Alachua County magistrate hears dozens of code-enforcement cases; several respondents given more time to comply

The Alachua County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate convened its December 2025 special hearing to consider alleged violations ranging from improper solid-waste disposal to accumulation of junk, unsafe structures and unpermitted recreational vehicle parking.

The magistrate opened the proceeding by reading the panel’s authority under Florida Statutes Chapter 162 and explaining that the magistrate may determine violations, set compliance dates and levy fines but cannot change county ordinances. County staff then called cases and presented evidence, including photographs and invoices, and several respondents spoke in person or by Zoom.

In one of the substantive outcomes, the magistrate ordered respondent Timothy M. Paletti to come into compliance within 60 days for an RV-parking and related-permit matter. County code staff had noted that nuisance overgrowth had been corrected but the RV remained on the property; staff recommended a 60‑day compliance window and potential fines of $100 per day for continued noncompliance. Paletti told the magistrate he had applied for zoning/permits and said, “60 days is fine.” The magistrate said the written order would reflect that timeline and urged Paletti to stay in touch with staff to expedite inspections.

The magistrate also granted a 45‑day extension to Barry Corp. Jr., whose property was cited repeatedly for nuisance overgrowth. Barry Corp. Jr. told the panel he has health issues that limit how long he can work; county staff acknowledged ongoing efforts and recommended extra time. The magistrate said the extension was intended to allow the owner to complete cleanup and avoid a return visit.

For Richard and Arlene Plummer, the magistrate authorized the county to file a lien for unpaid prosecution costs (reported at $280) but said staff would hold filing for 30 days so payment could satisfy the obligation and prevent the lien from being recorded.

A lengthy exchange involved the Vargas/Cunningham family. Respondents disputed some inspection findings, said they had removed at least one vehicle and had video and time records they offered to show staff, and asked for more time (one family member requested up to 60 days). County staff described multiple neighborhood complaints and earlier inspections and recommended a 30‑day compliance period. The magistrate said a written decision would follow by mail or email.

During the reductions and rescission portion of the hearing, John Rose, general counsel for West Shore Legacy, requested reductions for fines that date back several years; the magistrate said she would issue a ruling next week after reviewing the materials. Jeffrey Wagner presented disputed history and documentary claims about prior inspections and notices; the magistrate indicated she would review the record (videos on the county website were cited) and did not rule immediately. By contrast, a walk‑in petitioner, Wallace Bradley, described recent serious medical and family hardship and the magistrate said she would grant a reduction and circulate the formal amount by email.

Throughout the hearing, county staff repeatedly encouraged respondents to communicate by email and to work with zoning and building staff to assemble the permits and inspections needed to reach compliance. The magistrate also reminded attendees that the rescission process allows for fines and liens to be reduced once verified compliance is achieved and documented.

The magistrate closed the hearing at 10:52 a.m. Formal written orders and any rulings on reduction requests will be mailed or emailed to the parties, as stated on the record.