Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Anonymous Complaints Statute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Attorney: County pursued 7600 Hillside Park case on anonymous complaint; county says imminent hazard justified action
Summary
In a contested hearing attorney Grant Van Ammon argued Alachua County improperly initiated enforcement based on anonymous April/May emails, citing Florida Statute chapter 162.21; county counsel and a building official responded that a later July complaint and alleged imminent electrical/plumbing hazards justified the investigation and notice of violation.
Attorney Grant Van Ammon, representing 7600 Hillside Park LLC, asked the magistrate to dismiss the county’s enforcement action on statutory grounds, saying the county had relied on an anonymous complaint in April and May and had not verified the complainant’s identity as required by Florida Statute chapter 162.21.
"As the county knows, under Florida statute 162.21, a county may not initiate a code enforcement investigation based on an anonymous complaint unless there is an imminent threat to public health, safety, welfare, or the destruction of environmentally sensitive resources," Van Ammon told the magistrate, arguing the record shows no such imminent threat and that the anonymous complaints were never verified.
County counsel Allison Franklin replied the enforcement stemmed from a July 9 complaint and that the county was not required to verify the existence of an earlier complainant where an imminent threat was present: "We did receive a complaint. We have no duty to verify whether that person is in existence, but the imminent threat that was in place ... obviates the need for that," she said. The county asked for additional testimony from building official Dan Gargas on the nature of the imminent threat.
Dan Gargas described the original complaint as alleging unpermitted electrical and plumbing work and work that included construction of a shallow water feature. Gargas said the reported activity included structural and safety concerns. "The original complaint came in and said that they were doing electrical and plumbing and renovations within the space," he testified, and later described a constructed feature with less than 18 inches of water that he said had raised immediate concerns.
The magistrate directed follow‑up testimony and review of the record. He noted that county staff presented a July 9 notice that prompted the current action, but that Van Ammon’s filings raised an objection under section 162.21. The magistrate said he would consider the statutory argument in his written decision after reviewing the evidence and any further testimony.
The exchange highlights a recurring tension in local enforcement: when and how an agency may act on complaints that arrive through informal channels versus a formalized complaint portal, particularly where owners claim they were not given the opportunity to respond before enforcement proceeded.
