Alachua County magistrate hears multiple code-enforcement cases; orders compliance, fines and continuances

The Alachua County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate convened in June 2026 to hear more than a dozen alleged violations ranging from hazardous trees and junk accumulation to unpermitted buildings and habitability complaints.

The hearing opened with the magistrate outlining authority under Florida Statutes Chapter 162 and county ordinances and swearing in those intending to testify. County staff then presented cases one by one; the recurring remedies were orders to correct within set periods (commonly 30 days) and daily fines for continued noncompliance (typical amounts ranged from $50 to $600 per day, depending on the code section and severity).

Several tree-related complaints focused on a dead tree that straddles two properties. The county’s forester urged removal or reduction to a safe condition; both neighboring property owners said they had paid for surveys and estimates and blamed the other for inaction. The magistrate held a decision on one case until a related parcel’s survey was submitted and urged the parties to cooperate and exchange contractor estimates.

Other routine cases resulted in the standard outcome the county sought: notice of violation, a compliance deadline and potential daily fines. For example, the county recommended 30 days for the McGee property (laurel oak with hollow trunk) and similar 30-day compliance windows for several junk-and-debris cases. In cases involving unpermitted accessory structures and major renovations, the magistrate frequently allowed longer periods when the respondent had an active permit application or had demonstrably engaged contractors and engineers.

A handful of matters were more complex. One owner of a lakeside lot told the magistrate he had removed hazardous materials and historic debris and said financial and health problems limited his capacity to complete permits immediately; zoning staff advised that accessory structures generally cannot be permitted without a principal residence but said a law change effective July 1 would expand options for manufactured homes in some districts. The magistrate continued that matter to allow county staff to check septic/health-department feasibility and to return with guidance.

The hearing included a penalty/lien phase: the magistrate ordered a lien for a property previously found guilty and placed a reduction hearing on the record for a different respondent, who sought rescission of a lien and cited recent demolition work and financial hardship. In a separate emergency request tied to a pending sale, a buyer asked for a conditional release to close; county counsel and staff opposed removing liens before compliance but were open to negotiated agreements that reduce fines to prosecution costs once verified compliance is complete.

Throughout the hearing, county staff documented prosecution costs and presented photographs and notices; respondents who engaged with staff or had active permitting were generally offered longer timeframes or continued hearing dates to show progress. The magistrate closed the session after directing follow-up on several items and reminding parties that written decisions and orders would be mailed.

The county’s case recommendations, compliance deadlines, and assessment amounts summarized at the hearing will be reflected in mailed orders; several matters were continued or held pending additional surveys, health-department checks or permit updates.