CEB_07-14-81_MinA -�
The Codes Enforcement Board held a special meeting on Tuesday, July 14, 1981
at 7:30 p.m.
Present: Richard I. Wallsh
Steven Kircher
Virgil Pavone
William Mitchell
Bob Thomas
Harvey Saner it s on (Alternate)
Marvin Rooks, City Attorney
Donald Terry, Board Secretary
Abs ent: B. H. Farrell
1. Chairman Wallsh called the meeting to order. Pledge of Allegiance followed by
reading of minutes of June 23, 1981 by Board Secretary. Motion by Mr. Mitchell,
seconded by Mr. Pavan that minutes of June 23, 1981 be accepted as read. Motion
carried by voice vote.
2. Mr. Wallsh stated that this was the first case to be heard by board and he asked
the Secretary to read all hearings scheduled. Mr Terry stated that there was one
case to be heard, Case No. 1 concerning Mr John Yarnall, 303 N.E. Lake Street, Longwood,
Florida who was charged with Violation of City ord No. 252 with the date of
violation June 19, 1981. Facts behind violation - violation warning issued 6 -8 -
Mr. Y arnal l l 1 f ailed to comply with warning. In my opinion, upon re - checking area on
6-- 19 -81, there wasn't any difference in appearance than on 6 - - 81, therefore apparently
Mr. Yarnall did not even attempt to correct the violation. See photos of property taken
on 6 - 19 - 81. Date Violator previously notified of violation 6 -8 -81. Witnessed to
violation, Captain Joe Palumbo. Affidavit signed by Larry W. Grose, Badge No. 6 20.
3. Mr. Igallsh asked if Mr John Yarnall was present and Mr Yarnall stated he was.
Mr. Wallsh asked Mr. Yarnall if he understood the charges read against him and if he
desired to contest them. Mr. Yarnall said he understood some and some he did not .
Mr. Yarnall stated that the first notification he had received concerning the property
was when he received the certified letter. Mr. Yarnall stated that he cleaned up some
since getting letter but he had not gotten rid of any cars and that they were all behind a
6 foot fence. Mr. Wallsh stated that before the City took testimony, the City had to
know if he was going to contest the charge. Mr. Yarnall stated he would contest the charge
4. officer Larry W. Grose, the c omp la. 1 ni ng officer, was sworn in by the Board Secretary
and presented the following evidence concerning the case.
Officer Grose stated that on May 4, 1981 Mr. Yarnall was written a letter by
Mr. David Chacey, City Administrator asking that nu ber of disabled cars be reduced
and that scrap material, parts, etc., be cleaned up and stowed properly. officer
Grose read letter and letter was admitted into evidence as City Exhibit No. 1.
Officer Grose stated that he had first visited property on June 8, 1981 at 3:15 p.m.
and he had issued a warning to Joann Yarnall and given Mr Yarnall 10 days to correct
the problem. officer Grose stated that warning stated that abandoned vehicles must
be removed from area not later than June 18, 1981. and that Joann Yarnall refused to
sign receipt for warning. The warning was admitted into evidence as City Exhibit ITo. 2.
Officer Grose stated he reinspected the property on June 19, 1981 and �It. Yarnall
was still in violation of ordinance No. 252 because abandoned vehicles were still on
property. officer Grose stated that he had c leted form number CEB -1 Affidavit of
Violation on June 19, 1981. Mr. Wallsh stated the affidavit had already been presented
to Board and would not be marked as exhibit.
Officer Grose stated that photographs had been taken of the violations
on Mr. Yarnal l ' s property on 6-19-81 by Capt Palunbo and h Mr. Wallsh
asked officer Grose what he saw on June 18 and officer Grose stated that he saw
a number of vehicles that were not registered and did not have license plates
parked around area and could be seen fram the street,
Mr. Wallsh asked Officer Grose what was last time he saw property and Officer
Grose stated at 6 :25 p.m. this date (7- 14 -81) and said there appeared to be some
changes but that abandoned vehicles were still visible from the street.
Mr. Rooks asked Officer Grose what first led him to believe there was a violation
and Officer Grose said his observations of abandoned vehicles on June 8 , June 19 and
July 14.
The photographs taken on 6 -19 -81 were admitted into evidence as City's Exhibit No. 3.
Mr. Mitchell asked if the vehicles appeared to be junked, stripped or were they
awaiting repair. Officer Grose said the same vehicles have been there since. June 8, 1981
and he entered City Exhibit 4 which consisted of photographs taken on July 13, 1981.
Mr. Thomas asked how long Longwood Carage had been in violation and if they had
a license to store cars. officer Grose stated that to the best of his knowledge he
did not have a license to operate a junk. yard and he said that how long he could keep
vehicles would depend on what type of license he had,
Mr. Thomas asked if Mr. Yarnall awned title to cars or were they abandoned.
Officer Grose said he would call them abandoned because Florida Statutes state
that a vehicle that is not properly registered and has a valid registration and tag
is considered an abandoned vehicle.
14-r. Thomas asked if this would be true even thought it is on your awn property.
Officer Grose stated that the City Ordinance No. 252 would prevent that.
Officer Grose stated that he had an aff idavit of service completed by Sgt. Mark
Snick stating that he had served the notice of hearing on 30 June 1981. The
affidavit of service was achnitted into evidence as City Exhibit No, 5.
Officer Grose submitted Notice of Hearing form dated June 25, 1981 and
a signed receipt of delivery on July 1, 1981 and they were admitted into Evidence
As City Exhibit No. 6 .
Officer Grose stated that he had checked property at 6:25 p.m. this date (7- 14 -81)
and Mr. Yarnall still appeared to be in violation of ordinance No. 252. His sworn
statement was admitted into evidence as City Exhibit No. 7.
Mr. Wallsh questioned the zoning of property and whether it had residential
property around it. Officer Grose said he was not certain of zoning of property
but was sure that it was not residential. Mr. Wallsh asked if the Police De t
had received complaints from any citizens and Officer Grose said complaints had been
received through the chain of cad. Mr. Wallsh stated that the scrap metal around
property was not covered by Ordinance No. 252 and that it only applied to vehicles.
Officer Grose stated that Section 4 covered parts of vehicles also.
Mr. Mitchell said that Mr. Chacey had stated that the property of Mr. John Yarnall
was zoned indus trial .
Officer Grose said that completed his case. Mr. Pavone asked if he had notices that
the parts he spoke of were from cars and Officer Grose stated that they were wheels and
tires and could be identified on the photographs.
2
Mr. 'Thomas asked how long property had been in that condition, 90 days
or 10 years. officer Grose said he had corm enced work with the City on
April 20, 1981 and that the property was in that condition at that time,
Mr. Wallsh asked Mr, Yarnall if he had any questioned and Mr. Yarnall said no.
Mr. Wallsh asked Mr Yarnall if he wanted to make any state and Mr. Yarnall
asked if he needed a lawyer and whether this was a trial - he said he thought the
matter was getting out of hand. Mr. Yarnall said he could talk about the photographs,
how they were taken and from what angle, Mr. Wallsh asked that he be sworn in and
explained that he could call any witnesses he wanted in his behalf,
Mr. Rooks advised Mr. Yarnall that he did have the right to an attorney and
Mr. Yarnall stated that he was being put in a bind, that he only had a 9th grade
education and that his first notification of the problem was when he received
the certified letter. Mr. Yarnall stated that he thought he should get a lawyer.
Mr Rooks asked Mr. Yarnall if he knew that he could be fined and that he could have
an attorney. Mr. Yarnall said he knew he had a right to attorney and he needed one .
Mr . Rooks recommended that since this was the first case and since Mr Yarnall
now wanted an attorney that he be given an opportunity to obtain me. Mr. Rooks
stated that this should not be the case in the future that if someone found he had
the need for an attorney he could ask for an adjourmentand obtain one-,
Mr. Wallsh stated that the notice of hearing plainly stated that he had the right
to an attorney. Mr. Yarnall said he had read that but he did not know what he was
getting into. Mr. Wallsh stated that the board did have the right to postpone hearings
for up to 31 days and if the Board wanted to give Mr. Yarnall time to obtain council
they could do so. Mr. Mitchell asked how much time was needed and Mr. Yarnall said
two weeks seemed fair. Mr . Wallsh asked if Mr. Yarnall knee that if at anytime there
is ca liance the City could drop the case. Mr. Yarnall stated that he had been in
compliance to a certain extent Mr. Wallsh suggested that he speak with the officer
and determine how he could get in compl lance .
5. Motion by Mr. Mitchell, seconded by Mr. Pavone that hearing be postponed until
Tuesday , July 28 , 1981. Motion carried by voice vote . M r . Wallsh said that this
hearing would be postponed. until July 28, 1981.
6 . Mr. Kircher suggested that Mr. Yarnall get a copy of all inf
Mr. Pavone wanted to ask Mr. Yarnall a question and Mr Wallsh said no until
he obtained an attorney.
7. Mr Wallsh advised Mr Yarnall that the board would not be too forthcoming
on a request for a further delay. He said the City would reopen its case and
Mr. Yarnall ' s attorney would be given an opportunity to cross P mi n e x•,itne s s e s .
Mr Wallsh excused Mr Yarnal l .
8 . Mr. Chacey, , City Administrator asked if the Codes Enforcement Board needed any
additional information and whether procedures were satisfactory. Mr. Thomas said
future cases should explain the nature of the businesses and Mr Mitchell said they
should also show zoning and what was permitted in zoning,
9. Mr. Rooks stated that he knew there were some people present who .ranted to
speak but that this was not a public hearing. He suggested that if anyone wanted
to speak for either side they should contact the side and be called by that side.
10. There �.ms no old or further new business. Mr. Wallsh cautioned board members
not to view site, discuss the case among themselves or with others.
11. Motion by Mr. Mitchell, se d d by Pavane . to adj o eting . Meeting
adjourned at 8:10 p .m. _ Chairma n