Alachua County magistrate hears dozens of code cases, grants reductions and sets fines

The Alachua County special magistrate convened a code enforcement hearing in April 2026 to consider dozens of alleged violations ranging from unserviceable vehicles and junk accumulation to after-the-fact building work and recreational vehicles used as living quarters. County code officers presented evidence, photographs and inspection histories; several property owners appeared to request more time or to ask for reductions of fines and rescission of liens.

The magistrate opened the session by explaining the office’s authority: the magistrate can determine whether a violation occurred, set dates for compliance and levy daily fines but cannot change county ordinances (appeals go to the courts). Officers swore witnesses and proceeded through the docket.

County staff recommended findings of violation in multiple cases. Examples include case 26‑001323 (Mid Florida Distributors, parcel 10866006000), where the county alleged violations of section 74.2(b) for unserviceable vehicles and requested 30 days to comply or $50 per day plus $280 in prosecution costs; and case 26‑001259 (6114 NE 78th Lane) where the county made a similar recommendation for owner Gabriel Bellamy. In several matters the respondent did not appear and the county asked the magistrate to impose fines and to place liens where appropriate.

Several respondents who attended described financial hardship or remediation steps. In case 25‑010557, owner Aurora Grosz acknowledged a recreational vehicle on her five‑acre property and said she was working with county staff on permits and drain‑field work but could not pay immediate costs, stating she receives limited retirement income and needed more time to secure roughly $3,500–$6,000 in work estimates to legalize the unit. Code officer Natasha Washington told the magistrate that the county’s 90‑day compliance recommendation reflected the time generally required to complete permitting and corrective actions.

In a penalty phase, the magistrate recorded several formal rulings. For example, the record shows Lawson and McCoy found guilty and not in compliance (case 24‑013733), with prosecution costs and an assessed daily fine; the county requested a lien. In case 25‑011952 (James Robert J. life estate) the county reported the property guilty and not in compliance with prosecution costs of $350 and a $100‑per‑day fine (total reported as $4,750). A man who identified himself as David K. Griffiths challenged the record vigorously and was told by the magistrate that appeals or legal action are the appropriate remedies for record disputes.

Owner Mohammed Shakarone and his family described large, unexpectedly high engineering quotes and the difficulty of completing after‑the‑fact permits at case 25‑009130; the county said fines would continue to accrue until full compliance but that respondents who bring properties into compliance may later apply for reductions. Officer Benjamin summarized enforcement history in other cases and identified outstanding fine balances (for example, a $2,400 fine figure discussed in a reduction petition).

During the reduction hearings the magistrate considered individual circumstances and remediation efforts. In a long‑running case dating to 2012 (CE2012020014) a new owner described extensive cleanup, repairs and medical or family hardship; the county recommended a substantial reduction to enable removal of the lien and return the property to the tax rolls. The magistrate said she would grant a near‑complete reduction in that case (a 99% reduction was discussed, leaving a nominal amount to preserve a record of payment) so the county could remove the lien once the payment was made.

What happens next: the magistrate will issue written decisions on the findings and on fines where the hearing record requires a formal penalty order. Respondents who come into compliance may return to request reductions of accumulated fines; those who dispute the magistrate’s orders may appeal to the courts.

Actions and enforcement at a glance: the hearing record shows multiple findings of violation, compliance windows (commonly 30–90 days), daily fines ranging from $50 to $100 in many cases and prosecution costs reported between $140 and $560 depending on the matter. The county also requested liens in several cases where fines had accrued.

Key quotes from the hearing include Aurora Grosz saying she is retired and "I don't have any money" when asked about the funds needed to obtain permits, and the magistrate explaining that "once you get into compliance, you can come back before me" to request a reduction of fines.

The magistrate recessed for a scheduled break and then continued with the reduction hearings. Written orders and formal penalty decisions will be mailed to respondents as required by procedure.