The Code Enforcement Special Magistrate was established by Florida Statutes, Chapter 162, and Alachua County Ordinances to obtain compliance with various county ordinances and regulations. I have no authority to change the ordinances or any of the regulations we'll be addressing today. That can only be done by your Alachua County Board of County Commissioners. The Code Enforcement Magistrate can determine if a violation has occurred, set a date for full compliance, and there will be a fine for noncompliance. My decisions can only be appealed to the courts and not to the Board of County Commissioners. The procedure will follow today as the Secretary Geno will call the case. The county staff will present its case. The respondent shall have the opportunity to present its defense to the case. I will make a decision at a future date, and the respondent will be notified by the mail of that decision because we have a full agenda today. All persons testifying today will do so under oath by swearing or affirming that they will tell the truth. Any evidence in the form of documents or photographs must be submitted to the clerk for a conclusion in the record. Also a reminder, if you have a cell phone on you, please turn it off or turn it to silence so it doesn't interrupt the proceeding. With all those people who are intending to testify today, please stand. Anybody who plans to testify today, please stand. Raise your right hand, and she will swear you in. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in these cases today will be the truth and the whole truth? Thank you. Please be seated. Because we have a full agenda today, we will take a break at 10 o'clock or thereabouts so people can go out and fix their parking issues if need be. You cannot use the – you cannot log in to parking before 10 o'clock. So we're going to change the agenda a little bit today to accommodate some people's schedules. So we're going to be calling on your agenda if you look. I believe it's case number three is going to be number one today. So, Gene, if you would call the case, please. Case number 26-000235, Alachua County versus Brown, Brandon, Edward. Andrew Coniglio, code officer. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Andrew Coniglio, senior forester and code officer for Alachua County. In the code enforcement case 26-000235, the county received a complaint on January 7, 2026, regarding the property located at 6602 Millhopper Road, Gainesville, Florida, 32653 in Alachua County, identified by parcel number 06028-001-000. The owner of the property, according to property appraisal records, is Brandon Edward Brown. Let me stop you for a second. Is someone here representing Mr. Brown? Is someone here representing the respondent? Okay. So I just want to have a seat over there by the podium, and I'll let you speak when the county's done, okay? The code administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Alachua County code of ordinances. 4-0-5.37, protected area along scenic road corridors. Alachua County Resolution 80.69, adopted December 2, 1980, designated the road popularly known as the Millhopper Road to be a scenic road as provided for by Alachua County Ordinance 80-4. The portion of the Millhopper Road declared to be scenic is described as follows. Secondary Road 232, commencing approximately one mile west of northwest 43rd Street and running west and northwest to the intersection of State Road 241, all lying in Alachua County, Florida. The restrictions invoked for said road shall be, among others, removal of trees which have attained a diameter, a breadth height of 8 inches or more. A notice of violation was said to the respondent that it included corrective actions. The respondent was provided with a reasonable time to correct the violations. The respondent remains in violation of the set of Alachua County code sections. The last inspection was January 7, 2026. I have good surveys of notices and statements of violation to respondents sent by certified mail or posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate and I request they be entered in evidence. I have had no contact with the respondent regarding the violations. The photos presented were taken by Neal Grishaw from Alachua County Public Works and accurately reflect the violations and I ask that they be admitted into evidence. And Neal is here for any questions. Okay, thank you. Appreciate that. So noted. And the county recommends the respondent be found in violation of said sections of the code order respondent to come into compliance within 90 days by complying with the corrective actions listed in a notice of violation and if not in compliance, then pay a fine in the amount of $50 for each day. The violations continue past the date set for compliance. The county is also requesting a fine for irreparable and irreversible damage in the amount of $5,000. The county has incurred $140 in bringing this action to hearing. So $140 prosecution costs? Yes. Okay, so what's the fine for the $5,000 based on? Just the irreparable and irreversible nature. And how many trees were taken down? Neal counted 10 trees. Why don't you come up to the podium since you're going to be speaking to the photos anyway. My observation that day, there were 10 trees that were removed. Why don't you introduce yourself on the record? My name is Neal Greshaw. I'm the public works horticordist. And I received a call on January 7th about the violation. When I received or got on site, the crane was leaving from Gaston's tree service. And I noticed the trees that had been removed. I measured off, too, from the center line. It's 100 foot. I saw some of the photographs that had, obviously, they're at the ground level, so it's hard to do DBH. It was hard to measure DBH when you just got a trunk left. But, yeah, I counted 10 trees. Since that day, too, all the stumps have been ground. But I just observed that in passing. But that day, I was able to count 10 trees, and the measurements and stuff are included in the report and the findings. Okay. All right. Anything else we need to do? All right. No, sir. It's your opportunity to speak. If you want to go over to that podium over there, and if you would please introduce yourself and what your relationship is to the case. I'm the manager for Gaston tree service, also a certified arborist. We were removing trees there that were a hazard. There's still three trees left that we didn't remove because we stopped when we seen the county. I wasn't aware of any special circumstance for an arborist to remove hazardous trees. Five of these trees were dead, and the ones that are left, I mean, they have storm damage and really need to be removed. The homeowner already has planted over 40 trees in his yard, and I've since applied for a permit for what's left of the trees that we need to remove. Okay. You've been in the county a long time. Yes, sir. I'm surprised that you didn't know that you had to get a permit to pull a tree over eight inches in DBH. Hazardous trees, as long as you're a certified arborist, you're allowed to make that call. If they can't be mitigated under a medium risk, that's the legislation. Okay. Do you have a report that you put together for these trees? The statute requires you to produce a report before you can take down hazardous trees. It requires me to make one, yes. Did you make one? Yes. And did you give it to the county? Okay. Do you have it with you? Nope. Nope. Anything else from the county at this point? Nothing. Could you determine which trees were still alive from looking at the stumps? At least one of the softened red oaks, though, was definitely still alive. Okay. And there was a cabbage palm, too, that was removed. That was definitely still alive. Okay. Anything else? No, sir. Okay. I'll make a decision. Thank you all. Thank you. So who is the ISA? Why don't you go back to the podium just so we can... Okay. So what was the document you gave me? That document was sent to me from the ISA. It just says that I needed to base the risk assessment. What does the ISA stand for because the audience probably doesn't... International Society of Arboriculture. Okay. All right. And then we'll take this into consideration. Thank you, sir. And Gina, we're going to need to make a copy so the county has one. Okay. We're going to change the agenda again a little bit. We're going to case number... 20. 10? 20. 20. Case number 20. Go ahead and call the case, please. Case number 26-001219. Alachua County versus Ronan, Kenneth, and Heather. Greg Owen. Is there someone here representing? You want to have a... Yeah. Hold on just a second. Let me find the case here in my documents. Go ahead and start, please. Good morning, Special Magistrate. My name is Gregory Owen. I'm a Senior Planner with Alachua County Environmental Protection Department. My work involves doing water quality monitoring and restoration as well as enforcement of the water quality code. Okay. I'm here today for case 26-00-1219. On January 28th, I received notification from the City of Gainesville code enforcement that there was a broken sewage pipe at the property 2016 Northwest 7th place, with sewage reportedly flowing into the street since August. I responded on January 28th at around approximately 3 p.m. and found there to be an issue with the clean-out, which was intermittently discharging to the curb and gutter, a violation of the water quality code, Chapter 7710, release of untreated stormwater, storm sewage. Once you pull the microphone up so you don't have to bend over so far. There you go. That's better. On the 28th, I spoke to one of the residents, Chris, who stated that they were renters and that the landlord had hired a plumber, but the issue was still ongoing. I was given the phone number for his roommate, Joe Ronan, who was the son of the property owners. And on the 28th, I left a message with him. 28th of which month? January 28th. Okay. Yeah, that same day, that the blockage needed to be cleared and the issue corrected. I also spoke with the Gainesville Regional Utilities on January 28th. I spoke with Mr. Jesse Morrison and confirmed that the blockage was on the private side of the property and not with the City's. Um, sewer system. I then returned to the property on January 29th. There was a handyman on site who I spoke to who stated that he would speak with the property owner and arrange for the issue to be corrected. Um, again, I returned on February 4th, 2026 and found that the issue was still ongoing. Um, at that time, I spoke with the renter again with Chris. He provided me with the phone number for Mr. Ken Ronan, um, who I called and left a voicemail, again requesting that a plumber arrive to the site and correct the issue. On February 9th, I turned to the property and found that the cleanout was still actively releasing untreated sewage to the curb and gutter. On February 10th, I posted the property with a notice of violation. I also, also, uh, sent a certified mail receipt, um, to the property at 2016, um, Northwest 7th place. Um, and then I returned on February 13th and found the issue still ongoing. On March 3rd, I returned to the property and found it within compliance. I am recommending that the county recover the administrative costs of $718.08 for the total amount of time that was spent on this complaint. Okay, so it is now in compliance? It's in compliance now. Okay. All right, do you have an idea of when it came into compliance? Uh, sometime between the 13th and March 3rd. Okay. That's your opportunity to speak. Would you identify yourself for the record, please? My name is Jet Ronan. Uh, my brother lives at this residence at 2016. And my dad. And are you the owner of the property? Uh, my father is correct. So you were here representing your father? I mean, yeah, he's, he wasn't able, he doesn't live in Gainesville, so I'm here for him. Okay. Um, I guess the only thing I could really say, I wasn't too much involved in the case, but so I wanted to be here, was that. Pull the microphone up so you don't have to. Yeah, of course. Um, this was a problem between, they reported the problem to the city at first. And the city was saying it wasn't their fault, it was, they had to get it fixed by a plumber of sorts. And basically they kept going back and forth. And like you said, we got it fixed by a private plumbing company. Do you know when it was actually fixed? Huh? Do you know what day it was actually fixed? Um, it was late February, I think, I believe. Um, and what else? And now that we got fixed, $2,500 later and it's ready. Plumbers are not cheap. They're not cheap at all. Thank you. All right. Anything else from the county? No, I just didn't see it being proactively taken care of, which is funny. No, I mean, you clearly made the record that, you know, it went out multiple times and it took a while for them for some reason to get there. But, okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We're going to resort back to our agenda schedule. If you would, please, Gina, call the next case, which I believe is number one. Case number 25-011706, Alachua County, versus Moore, Reginald, and Amanda. Is someone here representing Reginald or Amanda Moore? Someone here representing the Moores. Seeing none, county, please proceed. Case 25011706. The county received a complaint on November 3rd regarding advertising signage on the fence of the property and a mechanic shop. Property is located at 14140 South U.S. Highway 441, McAnopee, and Alachua County. Identified by parcel number 16426-025-000. Owner of the property is Reginald and Amanda Moore. Code administration initiated enforcement proceedings and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Alachua County Code. 407.28, prohibited signs, and 402.140B, improvement of property prior to issuance of a building permit, which is pertaining to the interior build-out of the automobile repair building. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violations. Notice of violation was sent to the respondent that included corrective actions. Ongoing inspections conducted to date have determined the respondent remains in violation of the set Alachua County Code sections. Please note, the date is in compliance for Section 407.28, prohibited signs, but remains in violation for 402.140B, improvements to property. My last inspection on the property was March 5th. I have good service of notices and statements of violation to the respondent sent by certified mail, receipt, or postings. Copies have provided to the magistrate, and I request to be entered into evidence. I have had contact with the respondent regarding the violations. Photographs being presented were taken by myself and accurately reflect the violations and asked to be admitted into evidence. Also presented were advertisement photos from the Facebook website of the Red Barn Customs, LLC. County recommendations respond to be found in violation of the said section of the code, or to respond to come into compliance within 60 days by complying with the corrective actions listed in those violations. If not in compliance, then pay a fine. The amount of $100 for each day of the violation continues past the date set for compliance. The county has incurred $350 in costs in bringing the action to hearing. Okay. Yes, again, is there someone here representing the Moores? None. Okay. Thank you, county. Please call case number two. Case number 26-000172, Alachua County versus Neal and Neal. Is there someone here representing the Neals? Someone here representing the Neals? Seeing none. County, please proceed. Case 26-000172. County received a complaint on January 7th regarding junk and debris. Property is located at 1604 Southeast 28th Place in Alachua County. Identified by parcel number 16226-00300. Owner of the property is Neal and Neal. Code administration initiated enforcement proceedings and found there to be a violation of the following section of Alachua County Code. 75.201, aye. Places of disposal prohibited acts, which is referring to the junk and debris located on the property. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violations. Notice violation was sent to the respondent that included corrective actions. Ongoing inspections conducted to date have determined the respondent remains in violation of the said Alachua County Code section. My last inspection of the property was on March 4th. I have good service of notices and statements of violation to the respondent sent by certified mail receipt or postings. Copies have provided to the magistrate and I request to be entered into evidence. I have had no contact with the respondent regarding the violations. Photographs being presented were taken by Code Administration Director and myself, which accurately reflect the violations and ask that they be admitted into evidence. County recommendation is the respondent be found in violation of said section of the code. Order responded come into compliance within 10 days by complying with the corrective actions listed in those violations. If not in compliance and paying a fine in the amount of $75 for each day, violation continues past the date set for compliance. County has incurred $420 in cost in bringing the action to hearing. Again, is someone here presenting the needles? None. Thank you. Let's go to a case now. I believe it's number four. Case number 25-012906, Alachua County v. Plummer Richard A. and Arlene E. Okay, is there someone here representing Richard and Arlene Plummer? Someone here representing the Plumbers? Seeing none, county please proceed. Morning. Michael Williams, code enforcement officer with Alachua County in code enforcement case 25-012906. The county received a complaint on 12925 regarding the property located at address 18021 Northeast 135th Avenue in Waldo, Florida, in Alachua County. The parcel is identified by number 18378-002024. The owner of the property is Richard and Arlene Plummer. Code administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Alachua County Code of Ordinances 74.20A, accumulation of junk. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violations. A courtesy notice was sent to the respondent on 12-17-25 with a compliance date of 1-5-26. Due to compliance not achieved upon issuance of the courtesy notice, a notice of violation notice of hearing was sent on January 6, 2026 via certified mail to the respondent. In that notice, corrective actions were also included. My last inspection was conducted on 3-3-26, which the property was further found not complied. I have good service of notice and statement of violation to respondent sent by certified mail. Receipt or posting copies have been provided to the magistrate, and I request that they be entered into evidence. I have had no contact with the respondent regarding the violations of the property. The photographs being presented were taken by myself and accurately reflect the violations, and I ask that they be admitted into evidence. The county recommendation, 30 additional days in order to comply, or a fine of $150 per day be imposed. The county has incurred $210 in cost in bringing this case to hearing. That was $210? Yes, sir. Thank you. Again, somebody here representing the plumbers? Okay. Let's call our next case with number 5 in the agenda. Case number 25-004492, Alachua County versus Jonesville Property Group, LLC. Someone here representing the company, Jonesville Property, LLC. Seeing none, county, please proceed. All right. Michael Williams, Code Officer with Alachua County and Code Enforcement Case 25-004492. The Code Administration Division received a complaint from Dan Gargis, building official on 5525, regarding the property located at address 14451 West Newberry Road in Newberry, Florida, in Alachua County, identified by parcel number 04350-05-002. The owner of the property is Jonesville Property Group, LLC. Code Administration initiated an enforcement proceeding per Dan Gargis, the building official, due to the violations of the following sections of Alachua County Code of Ordinances 402.140B, improvement of property prior to issuance of a building permit. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violations. A courtesy notice was sent to the respondent on 5-7-25 with a compliance date of 6-7-25. Due to compliance not achieved upon issuance of the courtesy notice, a notice of violation, notice of hearing, was subsequently sent on 1-14-26 via certified mail to the respondent. In that notice, corrective actions were also included. It has been noted that the respondent has pulled a permit on 2-25-26 for the new addition. I have good service of notice and statements of violation sent to the respondent by certified mail or receipt of posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate, and I request that they be entered into evidence. I have had phone contact on one occasion with the respondent regarding the violations at the property. Dan Gargis, building official, basically indicated that he is aware that they have pulled a permit. That said, though, the county's recommendation is to give them an additional 60 days in order to comply or a fine of $100 per day be imposed. And how much prosecution cost? $140. Okay. Well, it's good to hear they've pulled a permit. All right. Again, anybody here representing the Jonesville Property Group? Okay. Let's move on to case number 6. Case number 26-000086, Alachua County v. Timothy Renfro. Someone here representing Mr. Renfro. Somebody here representing Timothy Renfro. Please proceed, County. Bureau SAP, Code Officer for Electric County. In Code Enforcement Case 26-000086, the county received a complaint on 1-6-2026 regarding the property located at 7901 Southwest 122nd Street in Electric County, Florida, and identified by parcel number 07651-002-000. The owner of the property is Timothy Renfro. Code Administration was informed by Electric County Bill Division that it would be a violation of the following sections of Electric County Code of Ordinances, 402.140B, improvement of property prior to issuance of building permit, and enforcement proceeding was then initiated. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violations. A notice of violation was sent to respondent that included corrective actions. Ongoing inspections conducted to this date have determined that respondent remains in violation of the said Electric County Code sections. My last inspection of the property was on January 14, 2026. I have good service of notice and statement of violation to respondent sent by certified mail receipt of posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate, and I request that they be entered into evidence. I have had no contact with the respondent regarding the violations. The photographs being presented were taken by building official Dan Gargis. Violations acts that they be admitted into evidence. The county recommendation respondent be found in violation of said sections of the code. Order respondent coming to compliance within 60 days by complying with corrective actions listed in the notice of violation. And if not comply, then pay a fine in the amount of $100 for each day, the violation continue past the date of compliance. The county has incurred $210 in bringing this action to hearing. Okay. Thank you. And again, anybody here representing Mr. Renfro? All right. Let's move on to, I believe it's now. So we've drawn, seven and eight are withdrawn, nine's withdrawn, ten has been pulled. So I believe it's case number 11 we're moving to next. Case number 25-011125, Alachua County versus J. Duran Investments, LLC. Someone here representing J. Duran, you want to have a seat over there. I think you've seen how things work, so we'll let the county present this case and let you respond. You can either sit down for a little bit or stand, whichever you prefer. County, please proceed. Sure. Gerald Sapp, Code Officer for Alachua County. In Code Enforcement Case 25-011125, the county received a complaint on 10-27-25 regarding the property is located at 5510 Northeast 77th Avenue in Electric County, Florida, and identified by parcel number 07837-019000. The owner of the property is J. Duran Investments, LLC. Code Administration was informed by Electric County Building Commission. There would be a violation of the following section of Electric County Code of Ordinances 402.140B, Improvement of Property Prior to the Insurance of a Building Permit, and a forced proceeding was then initiated. The respondent was providing a reasonable time to correct the violations. A notice of violation was sent to respondent that included corrective actions. Ongoing inspections conducted to this date have determined that the respondent remains in violation of said Electric County Code sections. My last inspection of the property was on October 27th, 25th. I have a good service of notice and statement of violation to respondent sent by certified mail or posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate, and I request they be entered into evidence. I have had contact with the respondent regarding the violations. The photographs being presented were taken by building official Mark Banville violations and asked that they be admitted into evidence. The county recommendation that the respondent be found in violation of said sections of the code or the respondent come to compliance within 60 days of complying with the corrective actions listed in the notice of violation. And if not comply, then pay a fine in the amount of $100 for each day. The violation continues past the date of compliance. The county has incurred 210 in cost in bringing this action to hearing. Okay, it's your turn. Please go to the microphone and identify yourself and the relationship with the property, please. Good morning. My name is Andre. I'm representing J. Duran Investments. Okay, and what's your relationship to the company? I have a power attorney, and I'm part of the company. You're part of the company. Okay, thank you. That helps us. What can you respond? We bought this property in 2023 from the tax deed, and we contracted one guy. He made the job for us in 2023. When we discovered, he didn't pull nothing. So you didn't pull any permits? He just did the work? No. And this guy disappeared. We never see him anymore. We, the roof was done with a permit. Right, because the roofing company pulled the permit. Yes. Okay. He's a good guy. And this other one disappeared. We tried, when I received the notice, we tried to call him, and he disappeared. We contracted a new one. He pulled a building permit. We are working this to fix everything. Okay, when did you pull the building permit? The building permit was in 12-22. 12? December, 22-25. 25. Yeah. Yeah. I was trying to hear, correct, so I said 12-20. And the. Let me stop here. Is the county aware that he pulled a building permit? Yeah, I am aware. I was, I was getting ready to go ahead and pull it, but, uh, Dengarx made me aware that he still needed a roofing permit, and, uh. Well, he said that his company pulled a roofing permit. Do you have a copy of the permit? Yes. I have the. So we can deal with that issue right today? Okay. Can I give to you? Sure. You can show it to the county, because they're the ones that need to see it. Yeah. And they can put it overhead, if you will. Okay. And, uh, we are waiting for the two subcontractors to finish the job, and they asked me for, for more 30 days to finish everything, and, uh, solve everything. So is the county comfortable with that roofing permit? Okay. Well, it's right up there on the wall, so. So I understand. Yeah. Why don't you come up to the microphone, Ken, because I don't want to head back there where the recording can't hear you. Identify yourself for the record so we know on the record. Dan Gargas, Berlin official for Alachua County. Well, he's looking that up. Let me ask you a question. Is 60 days enough time for you to come into compliance, or do you need more? Because, obviously, you're making efforts to try to come into compliance, and I don't want to have you come back with the penalty. Yeah. The problem is, found guys to do the service. I understand. Subcontractors are very hard. Powerful, but we call. Nobody, oh, I don't have time to go there and fix this. I don't have time. Now, we found one general contractor, and he told me he's going to fix everything. So you have a contract with the general contractor? Yes. Okay. And just for the record, who's the general contractor? Do you know? His name? Yes. Larry. Larry. You know what his last name is? Yeah. There's a lot of Larrys out there. Take your time. Dan? Yes. We're satisfied with that roofing permit. Okay. I do have one question. Sure. He goes ahead. Larry Noakes, his name. Dan has a question for you. Go ahead. Yeah, you indicated that you'd hired somebody else who started the work without permits. Do you have any documentation on who that was? I have the name, and maybe I can found this old text message. This guy came from Orlando to do this for us. Okay. At the time, he told us he don't need those things because just painting changed the vinyl and changed the cabinets. And we trust in him, but now we know he don't made everything he needs to do. So please let the county know who that is because they can pursue that. Okay. Okay. He is probably an unlicensed contractor. The name and the cell phones. Yeah. And did he take money from you? Yeah. We paid. Okay. For more than $10,000 for him, and we signed that time the NLC to him. We understood that he made everything correct, but this guy disappeared. We never – we tried to call him a lot of times, but nothing. I trust you, and I believe you, but giving that information to the county can let them pursue them in Orlando can also pursue that as well, too. Including a copy of the canceled check if possible. Okay. Okay. And that way we'll prevent him from doing that to somebody else. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. All right. So, again, do you think 60 days is enough time? Or is it – and I'm going to say it may be 90 days because it's clearly you're trying to make efforts to get – Yeah, I'm trying to do the correct way, but I didn't find the guys. Do you have a problem with 90 days? Okay. So I'm going to – or it will come out later, but I'm going to give you 90 days. And stay in touch with the county. If for some reason the contractor has a problem, and we're not getting any hurricanes hopefully between the next nine days, but if something happens, let them know so that you're making progress, okay, because we don't want your money. We just want you to get into compliance. I know. Okay. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you for coming. As you saw, a lot of people don't bother. So, okay. I believe now 12 is withdrawn. I think it's case 13. Case number 25-003363, Alachua County versus Davidson, R.C. Okay. Someone here representing Davidson, R.C., or R.C. Davidson. Seeing none, please proceed, county. Good morning. Good morning. In case number 25-003363, my name is Natasha Washington, code officer for Alachua County. In code enforcement case, 25-00363, the county received the complaint on April 3rd, 2025. The property located at address 6709 Southwest 44th Avenue in Alachua County and identified by partial number 06877-120-003. The owner of the property is R.C. Davidson. Code administration initiated a code enforcement proceeding and found there to be a violation of the following section in Alachua County Code of Ordinance. That's 74.208 accumulation of junk. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violation. A notice of violation was sent to the respondent that included corrective action. Ongoing inspections conducted to the date have determined that the respondent remains in violation of and said of Alachua County Code section. My last inspection of the property was on March the 3rd of 2026. I have good service of notice and statement of violation to respondent sent by certified mail received or posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate and I request they be entered into evidence. I have had no contact with the respondent regarding the violation. The photographs being presented were taken by myself and accurately reflects the violation and asked that they be admitted into evidence. The county recommends respondent be found in violation of the said section of the code. Order respondent come into compliance within 30 days by complying with the corrective action listed in the notice of violation. And if not complied, then pay a fine in the amount of $75 for each day the violation continues past the date set for compliance. The county has occurred $490 in cost in bringing this action to hearing. Okay. Thank you. Anybody here, again, representing Davidson, R.C. or R.C. Davidson? Thank you. Please call the next case. Number 14, I believe. Case number 25-013147. Alachua County versus Brigham and Roberson co-trustees. Mm-hmm. And there's someone here representing Brigham and Roberson co-trustees. If you want to have a, over there, take your time. And you can sit or stand, whichever you prefer. I'm good. Okay. Case 250-13147. The county received a complaint on December 17, 2025, regarding prohibited use of property. Property is located at 5902 Southeast Hawthorne Road, Gainesville, in Alachua County, which is advertised at the Lakeside Event Center. Identified by parcel number, 1-8001-001-000. Owner of the property is Brigham and Robinson, co-trustee. Code administration initiated enforcement proceedings and found there to be a violation in the following sections of Alachua County Code. 404.06, Appliable. Prohibited use of property. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violations. Notice of violation was sent to the respondent that included corrective actions. Ongoing inspections conducted to date have determined that the respondent remains in violation of the said Alachua County Code section. My last inspection of the property was on March 5th. I have good service of notices and statements of violation to the respondent sent by certified mail, receipt, or postings. Copies have been provided to the magistrate, and I requested to be entered into evidence. There has been no contact with the respondent regarding the violations. There have been voice messages left from both parties without additional contact. Photographs being presented were taken by myself and actively reflect the violations and ask they be admitted in evidence. Additional photos were taken from the Facebook website for the Lakeside Event Center. The county recommendation is respondent be found in violation of said section of the code. Please note, compliance date was the date the notice of violation was received by the respondent, which was on February 6, 2026. The respondent will be required to pay $100 for each day from February 6, 2026 until compliance is met. The county has incurred $350 in cost in bringing the action to hearing. Okay. It's your opportunity to speak. Yes, Your Honor. I'm trying to figure out why exactly I'm here. I'm allowed to advertise my business. I don't understand what the problem is or whatever. And the property that you're saying is being utilized, I'm a restaurant, first of all. I have my certificate of occupancy. I have my liquor license verification paperwork. And I also have my paperwork from hotels and restaurants. Okay, let me, if you could share that with the county. Yes. And are those copies they can have or do you need those? You can have them. They're the government. Okay. If I can ask the county, if you could explain to him what the violation is. Well, the violation is the property is being used as cocktail lounge, nightclub, or bar without required special exemption from the county commissions. So, is the county telling me that there's no food present at any of these events? No, it doesn't have pertaining to the food at your restaurant because it's supposed to be a restaurant. Okay. But you're advertising or having events at the restaurant. So, a restaurant can't advertise or have events? You can advertise. But you're having events like birthday parties, that type of thing. Restaurants can't do that? You can. So, what the county is saying is you have to get an exemption for the event side of that. Am I correct? Correct. I mean, back in April 2024, occupancy changed from the mercantile to the restaurant. Right? Right. Not to exceed 64 occupants. Yes. So, you've been running it, as the photographs were presented, as a cocktail lounge instead of just a restaurant. So, you have more than the occupancy allowed for a restaurant. Usually, in a restaurant, you have 45 people that are allowed at one time. So, there's more than 45 people. Do you have a count of that or do you have, like, how do you know what's? Because you're advertising it and you can see that there's more than 45 people. I don't see any people. What? What people are you seeing? Can you show them the photograph again? Of the people? Your Honor, while she's going through that, let me just shed some light on some situations or whatever. I happen to own a 4-COP quota liquor license. The liquor license is very expensive and it's very rare. It's like $350,000 right now. A restaurant owner that has that type of liquor license is not required to sell a certain percentage of food as opposed to alcohol. Right. So, I don't understand what the issue is because I've spent a whole lot of money getting this product to where it is. I've been dealing with Dan in Lodgeville County for three years. Right. Spent a whole bunch of money. Look behind there on the wall. That's the figure she's talking about. Okay. So, how many people is that? Do you have a count on the people? No, I don't have a count on the people. Your Honor. As far as the fire marshal's office goes, it's a safety concern when you have more than 48, 45 people in a restaurant. So, it's a safety concern. So, if you're not running it as a restaurant and you're using it as a cocktail or a bar area, then you would need a special exemption. According to the fire marshal's, I have a safe, the size of my building is safe enough to have 100 people in there at one time. Do you have a certificate? Because usually the issue, just like the outwind door out here, there's a sign that says no greater occupancy than? No. The only thing I have is the certificate of occupancy from the building. Okay. Well, back in February 2024, when he changed from a merchant tile to a restaurant, it says right there not to exceed 64 occupants. Okay. Okay. And so, do you exceed that? No. And so, is the fire marshal who made the complaint or how did this come about? No. Let me bring the growth management director up to explain the violations better for you, your honor. Thank you. And for the respondent, too. Good morning. If you'd identify yourself for the record, please. Yes, sir, your honor. Jeff Hayes, growth management director for Alachua County. Okay. If you want to look on the wall there behind you, Scott. Just place the definitions. One of the conversations we've had with this use is what type of use it's going to be. The site was formerly, you know, a bait shop. It is zoned marine business, which are zoning districts that are traditionally served, you know, near lakes, bodies of water to serve the tourist entertainment uses that are associated with the bodies of water. A restaurant isn't allowed use in the marine business district. And this site went through our development review process for an administrative development plan and did receive approval as a restaurant with a seating limitation due to the amount of parking and the size of the building. Okay. And that limitation was 64, I think? 64. 64. Okay. What you'll see on the overhead is our definitions that distinguish between what is a cocktail bar, tavern, or nightclub, and that's one use in our code. What is personal services? So if you look in that list of personal services, one that you'll see is banquet halls or any similar use. So that's like an event center. Or the restaurant use, which is an establishment who is preparing food for service on site or to be taken away. In the conversations we've had related to this use, both with the advertisements and what we've seen on site, it seems more like it's being used for a cocktail lounge, nightclub, or bar, or personal services. Our zoning code does not really provide a path, an easy path, without rezoning the property for the personal services use, the banquet hall use, but does allow for a special exception to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners for the bar, tavern, or nightclub. And that's been communicated to the owner of the establishment. Okay. Have you made any effort to go to the county and ask for a special exception? When was this? About 2023, when I first got notified of the violations. Jeff, you and Christine Barish met me at my property, an on-site visit. Okay. You gave me all the information that I needed to do to become a law-abiding business in my area. Okay. When you came down and I asked you about the special exception permit, what did you tell me? Don't recall that conversation completely. You told me that the Board of County Commissioners would not approve it. Well, I can't really speak. If I did, I can't really speak to that. Yeah, that's what you said. Oh, yeah. You said that. Now, you said that the number one discouraged me. Number two, to just get me abandoned my campaign or whatever. Because if you'll notice, I've had documentation, paperwork, I was already approved by the health department for a cocktail, nightclub, and event center. But you discouraged me and you had me go down this long-ass path to become a restaurant. Okay. To discourage me. Now, I could have saved anywhere from $250,000 to $300,000 in seven months if you would allow me to encourage me to approve, to apply for the special exception permit. I would have much rather spent $5,000 than $200,000 or $300,000. Okay. I was already approved by the health department, and you know that. Todd Hayes told you that. Now, let me just point out. The health department is one thing. That's a separate jurisdiction. Right. That's a state jurisdiction. Right. Okay. What they're talking about here is the zoning for your property. Exactly. But what I'm saying is, understand my point. I understand your point. I understand that you feel like, I understand. I feel like I was discouraged from taking that path to go down this long path, which he probably felt like I couldn't overcome or whatever, that I couldn't come through. So, my question to you is, are you willing to go to the county and seek that zoning change? After spending $600,000 or $700,000, you want me to circle back the block and spend $5,000 on a permit that may or may not get approved? Then I have to shut down my business to do further improvements to meet that requirement? Is that what a lot of counties ask me to do? Yeah. What they're saying is that here's the zoning rules, and what they're asking me to do is, are you in compliance with the zoning rules? How am I not in compliance? Because you don't have a special exception for that use. I'm a restaurant. You're more than just a restaurant, based on what you've seen in your advertising. Restaurants can't have dancing. They can't have events or whatever. P.F. Chang does something on the Monday nights. Spurs does the R&B brunch. So, the county is telling me, as a small black business owner, I can't do that? What they're saying is that there's a zoning requirement that they hold, and it has nothing to do with your color of your skin at all. Okay. All right. Okay. Okay. But what I'm saying is, you want me to spend $5,000 for a special exemption permit, which I probably would have did if I wouldn't have got discouraged. Now, you're telling me that I can't operate my restaurant, which is completely 100% legal, and I'm serving food, you know, while I'm open or whatever. Now, you're telling me because of pictures on Facebook or whatever, how I advertise, that I'm in violation of what I'm doing? You're not in compliance with the zoning code is what they're saying. Okay. But how? How am I not? The definitions are right up there on the wall. Okay. Now, again, more than 50% of its gross revenue from the sale of food consumed on premises. My liquor license, if a restaurant is in possession of a 4-COP quota liquor license, I don't have the same kind of liquor license as an Ale House or a Chili's. I have the criminal lacrim. I have the same liquor license as Lillian's right down the road. I understand. Okay. I am not, ABT does not bound me to sell a certain percentage of food as opposed to alcohol. The county would have found it out if they would have did a due diligence during the application of verification of the liquor license or whatever. I don't have to have a certain size of building. I don't have to have a certain number of seats or anything like that. But it doesn't exempt you from zoning, and that's what they're talking about. What? Zoning is an entirely different animal. Zoning. Zoning. Okay. Again, I mean, when you speak of zoning, I'm trying to figure out what exactly are you, I mean, what am I violation of as far as zoning? Anybody would like to respond? Your Honor, I think what we've seen is both with the advertisements and the fitting of the facility and then the fact that it just doesn't have regular hours the way a restaurant would, doesn't have regular postings of the menu the way a restaurant would. It is a walks like a duck, quacks like a duck situation where it appears to be either a banquet hall or a cocktail lounge and bar. I'm a small mom and pop organization. I don't have to have advertising or a certain type of menu set up or whatever. As long as I'm a restaurant and I meet the requirements by zoning per your requirements or whatever of selling food while I'm open, it doesn't matter if I'm open two hours a month or 200 hours a month. I'm older. My employees are older. If they have to work to get sick, they can't work. How I pay my bills is how I pay my bills. That's no business of the county or whatever. If I can pay my mortgage and my utilities or whatever I can on the little limited time operations that I'm being able to open, so be it. I hear you. Okay. Anything more? I'll make a decision. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. All right. It's almost 10 o'clock. For those of you who need to go out and check on parking and such, you can now plug in time on the parking slots. I'm going to suspend this hearing until, let's say, 10-15 for folks to go out and take advantage of the parking change. Gina, would you please call the next case, please? Number 15. Case number 25-010123, Alachua County versus Aldea Catherine. Is Catherine Aldea here? Is Catherine Aldea here? Seeing none, please, county proceed. Good morning. My name is Alante Benjamin. In this code enforcement case, the county received a complaint on September 24, 2025, from Building Inspector Mark Banville for the property located at 6545 Southeast 221st Street and Hawthorne and identified by parcel number 19401-000-000. Code of Administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Alachua County Code of Ordinances 402.140B and proven the property without a building permit. Excuse me. The respondent was provided with a reasonable time to correct the violations, and notice of violation was sent to respondent that included corrective actions. Ongoing inspections conducted today have determined that a respondent remains in violation of the said Alachua County Code sections. My last inspection of the property was on March 4, 2026. I have good service of notices and statements of violations to respondents sent by certified mail receipt or posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate, and I request they be entered into evidence. I have had contact with the respondent regarding the violations on September 30, 2025, on site and October 1, 2025, by email. The photographs being presented were taken by myself and Building Inspector Mark Banville and actively reflect the violations and ask they be admitted into evidence. The county's recommendation is that the respondent be found in violations of the sections of the code or to respondent to come in compliance within 30 days, and if not, pay $100 for each day the fines exist on the property. The county has incurred $350 cost in bringing this action to hearing. Okay, so how many days? It will be 30. 30, and how much per day? $100 per day. Thank you. I was taking notes, and it wasn't clear. Again, somebody here representing Catherine Aldea? Seeing none. Okay. Bring up our next case, please. Case number 25-011258, Alachua County versus Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. I assume that's the federal government we're talking about here. Okay, so somebody here representing the federal government? I doubt they are, but just in case. All right, please proceed. In this and code enforcement case, the county received the complaint on October 23, 2025, at the address 9511 Southwest 89th Place in Gainesville, parcel number 07-350-030-062. The owner of the property is Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Code administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Alachua County Code of Ordinances. 7.29 days restructures, 74.30 standards for repair, vacation, demolition, and boarding, and 74.36 nuisance overgrowth. The respondent was provided with a reasonable time to correct the violations. A notice of violation was sent to the respondent and included corrective actions. Ongoing inspections conducted today have determined that the respondent remains in violation of the Sale-Archua County Code sections. My last inspection of the property was March 4, 2026. I have good service of notices and statement of violations to a respondent sent by a certified mail receipt or a posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate, and I request they be entered into evidence. There has been no contact with the respondent regarding the violations. The photographs being presented were taken by myself and accurately reflect the violations and ask they be admitted into evidence. The county's recommendations that respondent be found in violation of the set sections of the code in order to respond to come into compliance within 30 days. And if not have done the corrective actions listed on notice of violation and are not in compliance, there will be $100 for each day the violations continue past the date. The county has incurred $350 costs in bringing this action to hearing. Okay. I assume that HUD got this by foreclosure probably. Do we have any indication of how they came to own this? No, sir. Okay. All righty. Again, somebody representing the Secretary of HUD. Seeing none, please proceed. Call the next case, Gina. Case number 5-010455, Alachua County versus Gordon, Devonta, Jamal. Somebody here representing the respondent. Okay. You want to come over by the podium, please? Go ahead. You beat me to the punch. Go ahead. Okay, sorry. In this code enforcement case, the county received a complaint on October 2nd, 2025 for the property located at 6509 Southeast 232nd Terrace in Hawthorne. 1-9-5-5-4-018-002 is the parcel number. Code administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Alachua County Code of Ordinances. So I will state that due to my inspection yesterday, Mr. Gordon is. So I will state that due to my inspection yesterday, Mr. Gordon is now in compliance of 74.20B on serviceable vehicles. Property maintenance code 304.202. So I will state that due to my inspection yesterday, Mr. Gordon is now in compliance of 74.20B on serviceable vehicles. and Alachua County Municipal Code of Ordinances. So I will state that due to my inspection yesterday, Mr. Gordon is now in compliance of 74.20B on servicial vehicles and Property Maintenance Code 304.2 protective treatment. The respondent was provided with a reasonable time to correct the violations. A notice of violation was sent to respondent that included corrective actions. Ongoing inspections conducted to date have determined that the respondent remains in violation of Property Maintenance Code 302.7 accessory structures, Property Maintenance Code 304.19 gates, and 404.24 accessory dwelling units. My last inspection was March 4, 2026. I have good service of notices and statements of violations to respondent sent by certified mail receipt or posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate, and I request they be entered into evidence. I have had contact with Mr. Gordon on site, and he also has came into the office to speak with me during this time. He came into the office January 20, 2026, and I was able to discuss further the notice of violation with him. The photographs being presented were taken by myself and accurately reflect the violations and acts that they be admitted into evidence. The county's recommendations that respondent be found in violation of the said sections of the code. Order responded to come into compliance within 90 days by complying with the corrective action listed in the notice of violation, and if not in compliance, $100 for each day. The violations continue past the date set for compliance. The county has incurred $420 cost in bringing this action to hearing. What was the time to comply again? 90 days, sir. 90 days, okay. It's your opportunity. Please identify yourself for the record and the relationship to the property. Okay. My name is Devontae Gordon. I'm the owner. And thank you for being here. You can see a lot of people don't bother to even show up. Yes, sir. So within the building part that I'm in violation for, probably need like 60 to 90 days. She's already offering you 90. Okay. But that's what I was going to ask you. You know, the county doesn't want your money. What they want you to do is come into compliance. And so if you can do that, but I want to give you a sufficient time so you can do it. Okay. So is 90 days enough for you? Yes, sir. And the gate part, I probably can have that done within, like I say, that time for a week or so. And I would tell you, since you've got three things, as soon as you get one done, give her a call. Okay. And let her know because she can then put you immediately in compliance on that, and that takes that off the table. Okay. And then if you run into trouble because you're having difficulty doing something, keep in touch with her and let her know because the county will work with you as long as you're making good progress. Okay. Okay. All right. You comfortable with that? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you both. Thank you for coming. All right. I believe we're now moving into the penalty phase. Is that correct? Yes. It says pulled scheduled for April hearing. Nope. They're here. Okay. It's the county prepared to present the case. All right. Tell me how long it would take you to get your paperwork, Kelly. Okay. We can go to the penalty phase while you're getting that together, and as soon as you get that, we'll bring that case back up. Is the county comfortable with that? Okay. All right. So, Gina, we're going to skip that case temporarily until Kelly's ready, and then just go to the penalty phase and call case number 29. I believe it is. Okay. It's number 25-005913, Alachua County versus Corp. Barry, Jr. Okay. Someone here representing. Barry Corp., Jr. Yes, sir. You can come on up, Mr. Corp. You want to have a seat over there? All right. County, please present your case. Yes, sir. So, Mr. Corp. came before us previously in a different hearing, and he was found in noncompliance. But as of March 4, 2026, he is in compliance. Okay. So, I do have an affidavit of compliance submitted. So, as of now, he just owes the prosecution cost and any occurring penalty fees. So, as of March 4, 2026, his run in fines has stopped, and so he just owes whatever has occurred. So, I'm showing in a document here, daily fine was $50 a day, prosecution cost $280, and accumulated fines at this date or as of today are $2,780. Yes, sir. Okay. So, let me explain a little of the procedure. Since you're in compliance now, those penalties stop, but there's an accumulated penalty of $2,780. The county has a provision that you can come back for more before me, and you'll see that if you stick around, there's an action for rescinding the fines and fees. You can come back and ask for that once you pay the prosecution costs. So, the requirement is if you pay the $280, you can come back before me, give me a reason why it took so long and stuff like that, and cost, and I have the ability to reduce your fine based on what information you give me. Okay. So, I sent an email to Officer Webb on the 13th of January stating that I had gotten the property in the compliance at that point. Yes, sir. I did receive your email, and I did do the inspection, and you were not in compliance of the code of the 18 inches. You were still above 18 inches, and that is why, as of yesterday, you were in compliance. Because the nuisance overgrowth states that any overgrowth of weeds, grass, that covers more than at least 50 percent, from my professional opinion, at least 50 percent of your property was over 18 inches. Your backyard. Can you say over 18 inches high? 18 inches high, yes, sir, from the ground all the way up to the top of where the weeds and the grass stopped. It got so bad to where I also had presented photos at that previous special magistrate hearing where your backyard looked like a miniature forest, and that is a hazard because, you know, we're under a burn band, so we like to prevent things like that from happening. And so I have been working with you for two years with your property. I actually had issued previous notice violations. I worked with you. I gave you time. You alleviated. But the backyard, sir, that was my main concern issue, and you did alleviate the grass, and I do appreciate that. The county appreciates that, and so as the magistrate stated, we're willing to work with you with the fines and the prosecution costs, yes, sir. So I did receive the email, but you were not in compliance of the code. But I'm not clear, because on that date, I had all the overgrowth cut down. No, sir, you did not. See? I want to see what you think was not cut down. I already presented those pictures at the previous hearing, and you were also present. I cut everything that was in those pictures after that. Yes, sir, but I'm stating now, per the ordinance and the photo evidence that I have, and I am more than willing to email those to you, you were not in compliance. So you may have believed that you had cut it down enough, but it was still well above 18 inches. So that's why you were not in compliance. That's why you're in compliance as of yesterday, because as the photos show, there's nothing on your property that's over 18 inches. It's well below the compliance of the 18 inches. So I do understand your belief was, okay, I cut it down enough, she's good. No, sir. It was still above 18 inches. We're here today about the penalties that have occurred on your property. Well, that's why I'm bringing this up. That's the only thing that we're addressing today. Because the penalty starts as of the date of the 13th if I wasn't in compliance by that date. Correct. Right. And I have an affidavit of noncompliance. My understanding was, but you never responded saying I was not in compliance to that last email. My understanding was I was in compliance. So you are the person that's supposed to get in contact with me. If you read a notice of violation, the owner is responsible of getting in contact with the code enforcement officer to schedule a re-inspection. But I did not wait for that. I went out to do it myself because, per your email, you said it was in compliance. So I went out there and I did it myself. So technically, there was no re-inspection scheduled by you. You just requested one, and we never got in contact about that. So I went ahead and did it, and that is why we are here today. So I did everything that I am supposed to do as a code enforcement officer to assist you with this case. We are here today to discuss the fines that is owed on your property. Well, I'm ready to pay the court costs. Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. Well, if you pay the court costs, then we can set it up where you can come in and present, you know, this whole scenario you just gave me, and I have the ability to reduce that fine. Okay. All right. You comfortable with that? Yes, sir. I don't think I have a choice. Well, you could let the fines sit there on your property and not pay them. I mean, they're not going to get increased. It's going to be a lien against your property. That's what they're here for today. I understand that. So, but if you, in the meantime, can do that, we can actually hold off, you know, that lien if you're going to come in and seek reduction. I do plan to do that, yes. Okay. All right. Pardon? Okay. The county is saying, Scott, why don't you come up and just put it on the record? Or somebody can, you want to just say, I want it clear for your record as much as mine, too. Thank you. Scott, or GQ Director of Code. Oh, we have no problem holding the lien. He can come in, pay the prosecution costs. We'll hold the lien. We'll have it certified by you. Right. And we can probably get him on April's hearing. If you're comfortable with that. It will be the first Thursday in April. Okay. Okay. Now, where do I pay the court costs? Is that? Downstairs. You can pay right after the hearing if you want to stick around or come back. If you want to stick around, we'll probably get another half hour. Sorry. It's your time. Yeah, I can do that. Okay. Okay. Why don't we do that? Hopefully, the rest of this will go pretty quick. Okay. Thank you. All right. I see Kelly's back up. Okay. You ready to do with the case? I don't want to keep them. They drove all the way from Cocoa Beach. Cocoa? Not Cocoa Beach. Sorry about that. I know there's a distinction. All right. Please call case number 19. Case number 26-000803, Alachua County versus Manning, Geneva Ayers. Okay. And I see there are folks here representing the Ayers. So, please proceed, County. Case 26-000803. County received a complaint on January 27th regarding a shed without a permit and unsafe conditions for the use of extension cords running out of the home to many different locations. Property is located at 6117 Southeast, 215th Street, Cawthorn, and Alachua County. Identified by parcel 19746-005-000. Owner of the property is Manning, Giovanna Ayers. Code administration initiated enforcement proceedings and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Alachua County Code. 402.140B. Improvement of property prior to issuance of a building permit, which is regarding to the shed. 74.20A, accumulation of junk. 74.20B, unservisable vehicles. And PMC 304.1.1, unsafe conditions, which is regarding to the use of electrical cords throughout the property. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violations. Notice the violation was sent to the respondent that included corrective actions. Ongoing inspections conducted to date have determined the respondent remains in violation of the set of Alachua County Code sections. My last inspection on the property was March 4th. I have good service of notices and statements of violation to the respondent sent by certified mail, receipt, or postings. Copies have provided to the magistrate and request that they be entered into evidence. I have had contact regarding the violations. Contact with Mr. Myers, who indicated to be the individual living on the property. Photographs being presented were taken by building official Dan Gargis and myself, which accurately reflect the violations and ask they be admitted into evidence. County recommendation is the respondent be found in violation of said section of the code. Order respondent come into compliance within 30 days by complying with the corrective actions listed in those violations. And if not in compliance, then pay a fine amount of $100 for each day. The violation continues past the date set for compliance. County has incurred $350 in cost in bringing the action to hearing. Okay. How many vehicles unserviceable? Is there just one? Just one, sir. Just one? Okay. All right. It wasn't clear. All right. Please come up and speak as many as you want. If you would just identify who you are and your relationship to the property. Rhonda Newsome and Thomas Ivey. We're the ones who pay the taxes and stuff on the property. Okay. So I assume you're the heirs of the former owner? Mm-hmm. Okay. So what can you tell me? Well, I got the letter in the mail on the 7th of last month telling about the violations. And we have been telling Lorenza, which is a family member, to clean up. And is that individual living on the property? Yes. Okay. And what's their full name? Lorenza Myers. Okay. Lorenza Deshawn Myers. Okay. And so relationship, uncle, cousin, nephew, niece? Distant cousin. Distant cousin. Okay. And he's in jail now on the 24th or something else. Okay. And I didn't know it was that messed up. So what the county has asked was for 30 days, and I think that's going to be hard for you to do. No. That's why I'm asking, because it's clearly you inherited this problem, and now you're going to clean it up. How much time do you think it would take? About seven months, because I have to come on the weekends, try to come on the weekends. Okay. Because I don't, you know, family members trying to get together to clean this situation up, and it was more than one vehicle, what I saw. Okay. Kelly, when you went out on the 4th, just one, as far as you could tell? I believe there was one, but it could be more. Okay. And Mr. Myers did say that he did some cleanup, so you might. I can't depend on him. I understand. So I needed to, so the information comes, just because I didn't even know somebody called and said they needed time. See, he don't correspond with me. Okay. And do you, Kelly, do you have their information and contact? No, I just have Mr. Myers. Okay. So if you can please give that to Kelly so that we have direct communication. You can kind of, you want my phone number? Yeah. And then she can give you her business card, so email, if you do email. Yeah, contact me, because I don't know who called and said, you know, they needed more time and stuff. They don't pay anything. They just live there and don't do anything. You're the taxpayer, and I assume you've not had probate in the building. Ever since 84. Okay. All right. It's a long time. We can convict him. We're trying to get him off the property. He don't have a lease or anything. Well, I can tell you that, you know, if he's there on a month-to-month, that's what he gets. He gets a month, but you may, unfortunately, have to evict him with the sheriff, because we have those kind of cases coming for us. Yeah, because he don't have a lease or anything. Okay. And now there's a Florida squatter's law, too, so that you could take advantage of as well. Anyway, so how does the county feel about the time they've asked for? That would be fine, whatever you would choose. They're willing to get with you, but like you heard me say before, if you make progress, let her know, because she can take that off the list and say, okay, that's in compliance now. And if you get down to something and it's hard because of travel back and forth and stuff. And these junk cars, I don't know how you get rid of those. Well, depending on the car and the agency. If it's the owner, I'm saying who owns it. Oh, okay. Yeah. So I'm sorry you had to come all this way, but I'm going to give you seven months if the county's comfortable with that. But stay in touch. I will. I'm going to have to take responsibility. You can't depend on family. Yeah, I'm sorry about the miscommunication, ma'am. Yeah. Well, I'm glad we were able to get it together and get it done. Thank you for coming, and have a safe trip back, please. Okay. I think we're now on to case number 30, is it, in the penalty side? Case number 25-000502, Alachua County versus Bestain Thomas, Jay, and Kathleen H. Somebody here representing them. Okay. If you want to come over by the podium. County, please proceed. Yes, Your Honor. So in this case, number 25-000502, the determination was guilty. They were originally heard on August 5th, 2025. The date set for compliance was February 9th, 2026. That was given six months additional time. They have been in contact with me, but they remain not in compliance. We would ask for the lien to be certified, but held. Okay. For some of the amounts here, I think it's for the fines that have accumulated 7-4. So they're still not in compliance? They're still not in compliance. They have. Have they made progress in it? Well, they have indicated through communications that they would wish to perhaps pay fee-in-lieu mitigation rather than the replanting. I understand that's an option that they have on the tree violation. And they indicated that they are wanting to pursue that. Okay. So we'll let them speak to that today, okay? All right. Your opportunity. Good morning. Please state your name and your relationship to the president. Good morning. My name is Jessica Duby. I am the daughter of Kathleen and Tom. I live on property with them. Back in September 22nd of last year, I was mauled by a dog, and now I have nerve damage in my right arm, so I am unable to do the physical labor part of the planting of the trees. I was in contact with, what is it, Chestnut Hill Nursery out in Alachua. I'm very familiar. We originally were going to get with him and come up with a plan with how many trees and plant it and everything else. But now since we are unable, I am physically unable to do so, we're going to do the payment in lieu of. But that money will not be available to us probably 90 days out. We got in contact with a lawyer that found some funds that were not in the probate from my father-in-law's passing. So we just now got this money that was available to us. Okay. So because it's not in compliance today, and I understand the health risks, I used to be a hearing officer for dangerous dog cases. I'm sorry you had to go through that. It's okay. Thank you. Well, you heard what happened. The fine will continue to run. As soon as you get into compliance, let it know. And then you have the opportunity to come back for me, as you heard. Yes. And I can offer to reduce your fine based on facts you present to me. Yes, sir. Because it looks like it's going to take you probably, I think, probably the probate 90 days, you're saying. We were told it should take up to 30 to 90 before the funds to get to our account. Hopefully it will be faster than that. Yes, sir. As soon as you get that and get a contract in place, and are you comfortable as soon as they have a contract to do the tree work that that would stop the time? Yeah. Or does it actually have to be? However they choose to come to compliance, I'm happy with. Yeah. As soon as the money comes in and available in our account, we're going to pay the fine, the loo. Okay, and as soon as you do that, let him know so that that fine stops, and then you can come back. As you saw, there's one at the end today seeking rescission of fines and liens because of things that happened. And I have the authority to do that. Perfect. So I would ask you to come back at that time, okay? All right. So thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Okay. I believe we're now moving to Case 31, the last of the penalties. Yes. Case number 25-010708, Alachua County versus Ashford, Robert H. Okay, again, is there someone here representing Robert Ashford? And also, County, on the prior case, we can hold that lien before in case she comes in and pays and stuff. Just no point in going through all that procedural work. Okay. All right. All right. So, County, please proceed. Case 25-010708, Ashford, Robert, guilty not in compliance. Prosecution cost is $420. A daily fine is $100 per day. Total fines, $5,420. And we request to have a lien placed on the property, Your Honor. Okay. Again, Robert, Ashford, are you here? Or somebody representing? See, none of the lien will be placed. All right. We're now moving on to a new segment here. Let me read this statement. The Code Enforcement Special Magistrate will now hear a request for a reduction of fines and rescission of liens. The decision to grant or deny your request is solely within my discretion pursuant to Florida statute and county ordinance. In making my decision, I may consider the recommendation from Alachua County Code Administration. Please state precisely what you are requesting and why you believe that I should grant your request. You may present any information that is relevant to your request. The only purpose of this hearing is to consider a reduction of fine or rescission of lien. This is not an opportunity to discuss the original findings of guilt for violations. Please refrain from commenting on the original proceedings as I have no authority to revisit that final action. All right. So this is a little different animal because you get to go first. Oh, okay. Cool. Okay. So because it's your case to be made. Awesome. And I have the documentation that was provided before me as well, too. So please go ahead. Okay. So my name is William Harper. I'm here on behalf of MJBS Holdings, LLC. We are property investors in the state of Florida. We take the worst of the worst homes. We bring them back to life and sell them to usually first-time homebuyers, FHA buyers, who normally would not be able to afford a home. So in this circumstance, this property came to the tax deed sale back in August of 2025. In doing our research, we couldn't even find the property because it was so fully overgrown. You could not see it from the Google Maps, so I had a guy come out, and he had to pretty much put on his jungle boots and hoof it through to even see if there was a property there. So when we did see that there was a property there, we immediately got in contact with – When you say property, you mean a structure? A structure, yes. Sorry. The land was there. The structure, we were not sure. Just so we were clear for the record. So at that time, even before the sale, we reached out to the co-enforcement office, speaking with Scott. We were just trying to see if there was some sort of a mitigation process after the fact, because a lot of times in these cases, if the bidding process goes to a certain amount of dollars, there's a surplus in the case. And I saw that there was one in the – Correct. And through our research, there were no mortgages on the property, so Alachua County would have the first right to the surplus funds. So at that point in time, we felt comfortable in bidding on the property, and through that process, we've kept in contact with Scott's office as well. The second we purchased the property, we were with, I believe it's Gadsden's – I drove from Palm Beach County. Sorry, so I'm not familiar with that. They were here earlier. Okay, yeah. So we had like five or six trucks of vegetation hauled out. We had multiple dumpsters of personal property and just garbage hauled out, thousands and thousands of dollars, just to bring the property into compliance. We are currently in the process of renovating the property with permits. The roof has been put on and finalized with permits this past week. I saw the permit in here. Yeah. I don't know if the permit is in there. I could definitely provide it. I think it is. Okay. I think it was a copy of it. The final inspections were done within the last seven days. So now we're in the process of pulling permits with our contractor to do the interior work, the windows, the framing, the whole nine yards. To date, we've spent close to probably $25,000, now closer to $30,000 renovating the property, and we probably have another $30,000 to go with all the interior work. So we paid the – what's the word for it? The $700 in – Prosecution costs. Prosecution costs. We paid that. We should have asked you to come before me to seek a rescission. Correct. Okay, so we paid those costs, and pretty much our stance is we feel that if the county received $57,000 from this fine, and we are seeking to just pay the prosecution costs, which we already have done so. Okay. County, position? Well, Mr. Harper said it's totally true. They reached out to me before the sale. I sold it out. They've upheld every part of their bargain. I mean, as this is my last meeting, I moved it up for you to hear from me because I promised them I would speak on their behalf. They've gone above and beyond anything I've asked them to do. We didn't even ask them to overly clear the land. I mean, it's gorgeous. So the county's position is the best you could do. And just so you know, Scott, before you came, we used to have a builder in town here that would do the same thing, and we worked with him extensively. He would come in and buy these properties, clean them up, and then sell them to either low-income or, like you said, FHA or HUD cases. So, yeah, so I'm very comfortable with it. It puts it back on the tax rolls. The county's gotten money from the surplus sale. Correct, and they got their taxes. In a lot of these cases, earlier, we didn't even get that. Right. They just bought it for the tax. That's the only, to be clear, that's one of the only reasons why we were comfortable bidding on the property was because we could foresee that there would be a large surplus, that way we could work with the county and think that they wouldn't be made whole or if not more than whole on this situation. So I'm going to hold it down to zero because of what they've done? That's fine. And so I'll get my order out to you. Perfect. Okay. All right. Thank you for what you do. No problem. Yeah, I love it. I love this, too. I'm a planner by trade. I went to school for urban planning, so I love coming to these hearings. Interesting, isn't it? Well, you can watch lots of them. They're recorded if you really can't sleep. Thank you. Okay, thank you. All right, I'm going to close this hearing at 10.50.