Alachua County magistrate hears 30+ enforcement cases; deadlines, fines and one lien release set

The Alachua County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate convened an April 2025 hearing to consider more than 30 alleged ordinance violations, ranging from unpermitted construction and collection-service infractions to mitigation-planting shortfalls. The magistrate explained that decisions can be appealed only to the courts and that the magistrate’s role is to determine violations, set compliance dates and assess fines or liens where appropriate.

County code staff opened the hearing by asking the magistrate to certify liens in a batch of solid-waste cases after the county’s vendor removed debris when owners did not comply with initial notices. Scott Krajewski, director of code administration, told the magistrate the county seeks to recover vendor and administrative costs for those matters.

In a case involving a possible probate issue (Alachua County v. Gregory Parsons), attorney Leonard Ireland notified the magistrate that the named respondent had died and that probate was pending. Ireland asked the magistrate to abate enforcement until an estate representative could be identified. The county said probate filings had not yet been opened; the magistrate continued the matter for 90 days to allow the estate process to proceed.

In another contested matter the county presented evidence that a large, partially fallen tree on property owned by Christopher Lee Markham (parcel 06234-001-000) posed a hazard after Hurricane Helene. Forester/inspector Andrew Coniglio said the county gave corrective notices and recommended compliance within 15 days or the imposition of a $100-per-day fine and recovery of $280 in prosecution costs. Neighbor Tim Weiser testified the tree was precarious and urged prompt removal; no representative for the property owner appeared.

Several residential and multifamily owners — including multiple Holly Heights Gainesville LLC parcels and Towers Investment Properties LLC — were cited for collection-service violations (trash carts left at the curb after pickup) and for accumulation-of-junk standards. Code officers repeatedly documented certified mailings, photo evidence and follow-up inspections. For Holly Heights and similar matters the county recommended 30 days to comply or a daily fine (commonly $50–$150 per day) plus prosecution costs; corporate representatives generally were not present.

At least one owner who appeared remotely, Laura Auerbach, acknowledged she had not received mailed notices while living in New York and said she had replaced a property manager; she asked for time to train new staff and the magistrate allowed 30 days for compliance after the officer described the county standard (trash carts should be about 15 feet from the curb after pickup).

In a building-permit matter (Shirley Smith), staff said an accessory structure was improved without required permits on a parcel that is not a lot of record; staff advised that the structure may have to be removed or a demolition permit obtained. Smith said she purchased the property with the structure in 2007 and estimated it would take two to three months to dismantle; the magistrate set a 90-day compliance period and directed staff to explain the building-department and zoning options for permits or variances.

The Deeper Purpose Community Church case drew detailed testimony from Jessica Hong, an environmental planner, who said required mitigation plantings (130 caliper inches total) had poor survival: the one-year inspection documented only 35 caliper inches alive, far short of the 80% survival standard the county applies. Pastor Adam Joy and other church representatives told the magistrate storms in August–September 2024 had severely damaged plantings and requested leniency. The county said the noncompliance date and the findings support possible daily fines (the record cites $75/day in similar findings) and prosecution costs; the magistrate said a written ruling would follow in the coming week or two.

At least one owner who purchased a problem property and spent substantial restoration funds successfully asked for lien relief. The new owner (Bridal/Britton Jones) told the magistrate the property had required about $65,000 in cleanup; code director Scott Krajewski supported a rescission in that instance and the magistrate ordered the lien released for that property and reduced prosecution costs to zero for the buyer.

Other matters heard included cases where owners reported illness, lack of help, or remote residency (which staff addressed by offering extended deadlines or by documenting certified notice). Where respondents presented credible hardship or demonstrated corrective steps, the magistrate commonly gave days-to-months to comply rather than immediate fines; where compliance was not achieved the county asked the magistrate to certify liens and preserve its remedy to recoup costs.

The magistrate closed the hearing at 10:53 a.m. and said written rulings would follow by mail or document for the parties. The magistrate repeatedly reminded participants that final decisions may be appealed only to the courts and that documented proof (photos, permits, inspection records) should be submitted to the clerk for the record.