Claremont board finds prior code violation at 1919 Sunset Lane, orders 60‑day compliance after neighbors recount years of criminal activity

The Claremont Code Enforcement Board on April 29 found that an interior code violation occurred at 1919 Sunset Lane and accepted staff recommendations that the property remain in compliance for a 60‑day period, allowing city inspectors to reenter and authorizing the city to make reasonable repairs and charge costs if the property falls out of compliance.

Andrew Snodgrass, a Claremont code enforcement officer, told the board the notice of violation was issued March 12, 2026 and a hearing notice was sent April 21, 2026. Snodgrass cited code and International Property Maintenance Code provisions including 109.1 and 109.1.3 for unsafe and unsanitary conditions, and said photographs showed accumulated material, egress impediments and conditions that could harbor rodents. He said the property was in compliance as of the hearing date.

City Attorney Christian Juan urged the board to “take this especially seriously,” saying the city sought an adjudication so future infractions could be treated as repeat violations, which carry increased fines and remedies. Mr. Juan told the board the staff recommendation included authorizing a 60‑day compliance period, the city’s right to re‑inspect on reasonable notice, and assessment of administrative costs of $61.35.

Residents and neighbors gave extended testimony, describing a long history of criminal activity, frequent police responses and safety concerns. Patricia Woodhouse, who lives at 2010 Sunset Lane, said, “Those pictures are disgusting and those things are still there,” and described needles, repeated SWAT responses and roaming pit bulls. Several neighbors said the problem has persisted for seven years and urged more aggressive enforcement, including fines, liens, injunctions or demolition where legally justified.

Chase Cole, who identified himself as residing at 1919 Sunset Lane, testified under oath that he had allowed friends to stay at the house, acknowledged poor choices and some hoarding, and apologized to neighbors. Cole said he would vacate the property voluntarily — “I’ll be leaving voluntarily” — and later affirmed he expected to be out within 30 days, and that the owner planned to secure and rehabilitate the house.

A city attorney representing the municipal position (Mr. Brackens) told the board that the Claremont Police Department has been an active partner with code enforcement and that city management had directed a firm approach. He said the city intended to pursue appropriate remedies where lawfully available.

Board counsel advised the panel that its authority under Chapter 162, Florida Statutes, is limited to the violations properly noticed in the item before it (the interior conditions alleged in the March 12 notice). Counsel explained the board cannot order evictions or immediate demolition in this proceeding but can find a violation, set compliance periods, authorize city repairs and notify the city under sections 162.06(4) and 162.09(1) to enable additional remedies if the condition returns.

After discussion, a board member moved to accept staff recommendations: find the respondent in violation of the cited sections, note the property came into compliance prior to the hearing, require continued compliance for 60 days, permit reinspection, authorize the city to make reasonable repairs and charge costs if the property falls out of compliance, and assess $61.35 in administrative costs. The motion also found the violation presented a serious threat to public health, safety and welfare and directed that the city be notified under Florida Statutes sections 162.06(4) and 162.09(1). A second was recorded and the motion carried by voice vote; the transcript does not record an exact roll‑call tally.

The board’s order establishes a 60‑day monitoring window during which the city may act if compliance lapses; it also provides the record the city said it needs to pursue repeat‑offender remedies should future violations occur. Neighbors said they will continue pushing for stronger remedies and for the city to consider additional civil or criminal tools where appropriate.

At the meeting’s conclusion staff noted proposed code amendments (including higher fine authority tied to city population thresholds) and counsel said a Sunshine Law and ethics briefing will be provided for new board members at an upcoming meeting. The board adjourned after the announcements.