Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Magistrate hears multiple Alachua County compliance cases, approves reduced fines and payment arrangements
Summary
At the December 2024 Alachua County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate hearing the magistrate found one property in compliance, identified two cases as noncompliant, and approved reduced penalties or payment plans in several reduction requests; a land‑trust appeal and drainage dispute was continued for ruling on procedural requests.
The Alachua County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate convened a December 2024 hearing to address multiple alleged ordinance violations, hear requests to reduce fines and consider payment plans.
Alonte Webb, a county code officer, told the magistrate that property at 7824 Southwest 52nd Place (parcel 6800and5028) owned by Priscilla Bryant Taylor was inspected on Dec. 5, 2024 and was now in compliance. "Ongoing inspections conducted today have determined that the respondent is now in compliance of the said Alachua County code sections," Webb said. The county asked the magistrate to order recovery of $700 in prosecution costs; Taylor told the court she would seek a payment plan.
In other matters, code officer Kelly Poirier reported that the heirs in a separate proceeding (SM24-065) had not achieved compliance as of the most recent inspection. "The respondent did not come into compliance before the compliance date," Poirier told the magistrate. The magistrate indicated he would find noncompliance in that matter and noted a lien could be filed if fines continued to accrue.
Several residents asked for reductions of previously imposed fines. Heidi Reichardt and her brother said a small shed that prompted enforcement had been removed and described efforts to comply; Reichardt apologized and asked for leniency. The magistrate said he would consider a reduction and mail a written decision; during the hearing there were inconsistent figures cited for the accumulated amount owed (different values of $9,100, $4,800 and $8,400 were mentioned on the record), which the magistrate and clerk said would be clarified in the written order.
Leo Robinson, representing Powerhouse Family Worship Center, described moving and re-siting sheds, permitting and engineering costs and said the church had spent several thousand dollars to become compliant. The magistrate reviewed the documentation and proposed a reduced outstanding balance, asking, "So how does $48 sound?" Robinson accepted that reduction on the record and the magistrate directed the clerk to mail the final decision and payment instructions.
The magistrate emphasized procedural limits: reductions are discretionary, cannot be used to re-litigate the underlying finding of guilt, and must be requested in writing; parties will receive copies of the magistrate's written decisions by mail.
The hearing closed after clerical clarifications; the magistrate said written orders would reflect exact fine totals and payment instructions.
