Lake City magistrate orders demolition if owner does not remove unsafe house; derelict vehicle must be repaired or removed

The presiding magistrate at a Nov. 6, 2025, City of Lake City code enforcement hearing ordered the owner of 988 Northeast Basking North Drive to demolish an unsafe structure within 60 days or face city-initiated demolition and a lien for the demolition costs.

Code Enforcement Officer Silva told the magistrate that the property, listed under case CE25159 and owned by Antonio Johnson, has been vacant for several years, has prior code activity dating back to 2019, and shows “numerous holes in the roof of the structure” with siding falling off, making the building “unsafe to occupy.” Silva said the city posted the required notices and mailed certified notices to the owner before the hearing.

The magistrate ordered Johnson to obtain a demolition permit and complete demolition within 60 days of the written order. If the structure is not demolished within that period, the magistrate said the city may demolish the structure and record a lien for demolition costs against the property. The magistrate also awarded the city $9.64 in administrative/postage costs related to the hearing.

In the hearing’s next matter, case 25-7 involving 3328 Riverbank Drive, the magistrate ordered that a derelict vehicle located in a carport be repaired to operable condition or removed within 30 days. The city’s representative said the vehicle had been on the property for several years; the order states that if the vehicle is not repaired or removed within 30 days, a $50 daily fine will begin accruing and may become a lien on the property. The magistrate included $9.64 in administrative costs for that case as well.

Two other matters on the agenda were resolved without fines or orders after evidence showed properties had been brought into compliance. In case 25-189, involving a property at 442 Northwest Hillcrest Street, owner Chris Berger testified he had cleaned the lot by the compliance date; the city inspector confirmed the property was cleaned and the magistrate declined to issue a fine because there was no prior order establishing a prior violation within the five-year repeat-violation definition. In a separate weeds case with no respondent present, the city reported the property had been cleaned and the magistrate issued no order.

The magistrate noted that demolition permits can be issued quickly and that the owner of the unsafe structure must pull a demolition permit (or have a contractor do so) before demolition work. The magistrate also recorded for the record Mr. Johnson’s mailing address for delivery of the written order.

No criminal penalties were imposed; all remedies were civil code-enforcement actions tied to nuisance/unsafe-structure code provisions and local administrative procedure.

The hearing was adjourned after disposition of the four cases.