, and the people she talked to at DOH determined it IS legal to have your dog on the patio, and even sent her an official letter stating such. If the agency enforcing the law can’t decide how to interpret it, what hope do business owners and residents have?

  • My brain hurts. I barely skimmed this thread and my brain hurts. Alert to everyone – there are damaging molecules floating toward you from everywhere!

  • The concept that people should be allowed to take their animals anywhere–regardless of the law or common courtesy–was explored in this great New Yorker piece:
    And to further the Seinfeld references: The bird on the DOH sign is probably there so no one brings in their pet chicken (who is a GOOD chicken and not pecky at all).

    • Very interesting article; thanks for sharing the link!
      Apparently an “emotional support animal” does not quality as a “service animal,” because a service animal is trained to perform specific tasks.
      Of potential interest to Emilie504:
      “The Air Carrier Access Act entitles you to fly with your E.S.A. at no extra charge, although airlines typically require the animal to stay on your lap or under the seat—this rules out emotional-support rhinoceroses.”

  • I support you Jimmy and I love Three Fifty! Great bakery, great baked goods, great coffee, amazing service. It’s too bad about the DC Health Code rules but not your fault, obviously. Perhaps to counteract, we could hold a fundraiser at Three Fifty for the Washington Animal Rescue League? Just a random thought!

  • I feel really bad that these people were subjected to such hatred from people who ask for nice places in the neighborhood. Take the issue up with DOH and not with these folks who are providing a nice place to gather and eat.

  • Relevant laws:

    25 DCMR 3620.8 Violation of any of the following provisions of 25 DCMR Chapters 28 through 32 (Subtitle F: Physical Facilities) shall be a Class 4 infraction:
    (c) 25 DCMR § 3214.1 (failure to prohibit live animals on the premises, except as specified in §§ 3214.2 and 3214.3)

    22 DCMR 900.5 No person owning, keeping, or having custody of a dog in the District shall
    permit the dog to go on private property without the consent of the owner or
    occupant of the property.

Comments are closed.