Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drainage And Fill Case topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustee asks for stay amid drainage dispute; magistrate continues Alachua County code penalty hearing to July 2
Summary
A trustee in a contested Alachua County code enforcement case asked the magistrate for a temporary stay and engineering review because of ongoing drainage problems; the magistrate continued the penalty hearing to July 2 and said fines will continue to accrue until compliance.
The Alachua County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate on Thursday continued a contested penalty hearing to July 2 after a trustee sought more time to complete engineering work and public‑records requests tied to persistent drainage problems on the property.
Thomas Shago, trustee of Trust 17601D, told the magistrate that his property has been used as a conveyance for stormwater runoff and that the family cannot complete corrective work until engineers finish their review. “We are not in compliance, but we cannot comply as part of the problem,” Shago said, asking for a temporary stay and preservation of the record while engineering and public‑records work proceed.
Assistant County Manager “Ms. Daniels” and representatives for the county acknowledged the drainage and records exchange but said a stay was not appropriate in the penalty hearing; the county agreed instead to continue the matter while further records and engineering reports are produced. Corbin Hansen of the County Attorney’s Office told the magistrate the office had provided responsive records and was working on follow‑up requests.
The magistrate said he would allow extra time for the parties to obtain engineering analysis but cautioned that statutory fines continue to accrue until the property is brought into compliance. He scheduled the next hearing for the first Thursday in July (July 2) and directed the trustee to coordinate with the county attorney and code enforcement staff to get the item back on the agenda.
Why it matters: The trustee argues the property’s noncompliance is tied to larger infrastructure and drainage issues that require engineering solutions and county cooperation; the magistrate’s continuance gives both sides time to gather technical evidence but leaves penalties running, a key practical pressure point for the property owner.
The magistrate closed the matter for the day after setting the July date. If the parties produce an engineering report and revised records before the hearing, the magistrate indicated he would consider them when addressing compliance and any potential fine reductions.
