Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 4-29-26 - Code Enforcement CITY OF CLERMONT CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD MINUTES APRIL 29, 2026 CALL TO ORDER Chair Camps called the meeting of the Code Enforcement Board to order on Wednesday, April 29, 2026, at 6:00 pm. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND MOMENT OF SILENCE NEW BOARD MEMBER SWEARING IN ROLL CALL MEMBERS PRESENT= Chair Camps, Vice-Chair Fracasso, Member Vallier, Member Barone, Member Connelly, and Member Cornett_ Member Fornoles was absent ALSO PRESENT: Code Enforcement Officers Snodgrass and Cortez; Code Enforcement Manager Wallace, Code Board Attorney Brackiais, Assistant City Attorney Dyer, City Attorney Christian Waugh, Planning Director Curt Henschel, and Planning Coordinator Rae Chidlow. OPENING STATEMENT—Chair Camps made the opening remarks_ SWEARING IN WITNESSES Code Enforcement Officers Wallace, Snodgrass, and city staff, along with any of the public who may testify were sworn in. Assistant City Attorney Dyer introduced the case. NEW BUSINESS ITEM I —CASE NO_ 26-000055 Kolb Trust LOCATION O?<;VIOLATION: 1919 Sunset Lane VIOLATION= Section 18-53 (2)(3)(6)(11)(14) Nuisances; Section 18-54 Creation of Nuisance by Property Owner Declared Unlawful; Section 1 8-55 Notice to Abate; IPMC 109.1 Unsafe Conditions; 109.1.3 Structure unfit for human occupancy; 302.5 Rodent harborage Code Enforcement Officer Snodgrass explained the case. He said the property owner has been sent proper notice and is present_ He stated the property is in compliance. City's recommendation to find the Respondent was in violation and that Code Enforcement will have the right to re- inspect the property upon any reasonable request during the next 60 days_ Furthermore, to assess an administrative cost of$61_35 for costs associated with the case. Respondent was present and sworn in. City Attorney Christian Waugh explained that the city was treating the case with an unusually high level of seriousness due to the ongoing nature of the violations. He stated that special meetings of this kind are rare and emphasized that the presence of city officials, council members, and concerned residents reflected the significance of the matter. He explained that the city was seeking stronger remedies than in typical code enforcement cases, including investigative costs and the maximum penalties allowed,because of repeated issues associated with the property: Hetsaid that even though the property may have already come into compliance by the time of the hearing, the city was still requesting a formal finding of violation so that any future violations could legally be treated as repeat offenses, allowing for increased fines and stronger enforcement measures. He stressed that the city's primary goal is achieving long-term compliance and!preventing the need for future enforcement actions, while also indicating that additional enforcement efforts related to the property were ongoing outside the scope of the current hearing. Board Member Barone asked if an action plan was provided to the property owner. Mr. Snodgrass stated that the City cannot create an action plan for Respondents. He stated that they explain to them what needs to be done to meet compliance requirements. William Kolb, owner of 1919 Sunset Lane, stated that it was his intention to completely vacate the property within a matter of weeks so it could be thoroughly cleaned and repaired. He acknowledged that his son was currently living at the home but said he intended to remove all " occupants, including squatters, within 30 days. He apologized to both the Board and neighboring residents for the problems and repeated violations associated with the property over the past several years. He stated that he wanted to remedy the situation by eliminating unauthorized occupancy and preventing future access. He explained that he planned to secure the property by replacing doors,locks, and potentially windows to stop homeless individuals or others from entering. He also discussed plans to hire cleanup services, obtain dumpsters, disinfect the property, and address sanitation concerns to prevent pests or rodents. He indicated that while formal contracts.were inot yet in place,he intended to move quickly on cleanup and rehabilitation efforts and expected the squatters to leave immediately, with his son vacating within 30 days. Board member Connelly asked the Respondent if he agreed to the violations. Mr. Kolb stated that yes, they have been happening and cleaning up. t Board member Barone asked if there was any structural damage. Mr. Snodgrass stated that there was not any structural damage. Patricia Woodhouse;2010 Sunset Lane, addressed the Board regarding the nuisance property at 1919 Sunset Lane;that she says has caused serious safety, sanitation, and criminal concerns for more than seven:years. She described the property as unsanitary and dangerous, citing boarded windows,garbage, vermin, needles found on-site,roaming pit bulls, and repeated police and 2 SWAT activity connected to drug-related incidents and arrests. She argued that the city has legal authority under Florida code enforcement laws to take stronger action through fines, liens,unsafe structure proceedings, or demolition if warranted, and criticized-past enforcement efforts as insufficient. She emphasized the impact on nearby residents, including families with young children, tenants, and neighbors who have endured ongoing disturbances, fear, and declining neighborhood conditions. While acknowledging the work of city officials, code enforcement staff, and police, she urged the board to act immediately with aggressive enforcement measures and stated that residents are done waiting for a meaningful resolution. Daryl Woodhouse,2010 Sunset Lane,mentioned the ongoing problems caused by 1919 Sunset Lane that has affected the neighborhood for approximately seven years. He expressed appreciation for the comments made by-property owner Bill Kolb and hoped meaningful corrective action will finally be taken. He said the constant criminal activity, drug-related issues, and repeated police presence near the property have become intolerable for nearby residents. While noting that state law could ultimately allow authorities to demolish a nuisance property if conditions continue to deteriorate,he emphasized that he does not want that outcome and instead hopes the property can be rehabilitated,properly managed, or sold responsibly. He stressed that residents should not be expected to live near ongoing criminal activity and concluded by thanking the Board for its attention, saying neighbors finally feel progress may be occurring and that the owner may now be taking the situation seriously. Paul Shaver, 800 Center Lane, addressed the board about the severe impact a nearby nuisance property has had on the community. He;stated that he has lived in the area for 30 years and' described the situation as a nightmare that has subjected residents to years of fear, criminal activity,police raids, overdoses, deaths, and ongoing disturbances tied to the property. He emphasized that the issue extends far beyond'tho condition of the home itself, affecting surrounding neighborhoods, public safety resources, schools,bus stops, and the overall sense of safety in the community. He argued that repeated.law enforcement responses and emergency incidents have created an unacceptable burden on both residents and the city. While acknowledging thepproperty owner's promise to repair the house, he expressed doubt that simply, renovating the structure while allowing the same individuals to remain involved would solve the problem. He urged the Board to make the necessary decision to permanently address the situation, suggesting the property should be sold-to someone who would responsibly manage it. - He asked officials to act in the best interest of the neighborhood after nearly seven years of ongoing problems. Deborah Navaro, 947 Sunset Lane, stated that she moved there in December 2025. She addressed the Board about the impact a nearby nuisance property has had on her family and the surrounding community. She stated that in just four months living on the street, she has witnessed more police activity than in her previous 30 years living in Florida, connected to the neighboringpropetlGy. She described a recent incident in which two individuals associated with the house were arrested in front of her home and where six people were arrested while her 10- year-old granddaughter watched police>place individuals in handcuffs early in the morning. She mentioned a frightening encounter in which a roaming pit bull from the property cornered her and her two grandchildren, leaving her fearful of their safety. She praised the surrounding neighbors>and said:that she loves the community and would even consider purchasing the home 3 she currently rents. She said the ongoing criminal activity and unsafe conditions have made her hesitant to invest in the neighborhood. She urged the Board to make the right decision regarding the property, expressing her belief that the owner should sell the home and remove those causing the disturbances so the neighborhood can regain safety and stability. Riley Scott, 1929 Sunset Lane, spoke about the ongoing problems caused by 1919 Sunset Lane and the effect it has had on her family and the community. While expressing sympathy for the property owner and the difficult situation involving his son, she said she could not sympathize with allowing the son and his associates to continue bringing criminal activity,drug use, and unsafe conditions into the neighborhood. She described repeated police activity at the home, including an incident where the owner's son was tared in her front yard while her own child was a newborn. She said there is constant foot traffic, suspicious activity, unpleasant odors coming from the property, and frequent gatherings of people late into the night,all of which have created a persistent sense of fear and instability for nearby residents. She also spoke about concerns over roaming dogs and the safety of children.living,on,the street, noting that neighbors are afraid for their families and often feel unsafe in their own homes. She argued that unless the owner's son is removed from the property,the problems will'continue regardless of cleanup or repairs, as criminal activity quickly resumes even after law enforcement raids. She concluded by expressing hope that officials will take meaningful action`so the neighborhood can once again feel safe, allowing children to play outside without fear of drugs, crime, or dangerous animals. Gayle Tomasini, 4049 Greystone Drive, stated she was a former landlord for more than 30 years in Massachusetts. She addressed the Board to express concerns about the long-term management of the nuisance property under discussion. She explained her own experience handling a tenant involved in drug activity and explained that she had previously taken swift action to evict the tenant despite the difficulty of doing so under Massachusetts law and even chose to leave the property vacant for several years to prevent further criminal activity. She stated that while rehabilitating the property itself is important, her primary concern is what measures the owner will take moving forward to properly screen future tenants, conduct background checks, and respond quickly if similar issues arise again. She emphasized that residents want reassurance that the neighborhood will not face another prolonged period of criminal activity and instability and urged the Board and property owner to focus on preventing the situation from repeating in the future. Chase Kolb, 1919 Sunset Lane, acknowledged responsibility for many of the issues raised by the neighbors. He explained that he has lived at the property for 23 years and said the neighborhood had historically been peaceful before recent problems developed. He stated that he had allowed homeless individuals and friends in difficult circumstances to stay temporarily at the home out of compassion, offering them necessities such as food, showers, and a place to charge phones, but admitted that he failed to properly assess the consequences of allowing unfamiliar people onto the property. He denied allegations of drug dealing�occurring at the home and argued that some accusations and police actions were exaggerated or.based on incorrect information, though he acknowledged that individuals staying at the property had recently been arrested and that the level of traffic and activity understandably alarmed neighbors. He defended the pit bulls living on the property as non-aggressive but admitted they frightened residents and stated the dogs would no longer remain there. He also emphasized that his father was largely unaware of what 4 had been happening at the house and acted quickly whenever problems came to his attention. He apologized to neighbors for the disturbances and disruption the situation caused, acknowledged that he had made poor decisions by allowing too many people to access the property, and stated that he would be permanently stepping away from living at the home once the property is cleaned up and restored under his father's supervision. Terry Bell, 705 Hook Street, stated that he believes property owner Bill Kolb intends to follow through on the commitments made to restore the home,but emphasized that if Chase Kolb remains involved in the cleanup process,he should only be present under the supervision of a responsible adult, contractor, or other oversight. He apologized for not intervening sooner despite being aware of many of the problems over the years, explaining that his work often kept him out of town while residents continued enduring the disturbances daily. He described Chase, Tabitha, and Bill Kolb as good people personally,but acknowledged that the situation had spiraled out of control due in part to homeless individuals and people with mental health and substance abuse issues congregating at the property. Bell argued that many of the individuals involved were vulnerable people taking advantage of the Kolb family's willingness to help them. He acknowledged the repeated police presence and suspicious activity he had personally observed through home security footage. He expressed appreciation for law enforcement but questioned whether stronger intervention could have occurred sooner. He concluded by stating his belief that Bill Kolb would now take control of the situation and end the ongoing problems with the property. Patricia Woodhouse responded by disputing the issue was simply helping homeless individuals, citing recent arrests involving copper wire theft, the dangerous encounters with roaming pit bulls, severe unsanitary conditions inside the home, and years of unresolved code violations and criminal activity. She questioned what enforcement mechanisms the city would pursue if the problems continued and insisted she would continue attending meetings and pressing officials until the property issues were permanently resolved. City Attorney Christian Waugh addressed the Board and audience regarding the ongoing issues surrounding the Sunset Lane property, emphasizing his responsibility to represent the public interest and the City's position on the matter. He acknowledged that it took courage for Chase Kolb to speak publicly and commended residents for remaining generally fair and restrained in their comments despite the seriousness of the situation. He stated that he viewed Chase Kolb's testimony as largely an abdication of personal responsibility and expressed concern over remarks that appeared critical of the Clermont Police Department. He firmly defended the police, stating that officers were acting lawfully and appropriately, with probable cause and reasonable suspicion guiding arrests and enforcement actions connected to the property. He stressed that the police department, city staff, and city leadership are committed partners in addressing the nuisance property and restoring safety and security to the neighborhood. He concluded by making clear that the City's official position is that residents should not have to endure the conditions and criminal activity described during the hearing, noting that the presence of City Council members at the meeting reflected the seriousness with which city leadership views the matter. 5 Code Enforcement Attorney Patrick Brackins clarified the Board's legal authority regarding the Sunset Lane property. He explained that the Board's authority under Chapter 162 of Florida law is limited to the specific violations formally noticed in the case. He stated that the violations currently before the Board concerned only the interior conditions of the property identified in the March 12 notice of violation, not broader allegations related to criminal activity, nuisance behavior, or tenant removal. He stated Board members could encourage the property owner to pursue actions such as eviction but do not have the legal authority to order an eviction. He explained that the Board must act as a quasi-judicial body,basing its decisions only on competent and substantial evidence related to the noticed code violations. He stated that the property had been in violation until March 12 but now is in compliance. He explained that the City was requesting an adjudication of violation so that if the property falls out of compliance within the next 60 days, it could be treated as a repeat violation subject to stronger penalties, including fines of up to $500 per day. He stated that the property is to remain in compliance for 60 days, allowing the City to make reasonable repairs and charge the costs back to the property owner, and assessing an administrative cost of$61.35. He explained that while the Board may consider whether a previously corrected violation posed a serious threat to public health, safety, and welfare, and may notify the City under certain statutory provisions so that additional enforcement options could be pursued if the issue recurs. He emphasized that the Board cannot order evictions, regulate who may occupy the property,require demolition, or address broader criminal or tenant-related matters within this proceeding. Board member Connelly pointed out that the property owner had acknowledged the code violations cited by the city as valid. He asked that while a voluntary agreement or consent by the property owner to:take additional steps can be encouraged or recommended, it cannot be made as a binding requirement in the Board's formal order. Mr. Brackins stated;that they do not have the.authority to put an order to any property owner that they evict somebody by a date certain.as it is not part of Chapter 162. He stated that he could recommend that the property owner does it but not as part of an order. City Attorney Christian Waugh stated that the City does not want an order that could be appealed. Chair Camps asked about codes pertaining to the drug paraphernalia and things like that. Mr. Waugh stated that not in this specific case, but in yes there is a code section that is relevant to that. j Mr. Brackins explained and clarified the staff s recommendation regarding the case. He stated that there was nothing inappropriate about the recommendation as presented and suggested that, if the Board wished-to provide additional clarity, it could formally find that the property was in violation but had come into compliance prior to the hearing. He then recommended that the Board accepts the,sta_ff's proposal and includes language from the bottom of page 11 referencing public health, safety,and welfare. 6 Member Connelly made a motion to find that the Respondent was in violation and the property must stay in compliance for a period of 60 days and that Code Enforcement has the righto reinspect the property upon any reasonable request during those 60 days ! the property is found not in compliance during this period. the City may make all reasonable repairs to bring property into compliance and chargethe property owner. An administrative cost of$6135 will be assessed and find that the violation created a serious threat to the public health safety, and welfare; Seconded by Member Cornett. Motion passed 6-0 in approval. City Attorney Christian Waugh informed the Board that upcoming amendments to the City's code will soon be considered by City Council, which may affect how the Board operates. He explained that under a Florida statute, once a city reaches a population of 50,000, it becomes eligible to increase the maximum fines available for code enforcement penalties. He noted that the city has now reached that population threshold, meaning the City Council will consider adopting higher fine limits. Code Enforcement Board Attorney Patrick Brackins noting that the Board has several new members and that a brief training course on Sunshine Law,public records requirements, and ethics would be included at the next meeting. He explained that Florida's Sunshine Law prohibits two or more Board members from discussing any matters that may come before the Board outside of official meetings, and.that violations can carry serious consequences, including civil penalties and even misdemeanor charges for intentional violations. He also reminded members that emails and other communications related to Board matters are public records and must be preserved,not deleted, and maybe subject to disclosure upon request. He discussed the importance of avoiding ex-part communications, emphasizing that Board members must base decisions solely on evidence presented during hearings and must disclose any outside contact or site visits related to cases. He encouraged transparency, fairness, and proper documentation of any interactions that could create a perception of bias, concluding that a more formal presentation on these topics would be provided at'the next meeting. AJDOURN There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:27 pm. Chair Linda Camps Attest: Rae Chidlow; Planning Coordinator 7