Alachua County magistrate grants 60 days to one owner, holds several code cases for follow-up after Aug. 1 hearing

The Alachua County special magistrate on Aug. 1 heard a series of noncompliance, new-business and fine-reduction matters and took mixed actions: the magistrate granted one property owner 60 days to comply, put several cases on hold while county staff investigate permitting or ownership issues, and said a decision on a longstanding lien-reduction request would be mailed.

At the start of the hearing the magistrate read procedure and swore in county staff. The clerk then confirmed a list of previously closed cases involving Alachua County v. Gables 2017 Holding LLC. The hearing moved to noncompliance cases and new business.

County senior assistant attorney Diana Johnson summarized case SM23-064 (Alachua County v. Joshua Limas), saying a prior magistrate order had found violations and assessed $420 in costs and $100 per day in fines; an affidavit of continued noncompliance showed $17,620 owed as of Aug. 1 and fines continuing to accrue. The respondent's granddaughter, Bertha Denise Washington, testified she lives on the property and that the site had been cleaned but needed mowing after recent rain; the county code officer reported the structure and accumulation of junk remained an issue. The magistrate urged the family to coordinate with the code officer and said he would issue a ruling by mail after reviewing compliance.

In the case involving Jack Elwood Rogers, the county said a February 2024 order found violations for unserviceable vehicles, accumulation of junk and parking of trucks or RVs. County counsel reported costs of $420 and an outstanding balance of $4,670 accruing at $50 per day. Rogers testified he is 81, disabled and that his son has removed many vehicles but two unserviceable vehicles remain; he said two RVs on the site were being used as living units. Growth-management staff told the magistrate that an agricultural parcel may permit one RV as an accessory living unit but not two, and that the semi trailer on site did not appear to be the cited violation. The magistrate directed Rogers to meet with assistant county manager Missy Daniels and growth-management staff to clarify permitting options and held the matter in abeyance pending that coordination.

The magistrate heard case SM24-064 (Alachua County v. Betty Badgett), in which county staff recommended 30 days to remove two trailers and other prohibited structures and $100/day fines after that. Owner Betty Badgett and her daughter Christina Badgett said the trailers were being sold and requested more time; the magistrate granted 60 days to bring the property into compliance and instructed the owner to notify the county promptly if compliance is achieved sooner.

In case SM24-067 (Alachua County v. Nidalboughnam), county growth-management presented evidence that regulated trees (a 17-inch longleaf pine and a 16-inch laurel oak) were removed without permit and recommended finding the respondent in violation, charging costs of $210, and ordering 30 days to obtain approvals followed by 60 days to implement an approved tree mitigation plan. Senior forester and landscape inspector Jessica Hong testified and showed photographs dated Feb. 22, 2024. The property owner testified they did not cut the trees and said the trees bordered neighboring lots; the county produced a boundary survey indicating the stumps were on the respondent's parcel. The magistrate said further investigation of adjacent ownership would be appropriate, held the decision, and directed staff to provide additional information at the next meeting.

During reduction hearings the magistrate opened a request by Michael J. Roth (case CEB12-011) to release or reduce a long-standing lien. Roth described financial hardship tied to retirement and said he believed he had been in compliance in November 2013; county staff said the records were old and had no recommendation. The magistrate said he would review the file and provide a written decision by mail within about a week.

The magistrate closed the docket and adjourned after completing the day's matters. Several cases were continued for follow-up so staff can clarify permitting or property-ownership questions before the magistrate issues any final orders.