Alachua County special magistrate closes Lime Rock case, imposes deadlines and reduces long‑standing fine

The Alachua County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate convened in July 2025 to hear enforcement actions on dozens of alleged code violations, from unpermitted buildings and junk accumulations to unauthorized tree removal and delayed repairs in rental housing. The hearing included staff presentations, responses from property owners or their representatives, and penalty decisions or deadlines for compliance.

The magistrate closed one case by agreement and set or confirmed compliance deadlines and monetary penalties in several matters. In a short exchange about case 25‑002726, county code enforcement officer Michael Williams said the county received a complaint and later received photographs showing new signs at the Lime Rock Mine property; a representative for the owner said, “My belief is that the matter's been resolved … the signs have been posted in a good faith effort to resolve these matters.” The county agreed and the magistrate removed the case from the docket.

Why it matters: code enforcement hearings determine whether local property owners must correct violations and how much they may owe if they fail to comply. For residents and neighbors, the orders set firm deadlines; for owners and managers, they may include fines or prosecution costs that continue to accrue until problems are fixed.

Key outcomes and orders

- Fine reduction granted: In a long‑running matter (case 22‑01562) involving Vladislav Petrov, county records showed the case had been in compliance for some time but still carried outstanding fines. After the county told the magistrate the office had no objection to a reduction request, the magistrate said he would reduce the fine and concluded, “So I'm going to reduce the fine to $24.” The reduction was entered from the bench.

- Requested fine for delayed repairs at an apartment unit: For a unit at Westshore Legacy LLC (case 25‑001320), the county testified that the unit was brought into compliance but only after about 103 days. The county asked the magistrate to impose a one‑time fine of $2,500 plus $210 in prosecution costs (total $2,710) citing a pattern of recurring issues at that development. No representative for Westshore appeared at the hearing.

- Penalty and deadline set for Parsons case: In case 21‑009862 the county requested a finding of violation and $100 per day in continuing fines; the magistrate set a 60‑day compliance period and noted prosecution costs of $350, with the $100/day penalty to begin if the respondent fails to comply within that timeframe.

- Several respondents given compliance windows: The magistrate and county officers set or confirmed a range of compliance deadlines across the docket — commonly 30, 60 or 90 days depending on the scope of work and permitting required (examples included accessory‑dwelling or after‑the‑fact permitting, demolition permits, or final inspections). Where respondents reported progress, officers were asked to verify compliance by on‑site inspection so cases could be closed and fines stopped.

Notable exchanges and instructions

- On permitting and homestead exemptions: Several respondents told the magistrate they were seeking homestead exemption or waiting on engineers or appraiser verifications before zoning or building permits could be finalized. Zoning administrator Holly Banner explained that an accessory‑dwelling zoning permit requires confirmation of homestead exemption from the property appraiser before a building permit can be issued for after‑the‑fact work.

- On evidence and documentation: For multiple matters officers offered photographs, inspection dates and certified mailing records to establish notice and the county’s attempts to work with property owners; magistrate repeatedly encouraged respondents to stay in contact with county staff and to provide documentation of progress so cases could be closed without further fines.

What happens next

Where the magistrate set compliance deadlines, county staff will verify completion by inspection; fines continue to accrue until a case is officially closed. In matters where the county requested civil penalties — as with the Westshore unit — a formal order will reflect the magistrate’s decision (or the magistrate may schedule additional proceedings if representatives request them). In the Petrov case the magistrate’s on‑the‑record reduction resolves that fine amount for now.

Speakers and sources: The hearing record includes remarks from the magistrate (chair), county clerks and code officers (including Michael Williams, Kelly Poyer, Alonte Webb and senior forester Andrew), zoning administrator Holly Banner, and multiple respondents and representatives (for example, Joanna Mercer, Richard Plummer, Jason Lewis and Sheila Sparks). Direct quotes and orders are drawn from the hearing transcript and from on‑the‑record statements made during the July session.

The hearing closed at 10:45 a.m.; outstanding cases remain subject to on‑site inspections or follow‑up filings as required by county code.