Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustee seeks stay of penalties, cites county drainage mismanagement in Alachua County land‑trust case
Summary
The trustee for Land Trust 17601 asked the magistrate to stay penalties and reconsider a prior order, presenting an engineering report and photos documenting June 23, 2023 flooding and erosion that the trustee attributes to county grading and blocked drainage; the county opposed the stay, arguing fees accrual does not impede appeal rights.
Thomas Scheigle, trustee of Land Trust 17601 and a member of the Florida Bar, asked the Alachua County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate to stay penalties while a circuit‑court appeal is pending and to reconsider or modify a November order that required a site plan within 90 days.
Scheigle presented photographs and an engineering report documenting flooding, sediment flow and erosion originating on 59th Street and Veterans Way on June 23, 2023, saying those conditions flowed onto the trust property and caused the retaining wall to fail. "We're trying to build a dike against an oncoming tide here," Scheigle said, describing a 12.5‑acre tributary area that he argued could not reasonably be mitigated on the trust's 2.7‑acre parcel.
Scheigle asked the magistrate to (1) stay accrual of penalties and enforcement while the appeal proceeds and (2) remove or extend the 90‑day deadline for submitting a site plan because the county drainage issues make meaningful remediation impossible without county corrective action.
The county opposed the stay. The county attorney argued that ongoing accrual of fees does not prevent appeal and that if the respondent prevails on appeal they may seek reduction or waiver of fees later. "The accrual of fees that is ongoing, it does not impact or hinder their right to appeal," the county attorney told the magistrate. The county also noted the engineer of record who prepared the report was not present to testify and said site‑plan review is the regular mechanism for addressing drainage and flow impacts.
Scheigle said the engineering report and additional affidavits could be submitted or the matter reconvened so the certifying engineers could testify; he identified the civil engineers involved as Torben Abbott and Wayne Walker. The magistrate said he would review the filings and the record and indicated he did not require the engineers to be physically present to accept the report into the record but reserved decision on the requested stay and modification.
The hearing on that parcel concluded for the day; the magistrate said written rulings and any instructions would be mailed to the parties.
