Alachua County Special Magistrate Hearing - Nov 06, 2025

Order. I have a quick statement to read at the beginning. Welcome to the November 2025 meeting of the Alachua County Code Enforcement Special Magistrate Hearing. The purpose of this hearing is to hear alleged code violations filed by various departments of Alachua County, Florida. 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 will be addressing today. That can only be done by the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners. The Code Enforcement Magistrate can determine if a violation has occurred, set a date for full compliance, and levy a fine for noncompliance. My decisions can only be appealed to the courts and not to the Board of County Commissioners. The basic procedure we'll follow today is our Secretary Jean will call the case. 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 mail of that decision. We have quite a full agenda today, so I won't be making any decisions from the bench 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 inclusion in the record. As a note of business, if you have a cell phone, which I'm sure most you do, please either turn it off or put it on silent so it doesn't disrupt the proceedings. Just as a reminder, this is being recorded, the proceedings both from television as well as audio. If you will swear in the staff and anybody planning on testifying today, if you please stand, raise your right hand, and Gina 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? Yes. Thank you. You can be seated. Ready for the first case? I see case number one has been withdrawn, so let's start with case number two. 24-14113, Alachua County v. Alonzo Bartello Gregorio. Someone here representing Mr. Gregorio. Someone here representing Mr. Gregorio. Okay. I don't see anybody from Mr. Gregorio, so county, please proceed. Good morning. My name is Gerald Sapp, code officer for Electric County. In code enforcement case 24-014113, the county received a complaint on 11-20-24 regarding the property located at address 9012 Southwest 106 Terrace, Gainesville, Florida 32608 in Electric County, Florida, and identified by parcel number 07350-030-004. The owner of the property is Alonzo Bartello Gregorio. Code administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Electric County code ordinances. 402.140, improvement of property prior to issuance of building permit. 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 date have determined that respondent remains in violation of the said Electric County code sections. My last inspection of the property was on 8-19-25. I have good service of notice and statement 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 no contact with respondent regarding the violations. The photographs being presented were taken by myself and accurately reflect the violations and ask that they be admitted into evidence. The county recommendation if respondent be found in violation of the sections of the code order. Respondent come into compliance within 15 days by complying with the corrective actions listed in the notice of violation. And if not complied, they pay a fine in the amount of $100 for each day the violation continued past the date set for compliance. The county has incurred $350 in cost by bringing this action to the hearing. How much does the prosecution cost so far? Prosecution $350. $350. Yes. This again, someone here representing Mr. Gregorio. Somebody here representing Mr. Gregorio. See not here, that will conclude this case. Again, the evidence would be admitted into evidence. Place number three. 25-009717 Alachua County versus Alachua 441-235 LLC. There's someone here representing Alachua 441-235 LLC. If you want to go over by that podium over there, we'll have you speak once the county presents its case. Good morning. My name is Rebecca Hoffman, and I'm a Senior Environmental Specialist with Alachua County Environmental Protection Department and Water Resources. My work involves reviewing irrigation applications and inspecting systems to determine compliance with relevant codes, including Chapter 77, Article 6, Landscape Design and Maintenance Standards. My credentials are on file with the Board Secretary, and I've been sworn. In case 25-009717, the respondents are Alachua 441-235 LLC of Wawa Alachua Store No. 5438 as the property owner and Wawa Corporation owner-operator of the business on site as the operating business. On May 30, 2025, ACEPD staff observed the completed installation of a new irrigation system prior to the submission and approval of an irrigation application and approval of an irrigation application at the Wawa Store located at 16304 Northwest U.S. 441 in Alachua, zip code 32615, parcel number 03044-003-000. On June 6, 2025, ACEPD mailed a warning letter via certified mail both to the physical location and to the property owner and operating business of record. ACD, EPD staff also hand-delivered a copy of the warning letter on June 30, 2025. On July 15, 2025, a notice of violation, an NOV, was issued to the property owner of record and to the operating business owner for the installation of a permanent in-ground irrigation system prior to receiving approval. An amended NOV with corrected date was issued on July 21. On July 31, 2025, Respondent's irrigation contractor Challenger Irrigation submitted an after-the-fact application number IR25-000467, which was found to be deficient upon review. The last direct email contact with the irrigation contractor was August 14, 2025, but notices of incomplete application were sent to the respondents on August 14, 21, and 29, as well as September 11, 2025, through the CitizenServe portal. There have been no attempts to correct the application to date. As a result of the noncompliance with the application approval process, respondents are operating an unapproved in-ground permanent irrigation system. Staff recommends a finding of GILTI for the respondents for Sections 77.60, which is irrigation system approval process. That they immediately discontinue the use of the irrigation system until the application is resubmitted with deficiencies corrected and the irrigation system passes inspection. That they be given seven days to resubmit the application with deficiencies corrected and in compliance with code requirements. That they schedule an inspection with ACEPD staff within seven business days of the application approval to verify compliance with the code. That they register the system to comply with Section 77.63F, which requires the respondent to register with the county and to submit an irrigation system inspection audit. Further, that the county recover the administrative costs of $1,080.36, additionally a fee of $100 per day until compliance is achieved. This concludes my testimony. Okay. It's your opportunity to speak. If you would first identify yourself for the record and your relationship to the property. Yes. My name is Ryan Keitel. I am a representative of Wawa, Florida. Okay. And I'm here to address these concerns and questions and violations. I do want to point out that this location is within the city of Alachua's city limits. It's not an unincorporated Alachua County. We did obtain irrigation permit and design through the city of Alachua. We did open the store with full C of O from the city of Alachua on December 13, 2024. So this store has been open, sir, for almost a full year now. Okay. Does the county have a position about, does the county have jurisdiction since it's within the city limits of Alachua County? Yes. In Alachua County, all irrigation systems, permanent in-ground, have to come through our county, through me, through our portal. And do you coordinate with the city of Alachua when they get a building permit? Not with a building permit. That's separate. They come through us for irrigation application, and then it's just for the irrigation system. It does not include the landscaping, just the irrigation system. And it is a county code, and it includes everybody. Okay. And what is your response to that? We permitted our irrigation system through the city of Alachua per their standards and regulations, which is in conflict with the county's guidelines and standards and regulations. What the county's position is, is that the county's ordinances override the city? The city. But, again, we just want to point out to the county that we did obtain permit and C of O from the city of Alachua with a design system. And that is, the specifications for said design system are in conflict with the county's own specifications. So, in order for us to obtain permit from the city and C of O from the city, we have to design a system to the city's standards. And then, after the fact, we find out that we also have to design to the county's standards, which are in conflict with the city's regulations. Is the county's standards more stringent? They are. Okay. So, if you were in compliance with the county, you would be in compliance with the city? Not necessarily. And why would that be? Because the city required greater coverage for irrigation spread than the county did. Okay. So, in order for us to meet the irrigation coverage requirements for the entirety of the property, we had to irrigate more than the 50% requirement that the county's mandating that we need. Okay. Does the county require more than 50%? No. It is 50% of the permeable area can be irrigated. Okay. Can they do more than that? No. And the city is requiring more than that? Correct. So, has the county and the city coordinated with each other in terms of this conflict? Good morning. Eliana Bardi with the Alachua County Environmental Protection Department, and I've been sworn in. We have reviewed extensively the requirements for the city of Alachua, and we have, you know, tried to coordinate and make sure that they inform their building permit applicants of our regulations. We do allow temporary irrigation to be on 100% of the landscape. So, there are ways to meet both codes that would satisfy Alachua County's requirements as well as the city's requirements. Okay. So, what is your position on this now? Because he's got, I take him in his word, that he has a city approval for his irrigation system, which he finds in contact with the county. Yeah, there have been email threads. I don't know if it was about this particular store or other projects within Alachua County where I've done a comparison of their codes with our codes and offered ways to meet both codes that would satisfy establishment and irrigation requirements for both codes. And the county requirement applies countywide, so it's not something that we have defaulted to the city of Alachua to implement. They don't have the irrigation standards that we have in terms of the design of the system. It's more about service of water, backflow prevention, those types of design requirements. We have specific installation requirements. All right. Anything else from you, sir? No, sir. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate you being here. A few notes here before we start the next case. Okay. I believe we're on the case number four. 25-007133, Alachua County versus 7600 Hillside Park, LLC. Is there someone representing Hillside Park, LLC? And I assume you're an attorney from the way you're addressed, so you don't need to be sworn in. Do you intend to call a witness? So if you could identify yourself for the record, please. Grant Van Ammon for respondent. Attorney for respondent. Okay. County, please proceed. Sir. Morning. Michael Williams, code officer for Alachua County. In code enforcement case 25-007133, the county received a complaint on 7-9-2025 regarding the property located at 7600 Northwest 5th Place in Gainesville. The property is identified by parcel number 06656-002-008. The owner of the property is 7600 Hillside Park, LLC. Code administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Alachua County Code of Ordinances 402.140B, general provisions. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violations. A notice of violation was sent to the respondent that included corrective actions. All inspections were conducted by building official Dan Gargis. I have good service of notice and statement of violation to respondent sent by certified mail, a receipt of posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate, and I request that they be entered into evidence. There has been contact with the respondent's attorney regarding the violations. An email was received on 8-22-25 from attorney Van Amman upon subsequent issuance of the courtesy notice to the respondent. A second email was received from attorney Van Amman on 10-30-25 regarding obtaining copies of documents related to today's hearing. So, the photograph presented was taken by building official Dan Gargis and accurately reflect the violation, and I ask that it be admitted into evidence. Let me ask you a question. What is the nature of the violation? It's a general citation. So, what specifically did they not do? I'm going to allow the building official Dan Gargis to address that. Thank you. That would be preferred. I assume the attorney would prefer to have the actual inspector testify. Go ahead. If you could bring the picture back up. I think it's over there on the side. Oh, thank you. So, what they did is they installed structural reinforcing in the building without a permit. Okay. So, they basically braced something and added a load-bearing structure? Yes. Okay. All right. Counsel, do you have any questions for either witness? Not at the moment. Okay. Anything else from the county at this point in terms of what are you seeking in terms of time frame and penalties, et cetera? Okay. The county is recommending 15 days in order to bring the property into compliance or a fine of $100 per day be imposed until compliance is achieved. Additionally, the county incurred $140 in costs in bringing this action to the hearing. Okay. Counselor, your turn. So, Mr. Williams, he started off by saying that this code initiation started on July 9, 2025, but that's not really where this whole story starts. This whole story starts with an anonymous complaint that was reported on April 28, 2025. That complaint was file number 25-004-281. The county initiated an investigation on that complaint, even though it was anonymous, and actually closed that one on May 1, 2025. As the county knows, under Florida Statute 162-23B, a county may not initiate a code enforcement investigation based on an anonymous complaint unless there is an imminent threat to public health, safety, welfare, or the destruction of environmentally sensitive resources. Here, there's no evidence of an imminent threat to public health, safety, or welfare, or imminent destruction of habitat or sensitive resources. 7600 Hillside Park has repeatedly, through its agents, attorneys, and employees, requested from the county to verify the identity of the complaintant, which they've repeatedly refused to do. This statute 162.21 was enacted, this anonymous complaint restriction was enacted so that agencies such as the Code Enforcement Agency cannot be used as a weapon to basically punish disgruntled neighbors, disgruntled former employees, et cetera. And simply, that statute just hasn't been complied with here. So, as I said, the initial anonymous complaint was back in April, was April 28, 2025. The county then went out even without verifying who the complainant was and what their address was. Then again, on May 5, 2025, another email from the same anonymous individual who was going under the codename VinceGate, the email address of gatevince81 at gmail.com. As the county knows, there's a formal online portal for filing complaints. This individual did not go through that formal process. Instead, sending an email to Dan Gargis, the licensing Alachua County Building Division, and various other Gainesville and Alachua County officials. Then again, once receiving that, and once I received that, I asked Mr. Gargis, I notified him of the statute of 162.21.3b, again asking for the identity of the individual who filed the complaint to which he did not respond. And I still have not received a response from the county. Then again, May 29th, a representative for 7600 Hillside was in contact with Mr. Gargis. And in text messages, Mr. Gargis attempted to reach out to this Vince Gate, who is alleged to be Brittany Zorosky. He reaches out to her and she denies that she's the one who filed the complaint. So still, even in May, May 29th, the county still doesn't know who the complainant is. And then in July, Mr. Gargis recommends a notice of violation to be sent. And that's why we're here today. So 7600, their real defense here is just that the county has to comply with the anonymous complaint statute. And they just haven't done so in this situation. Okay. County's response, please. I'll be for that. So we believe that that was the reason. I think we may need additional testimony from Mr. Gargis with regard to what that imminent threat was. Okay. Now, I would also like to know, I believe the testimony from Mr. Williams is that the complaint they were acting on today was from July 9th. And there was no mention made of the April-May, which was apparently concluded and not acted on. So is that correct, Mr. Williams? Is that the July 9th? That is correct. And how was that complaint filed with the county? Well, I initiated the notice as a result of an email that I received from Mr. Gargis indicating that there is a violation and we needed to move the case forward in order to hopefully get the respondent to come into compliance. Okay. I'm going to let you go, Counselor. Go ahead. Yeah, would you get close to the microphone so you're... Sorry. And Allison Franklin, for the record. Mr. Gargis, can you please explain what the imminent threat was that was in place? Yes. The original complaint came in and said that they were doing electrical and plumbing and renovations within the space. So that was actually the imminent threat. I believe she also indicated that they were building a swimming pool at some point in time in our exchange. And based on that picture, I don't see a swimming pool. Where is the swimming pool in regard to that? What they were doing was they were building a swimming pool model. And my recollection is they said it was going to be less than 18 inches of water in it. So therefore, technically, it was not a swimming pool. It was just a model. But it was immediately above that. So that is the floor below where the model was being built? Yes. Okay. So this is a two-story structure that we're dealing with then? Yes. All right. It wasn't clear from the record. All right. Counselor, you have questions for Mr. Gargis? Yeah. Mr. Gargis, did you ever meet with the individual that sent you the email? No, I did not. Did you ever speak with them? I never spoke to Mr. Gargis. What type of communication did you have with Mr. Gargis? It was an email exchange. Under Section 162.21 of the Florida statutes, it states that a person who reports a potential violation of a code or an ordinance must provide his or her name and address to the respective local government before an investigation may occur. Did this alleged Mr. Gate person, did they ever provide an address to you? No, they did not. That's it. Anything else for me, Counselor? No. County, anything else? Okay. Thank you. That will conclude this case. Counselor, thank you for being here. Oh, my God. I apologize. I didn't ask Mr. Gargis. Okay. Nothing more. Okay. Thank you. This concludes case number four. And 7600 would just like to state that the county does have a duty to comply with that 162.21.3b statute, and that's why this case should be dismissed here. Okay. And I'm familiar with the statute, Counselor. I appreciate you bringing it up. Welcome. Thank you. Case number. So, I believe we're going to move now to case number five. Is that correct? Case number 25-009130, Chakaran Faze Mohamed. Someone representing Mr. Mohamed here. Good. All right. You can have a stand over there if you'd like. And let the county proceed first, and now I'll let you speak. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for being here. As you saw, some people don't show up. County, whenever you're prepared. Office for Poirier with Code Administration. Case 25-009130, County received a complaint on August 29th regarding work done without permits, siding, windows and door replacement, plumbing drain lines, electrical, installing ceiling joists, and installing a beam in the back porch. Properties located at 619 Northeast County Road 234, Gainesville, in Alachua County. Identified by parcel number 178-11-0000. Owner of the property is Chakran Faze Mohamed. I apologize for any miscommunication on the name. 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. 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 said Alachua County Code section. My last inspection of the property was on November 6th. 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 are requested to be entered into evidence. I have had no contact with the respondent regarding the violations. Photographs being presented were taken by building official Dan Gargis, which actively reflect the violations and ask that they be admitted into evidence. County recommendation is to respond to be found in violation of the said section of the code. Order the respondent come into compliance within 30 days by complying with the corrective actions listed in the notice of violation. If not in compliance, then pay a fine. In the amount of $100 for each day, the violation continues past the date set for compliance. The county has incurred $280 in cost in bringing the action to hearing. Okay. Anything else at this time? No, Your Honor. Okay. Mr. Muhammad? Okay. Please. The plumbing, we already pulled the permit. I mean, not us. I mean, the company. Mm-hmm. And the electrical as well, we have the permit. Okay? And deciding, I was trying to get with the company. I was doing it myself, my friend. That's all. Well, I don't know. The ceiling, it was done prior before I bought the roof. So you're saying that the ceiling work was done prior to you actually? Yes. I did not touch the roof because somebody, the guy before me, he did the roof. So? He pulled the permit on the roof. Pardon? The guy before me, he pulled the permit. So he did actually pull a permit for the roof. Okay. So for the county, is it because he didn't have a general permit for doing all this work? Because what I'm hearing is he says individual contractors have pulled permits. Yes. Electrical, plumbing, and the roof. Yes. So does he himself need to have an overall permit? Well, no. The individual permits for those items would have been fine. And he is in compliance with all items except for the ceiling height. There was installation in the ceiling joist and installing a beam to open up the rear porch. Okay. So he installed a beam, which is a structural member? Yes, sir. Okay. And so what the captain? That's not us. Go ahead. That's the guy before us. Okay. The one we bought the house from. Okay. What happened then? Mr. Darius, come up and explain. So there is an existing permit for the roof? Yes. Okay. The electrical is not closed because the electrician and the electrical permit was just for installing a new service and running a feeder into a subpanel. Okay. But it doesn't include all the electrical work that was done in the house, whether it was done with this owner or by a previous owner. It's our policy that regardless of when it was done, if it's done without a permit, it requires a permit. Okay. Now how about the joist issue? Is that related to the roof? No. It's done independently and basically what they did is they dropped the ceiling in the entire home approximately 18 inches to 2 feet. So what's the ceiling height now? It's about 8 feet. And what's the code require? 7-6. Okay. So why is that an issue if it's... Because they did... I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt you. No, no. Go ahead. It's because they did... It's considered structural for furring down those ceilings. Sure, because you've got a suspended ceiling above it, which can drop. I can understand that. And it's actually, I think it was 2-by-6s, so that all requires... Review. Right. And typical furring would not be 2-by-6s. It'd be something less than that a lot of times. Yeah. Okay. So what you're saying is he needs to have somebody come in and apply for that work that was done to demonstrate that it was adequate? So what's the county asking him to do is what I'm getting at. To get permits for the furred down ceilings, a beam. We requested an engineer sign off on the beam and for the electrical on the interior, the siding, and I don't recall if windows and doors were involved also. Say again. He has the permits for the windows and doors. He has permits for windows and doors. I'm trying to figure out specifically, so I want to write this order. So do you understand, Mr. Mahon? Yes, yes. So what they're saying is that they, even though the work was done by the prior owner, they need to verify, somebody who has a skill set. Actually, I'm going to, after I'm done, we're going with the engineer. Okay. So my question for you is, because it's clear to me you're trying to comply. I want to make sure I give you enough time so that engineers and people can get into this. So how long do you think it would take, and county, you know, to get an engineer out there and do all this stuff. It's not going to happen easily necessarily within 30 days. And it's been this way for, well, he bought the house that way for a lot of us. I'd say 90 days would be adequate. So what I would propose in my order is I'd give you 90 days to do that. And what I would say is, if you have problems getting somebody to timely do this, stay in touch with the county and let them know. Okay. I'm contacting the permit guy all the time. Right. And he's telling me what to do. Okay. And so, but if you have difficulty with your contractor and they're not able to timely complete something, don't wait until it's too late. Oh, okay. Make sure you stay in touch with the county because they will work with you as long as you're making progress. I call the officer. I call the officer. Right. Okay. Yep. Great. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I believe we're going to case number six now. Case number 25-005253, Alachua County versus Hathcock and Robinson. Someone representing Hathcock and Robinson here. Somebody representing Hathcock and Robinson. So not present. Okay. The county, please proceed. Michael Williams, code officer for Alachua County. In code enforcement case 25-005253, the county received a complaint on 52125 regarding the property located at 1617 Northwest 154th Street in Newberry, Florida. The property is identified by parcel number 04225-002-000, the property is identified by parcel number 04-225-002-000. The owner of the property, the owner of the property is Hathcock and Robinson, code administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be a violation of the following code sections of Alachua County code of ordinances. 74-208, accumulation of junk, 74-36, nuisance overgrowth, 404.25, excuse me, 404.22.5 recreational vehicle, which that particular section has complied. 404.22.5, the recreational vehicle was removed in its entirety from the property. That complied on 9-5-25. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violations. A notice of violation was sent to the respondent that included corrective actions. My last inspection was conducted on 11-4 of 25. Property remains in violation of code section 74.28 and 74.36. They have good service of notice and statement of violations to the respondent sent by certified mail or posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate and I request that they be entered into evidence. There has only been contact with the respondent on one occasion upon the initial issuance of the courtesy notice and that was on 7-21-25. The photographs presented were taken by myself and accurately reflect the violations. I asked that they be admitted into evidence. The county's recommending a finding of violation of code section 74.28 and code section 74.36 and that the property come into compliance by 11-21-25. If compliance is not achieved by 11-21-25 then a fine of $50 per day be imposed until compliance is achieved and also the county incurred a total of $280 in cost of bringing this action to hearing. Okay. When was your last inspection of the property? 11-4-25. Okay. Thank you. Again, somebody representing Hathcock and Robinson here. Seeing none, we'll proceed. I see case number 7 has been withdrawn. Moving on now to case 8 has been withdrawn. Moving on to case number 9. 25-010-428, Alachua County versus Celebration Point Holdings 2, LLC. Welcome back. Good to see you again. Go ahead. County, please proceed. Protection Department and Water Resources. In case 25-010-428, the respondents are Celebration Point Holdings 2, LLC as the property owner, Element at Celebration Point as the owner-operator of the business on-site, the operating business, Sven Durkel-Bolton as the registered agent, and SHD Celebration Point, LLC as the title manager. On May 1, 2025, ACEPD received an after-the-fact application IR25-000281 for the irrigation system installed prior to county approval at the property located at 7481 Southwest 36th Road in Gainesville, Florida, ZIP Code 32608, and this is at Celebration Point, parcel number 06820-003-000. The installation completion date indicated the application on the application was April 16th, 2025. On May 1, 2025, ACEPD completed the review of the application and found it to be deficient with resubmission required by May 31, 2025. On August 15, 2025, staff emailed a warning letter regarding the deficient application, in addition to seven reminders through the application portal between May 28th and September 11th. On October 24, 2025, Viking Property Solutions submitted a new application, IR25-000602, for the same parcel, the same system, and it was also found to be deficient for the same reasons previously communicated. A resubmittal report was sent on October 30, 2025. As a result of noncompliance with the application approval process, respondents are operating an unapproved in-ground permanent irrigation system. Staff recommends a finding of GILTI for respondents for Sections 77.60, and that's for the approval process, 7.7.61 Irrigation Design Standards 77.62, for the completion of installation and irrigation system inspection. That they immediately discontinue the use of the irrigation system until the current application is resubmitted with deficiencies corrected, and the irrigation system passes inspection. That they be given seven days to submit an application in compliance with code requirements. That they schedule an inspection with ACEPD staff within seven days of the application approval to verify compliance with the code. That they register the system to comply with 77.637F, which requires that the respondent to register with the county and submit an annual irrigation system inspection and audit. Further, that the county recover the administrative costs of $780.26. Additionally, a fee of $100 a day until compliance is achieved. This concludes my testimony. All right. If you please state your... I don't see Wawa anywhere here, so... Your Honor, my name is... Correct. I just celebrate... Correct, a penalty here. Yeah, this is celebration point. This is not the Wawa at celebration point. Oh, this is the Wawa at celebration point. This is celebration point. Yeah, sorry about that. Eager to get to it. Come over to the podium, please. Not quite sure how that happened, but... Because I didn't see Wawa anywhere in the names. But I could be surprised. So, okay. So, you've heard her testimony. What is celebration points? My name is James Thornton. I'm with the landscape department with Celebration Point. We did receive notice, and we resubmitted an application for the irrigation and paid the county fine of $500, or the county fee of $500. Permit fee. Submitted a copy of the irrigation plans and have been waiting to be notified as to how that was going to be. When was that application applied? The Tuesday before last. So, that was the... Is that your one you referenced that you received? Yes, October 24th, we received it. Okay. And what was the determination from the county on that? That it was found deficient. Okay. Did you respond back to them as a deficiency? Yes, we did. And who did you respond to? Because it sounds like you didn't get a response. Oh, this went through the CitizenServe portal notification process. Okay, so you went through the company's notice of service and process rather than an individual at the company? Correct. Okay. So, it sounds like you didn't get it through your corporate filing. I did not. Okay. So, we've got a left-hand, right-hand kind of thing, which sometimes happens when you have corporations who get their notice through the CTE or other corporation notice. It takes a while to get back to it. Completely understood. Okay. So, resolution, would you suggest? The second application was submitted by Viking Property Solutions. So, the notification should have gone to him and he should have received it. He said he didn't. And it was sent on October 30th, 2025. Did you send it certified mail or just regular mail? It went through our CitizenServe portal notification process. Okay. So, again, it's going back through. Does it go to him? That one should have gone to him. We had two applications. The second one came from Viking. Right. And so, the notification from the portal should have gone to him. Okay. Is there any way to verify that it went to a correct address for him? Correct. Yes, there is. Okay. And so, that response was on what date? Our response to them? Yeah, on the 24th, October 30th. October 30th. Yeah, I was out of the office all last week. I just came back yesterday. Okay. So, you may have something in your email then because it sounds to me like you're responding through the email process? Correct. Okay. All right. So, what are the deficiencies? Did you identify, Dean Renov? They're numerous. Okay. All right. So, I'm going to make a suggestion is that since you're back in town, you two need to get together and go over it. And, Gina? If you log in, whoever logs in, the user, they'll be able to pull it up and see who is listed as the email. Okay. That it would have sent the correspondence to. Okay. So, it goes to different entities with us. We have a development side, a construction side, our operations side. Yeah, and I don't know what email was put in the application or how it was sent. Usually, if I understand correctly, if it came through an email, that's the email they're going to respond to? Correct. Correct. Oh. So, hopefully, they've been able to pull it. The email is jamesatcelebrationpoint.com. Is that yours? Yes. Okay. And it was sent on the 31st? Correct. 30th. 30th of October. So, you should have it now. Okay. And if you don't, but I would suggest you get together with these folks. They've asked for seven days. I'm inclined to give you a little more time on that since you've been out and stuff, but you need to work with them and figure out what they need to have done. Okay. Okay? County, I'm going to give him 14 days just because he's back and he's going to take back to the public. Make a note here. Thank you for being here. I'm sorry about the confusion about which case is which. Thank you. Case number 10. That would be case number 25-004055, Alachua County versus Davis John Timothy. Is somebody here representing Mr. Timothy? David John Timothy? Seeing no one is here, so go ahead and county please proceed. Michael Williams, code officer for Alachua County. In code enforcement case 25-004055, the county received a complaint on 4-22-25 regarding the property located at 2814 Northwest 104th Court, unit number C in Gainesville, Florida. The property is identified by parcel number 0623-023-003, the owner of the property is John T. Davis. Code administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be violations of the following sections of Alachua County code and also international property maintenance code ordinances. 304.1.1 potentially unsafe conditions, 304.2 protective treatment, 304.5 foundation walls, 604.3 electrical systems hazards, 304.3 premises identification, and 74.36 nuisance overgrowth. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violations, a notice of violation was sent to the respondent that included corrective actions. My last inspection was conducted on 10-31-25, property remains in violation of all cited code settings. My last inspection was conducted on 10-31-25, property remains in violation of all cited code settings. sections, I have good service of notices and statements of violations to the respondent sent by certified mail receipt or posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate and I request that they be entered into evidence. There was a phone conversation with the owner on 7-31-25 who stated that he is in process of repairing and cleaning the unit. He indicated that this will be indicated that this will be a process and he is in process of obtaining quotes for all necessary repairs. The photographs presented were taken by myself and accurately reflect the violation and I ask that they be admitted into evidence. The county's recommendation a finding of violation for all cited code sections and the respondent be given an additional 45 days in order to bring the property into compliance. If compliance is not achieved by the compliance date, then a fine of $50 per day be imposed until compliance is achieved. Also, a respondent must satisfy the prosecution costs of $280 in bringing this action to a hearing. Okay, is there anybody living in the property? No, it's actually an abandoned property. I don't think the interior conditions would be wholesome for anybody trying to live there. I just want to make sure there wasn't somebody actually living in the structure. No, there's not. No, there's not. He indicated when I spoke to him that the unit had been empty for quite some time and he is aware of all of the conditions. He further stated that he was in process of hiring contractors, getting bids and so forth in order to begin to bring the property into compliance. Okay. All right. Thank you. Again, is somebody here representing Mr. Davis? Seeing none, okay, let's go into case number 11, please. Case number 25-007946, Alachua County versus Lee Liu. You? Is somebody here representing Lee Liu? Okay. Thank you. If you could say, just for the record, state your name and relationship. My name is Stuart Kitts and I'm a resident at the property and the owner of the vehicle in question. Okay. Great. Thank you. Counties? T-W-A-R-T-K-I-T-T-S. Okay. Michael Williams, code officer for Alachua County. In code enforcement case 25-007946, the county received a complaint on 73025 regarding the property located at address 1343 Northwest 89 Terrace in Gainesville, Florida. The property is identified by parcel number 06326-010-076. The owner of the property is Lee Yu, I believe. Code administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be violations of the following sections of Alachua County code 74.20, subsection B, unserviceable vehicle. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violations. A notice of violation was sent to the respondent that included corrective actions. My last inspection was conducted on 102825. It was noted that the property remains in violation. I have good service of notice and statement of violation to the respondent sent by certified mail, mail receipt or posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate and I request that they be entered into evidence. On 8-19-25, I spoke with a respondent, Mr. Stewart Kitts, whose stated vehicle is operable and has valid license plates. He indicated that he will address the tire that is in disrepair. He further stated that he would advise me when he addresses the issue. Additionally, I received an email dated 8-19-25, also regarding the vehicle from Mr. Kitts. The photographs presented were taken by myself and accurately reflect the violations and I asked that they be admitted into evidence. That the county recommends a finding of violation and 15 additional days in order to bring the property into compliance. If compliance is not achieved, then a fine of $50 per day be imposed until compliance is achieved. Also, respondent must satisfy the prosecution costs, excuse me, must satisfy the prosecution costs of $350 for bringing this action to hearing. Okay, what can you tell me? The tire has been repaired. I have a receipt for the repair and photographs. I can email you, Mr. Williams, if you'd like that. Mr. Williams, that's sufficient? Absolutely. Okay. Yes, absolutely. Also, we did not receive a certified mail, probably because it was addressed to the property owner, Mr. Lee, or Ms. Lee, Uley. But we did get a notice taped to our garage door a few days ago. Yeah, that's the posting, yeah, because they do that sometimes. So that's how we were aware of this proceeding. And then, you know, I took care of the issue. Sorry, we were delayed on that. Yeah, it's fine. And the notice was, in fact, sent to the owner of the property of record. Because that's what the rules require. Right. Okay. So, from my hearing, the testimony, it's in compliance. He's going to provide you proof of that. Okay. Yeah, that's. And so, I'll grant the county what they request, but since you're in compliance, then that goes away because you've met it within the 15-day timeframe. Okay. Okay. Do I still have to pay $350? Not if you come to compliance. Oh, awesome. All right. I have pictures on my phone, or I can email them to you. I would say email because that is a better record because you can welcome the show on the phone. Right. And I get your email address again. Yes, sir. All right. I can do that right now. Yes. Go ahead, Sid. Go ahead and get that resolved right now. So, I think if you have a picture of the car with the tire in the place. Good. All right. Thank you for being present. All right. I believe number, case number 12 and 13 were withdrawn. Is that correct? Correct. So, we are now moving into the penalty phase. And so, county, Mr. Williams, he has information. Case number. Go ahead and call the case. Okay. Case number 25-002592. Alachua County versus Lake Area State Bank. Okay. Someone here representing Lake Area State Bank. Somebody representing Lake Area State Bank. Okay. Please proceed. County. Case 25-002592. Lake Area State Bank. Guilty. Not in compliance. Prosecution cost $280. Daily fine of $25 a day. Total fines are $2,150. Compliance date was actually August 11, 2025. So, that was the date set for compliance. Still not in compliance. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. So, okay. I will go ahead and authorize the lien on that. Again, somebody representing Lake Area State Bank. Seeing none. Go to case number two. Okay. Case number 25-000170. Alachua County versus Perkins and Perkins. Somebody representing the Perkins here. Somebody representing the Perkins. Okay. Not present. County, please proceed. Case 25-000170. Oh, you are here? Okay. Go ahead and have it over to the other podium. Let her get over to the podium for you. If you could tell us who you are and what your relationship with the property is. I'm Lorraine Perkins. I'm one of the owners. Okay. All right. County, please proceed. My lawyer is Niles V. Whitman and he couldn't be here today so he told me to ask for a continuance. How does the county feel about request for a continuance? That would be fine. That would be fine? Okay. So what it would do would come up with the next code enforcement hearing which would be in December. December 4? First Thursday in December. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So we're going to continue this one. They are present. Case number three under penalties. Would you like me to stay it? Okay. Okay. So case number two five dash zero zero five one seven eight. Alachua County versus Lewis Jason G. Is Jason Lewis here? Somebody representing Jason Lewis. None present. Okay. County, please proceed. Case two five zero zero five one seven eight. Jason Lewis guilty not in compliance. Prosecution cost is 350. Daily fines $50 a day. Total fines four hundred and three four thousand three hundred dollars. Sorry about that. Date for compliance is August 11, 2025. And I have a couple pictures for the file your honor. Internet evidence. And any contact with the owner at all? No. Not since the hearing. Okay. All right. Again, somebody representing Jason Lewis here. Seeing none. Let's go on to the next case. Case number four. Case number two five dash zero zero four nine eight seven. And guess RP of Citrus Springs, LLC. So someone representing the corporation in GES RP of Citrus Springs, LLC. Seeing none. Not present. County, please proceed. Case number two five dash zero zero four nine eight seven. The tree permit has, after the factory permit has still not been paid for or issued as of 11-6-20-25. The dead fine of a hundred dollars, $140 prosecution cost, $10,000 total fines. Still not in compliance. Okay. Thank you. Case number five. Case number five zero, excuse me, two five dash zero zero four four seven four. Date set for compliance was August 28th. Page number five seven seven four. Okay. Okay. So I'm representing Peggy Bush here. Peggy Bush. Seeing none. Not present. County, please proceed. Case two five zero zero four four seven four. Peggy Bush. Guilty. Not in compliance. Prosecution cost is $350. Daily fine $75 a day. Total fine is $5,175. Date set for compliance was August 28th, 2025. Again, I assume no response from the. Correct. No response. Let's go now to case number six under penalty, please. Case number two five dash zero zero zero zero two eight zero. Alachua County versus Carr Benderian Carr Mona L. So somebody representing the cars here. Somebody representing the cars here. Okay. Not present. County, please proceed. Case two five zero zero zero two eight zero. Carr. Guilty. Not in compliance. Prosecution cost $490. Daily fine $125. Total fine $7,125. Date set for compliance is August. I mean, September 9th, 2025. Again, no, no contact. The officer had no contact your honor. Okay. All right. Excuse me. Case number seven. Two five dash zero zero three three five three. Alachua County versus Joanna Mercer. Somebody representing Ms. Mercer here. Okay. Present. Present. Go ahead. State for the record who you are. Good morning. I'm Joanna Mercer, the owner of the property. Okay. Okay. County, please proceed. Case two five zero zero three three five three. Joanna Mercer. Guilty. Guilty. Not in compliance. Prosecution cost is $280. Daily fine $100 a day. Total fines $7,200. Date set for compliance was August 25th, 2025. What can you tell me? Yes. We're pretty much done. This was a very lengthy process and we are at the very end. We have received from Dan Gargas the partial approval pending on just the final inspection for the septic tank. I have here a letter from the Health Department Inspector Todd Harris explaining that basically septic has been installed. The old one properly abandoned. Electricity is on. Everything is done. We're just waiting on two more loads of dirt, I believe. I hired a company for this. Modern Septic is the name of the company. And they will be coming this Friday to finish. That will complete everything. Okay. So as soon as you are in compliance, you need to let the county know because that obviously stops the penalties right there from accruing because right now they're accruing in $100 a day until you achieve compliance. And as you'll hear later today, once you come into compliance, you have the ability to come back and seek a reduction in the fines based on circumstances that you can provide me for reducing it. There's a whole series of reductions later today after we finish the penalty phase. But at this point, you're not in compliance and so the fines will continue to run. The county is asking for a lien to be applied. Yes, Your Honor. So that will probably go forward. But again, as soon as you get in compliance, don't delay because that fine is literally every day. And so as soon as they can get you, that stops and then you have the ability to come back performing and seek a reduction in fines. Yes, Your Honor. Can I speak? Sure. Go ahead. The last hearing, I actually asked for 90 days and I was approved, but I think there was a mismatch on the letter that I received. The letter stated 30 days. Hmm. Scott Krzyzewski, co-director. We'll double check on that. But I did speak to Ms. Mercer. She thought she was in compliance. Then they did tell her she needed to bring more dirt and I just like last Friday. Right. We'll hold the lien for 30 days and bring her right back. So they won't take any action. I'll give it more, but it turns out it was 90 days and you are in time. We'll check that and either way we'll hold it and we can bring her right back for reduction. Reduction. It should be done this Friday according to the company and then we will be completely done with this. Right. And just let the county know because they won't know when that happens unless you let them know and they will do the investigation. So they will withhold filing any lien at this time until you get some of this resolved. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Thank you. I just want to state a couple of things for the records, Your Honor. So she needs that re-inspection on her septic. Right. And then once she has that, the building department can go do their final inspection. Right. Once they have that, the case can be closed. Right. But I wanted to state for the last hearing that we had, she asked for 90 days. The county requested 30 and you gave 30. So that's why there was 30 days compliance. Okay. Yeah. The health department has been very backed up. It is impossible to even get an application approved for a septic tank within 30 days. Right. It's out of my control. I understood. And that will come up in the reduction hearing because if there are things that you couldn't do because of just the delays within the system, then that's grounds for me to consider reducing the fines for that. All right? Yes, Your Honor. Can I just ask one last question? Sure. Please identify yourself. Yes. Okay. We have, I think it's very clear how to proceed and I appreciate the direction. Right. But we have been in very constant contact. Sometimes it's five, six emails a day, over 50 since. And is there no ability to, through the communication with the people we've been in touch with and prior to coming here, to be able to extend or request an extension? Because I feel like we have done everything we possibly could. It's very stressful. I understand. To go through this. It's very difficult. It's not clear. We have work. It's a long time to have to step away. And we have a property that we inherited that's out of compliance that has to be brought into compliance. It's very understandable. But to have to come here after we've been in such regular communication, sometimes multiple times reaching out, we have requested multiple times about the 30, 90 day discrepancy, didn't always get a response. So maybe just before leaving, if there can just be some direction. So we understand. Because on the outside, it's not always clear how to navigate and who to talk to. And it's multiple departments internally, but externally, you're only working with what you think are one or two people. Right. Understood. So the question is, are you seeking a continuance or extension? I believe so. I don't quite know the words. But, you know, when we left thinking it was 90 days and with the very, very regular communication and the consistent requests to not have 30 days, what was quite a lot of work. Right. I would like that to be considered because I feel like we've done everything we could and just the time was unrealistic. Well, there's two avenues. One, I can take that into consideration and the reduction of fines and make a lot of that go away because of the delays outside your control. Okay. That's one factor. The other one is the county have an objection to a continuance or extra time to come into compliance. Well, I just wanted to state a couple things for the record, Your Honor. This case was back, started back in 2023, as I stated at the last hearing, came into compliance with all the different items except for Building B. Right. Now, they didn't come into compliance with that even though they were requested to do so multiple times through emails, various departments. So they didn't come into compliance until 2025. They started working on that. As far as a continuance, the county does not agree to a continuance because, like I say, this case is from 2023. And also, once again, they requested 90 days. The county asked for 30. You granted 30. And that was in the record. And it was also on video. Okay. Can we share a response to that? Yeah. Just as a response, Kelly, I hope you, is this a question for you? We have been completely working with you and collaborating, correct? And in full contact via email. We have been doing everything. I just want you to know we have been doing everything we can. But we do not have control over companies' schedule, county permits, like the health department right now with the septic. That's out of our control. But as soon as we receive a notice, we work on it immediately. We have had, Your Honor, I don't know, four or five permits that we had to deal with and they were very lengthy. Mm-hmm. And that's why it's been since 2023. Okay. Because it's just a huge project. It's a property with four buildings. Okay. And each building had their problems. Yeah. I remember the case, yeah. So that's why. It's not because we are stalling. Understood. Understood. Yeah. That can come up in the reduction side of things. Thank you. Okay. And I just want to state when she, the respondent was here the last meeting, she said she was going to seek homestead and then they changed that. And so they're not going to homestead the property. So by changing it, it puts it a little slower pace. So now you have to change how you're going to do things. And so, you know, that takes a toll on the case as well. But she has been communicated and we appreciate that. It's very clear to me that you all have been working back and forth and stuff. Yes. And as you see, there are some people who never show up. Yeah. And just don't respond at all. And as far as the homestead, we really thought we had to move back because it was just a, it causes a financial hardship for our family. Mm-hmm. It's an enormous amount of money. Just the septic alone was $10,000. I understand. Everything is very expensive these days. Yeah. It's not like it. But we decided that we were just going to get a loan and get this done. Okay. Thank you for being here. And as I said earlier, I'll make a decision on the case and we'll go from there. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. A note here, case number eight under penalties. Case number 25-004465, Alachio County versus Wallace Bradley M. Is Bradley Wallace here? Okay. All right. Please come over to the podium. If you can state your name in relation to the property. Bradley Wallace, I'm the owner. Okay. All right. County, please proceed. On case 25-004465, Bradley Wallace, guilty not in compliance. Prosecution cost is $350. Daily fine is $75. Total fine is $5,550. And the date set for compliance was August 23, 2025. Okay. And what was the nature of the violations? Well, there was numerous. He had overgrowth of the landscaping, unserviceable vehicle, and junk and debris. Okay. So he is in compliance with the nuisance overgrowth. Okay. And so you should have an affidavit of compliance in your file for that. Right. As far as the unserviceable vehicle and the junk and debris that is still on the property. What can you tell me, mister? Yes, sir. Well, I'm sorry. I've been diagnosed with cancer. Mm-hmm. I've just not had the funds to get the things done. I have sold the property. We close on the 24th. Okay. The new owners are the ones who cleared the property yesterday. Okay. They have assured me that the rest will be done within the next two weeks. So you're closing on when? The 24th. 24th. Okay. Yes, sir. I really had no other choice with my circumstances. Sure. I understand. I'm sorry to hear about that. Okay. So there will be a new owner and it looks like. And they're obviously aware because they're fixing things. I have a full video. I'm obviously using the property. So, I mean, they did all that on short notice. Right. And they've assured me that this will be taken care of. Okay. All right. And as quickly as that happens, then that will go away, the final stop. And then. It's also. That's between. It'll be between. To prevent the sale. Could we hold off on the lien? I heard. They told me that there was possibly a lien that might prevent the sale. Well, that's what the counties here are seeking today. Okay. Is a lien for the fines that have accumulated so far. Could I get an extra 30 days? So what's the county's position since he's going to sell? For that. Now, I. Just know. I inherited this. This was none of my. I understand. I full on inherited this. Okay. No, sir. Okay. Yeah. So. Do you have a position? Go ahead and please upload the microphone so we can get you on the record. We don't object. And we do understand. We just would hate for this property to somehow be sold before a lien gets put in place. If it doesn't come into compliance. It sounds like it's going to. Yes. Yeah. So I would suggest, like we had earlier, is the county can. I have documentation. I can authorize it, but the county hold it. And if it comes into compliance, then that's going to take it because they won't record the lien. Yes, sir. The county has to do it, and if you don't, for some reason, it falls apart and things go south. Yes. Then they can go ahead and file that lien. I have full documentation of all the signed agreements and everything. Like everything's completed now? Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. And when is the anticipated closing? The 24th of this month. Okay. So we should be able to verify all this before then? Yeah. So I was going to suggest if the county can agree to hold it for 30 days. I will authorize it, but you will hold it like you did this other one. And if you're comfortable with that. And if they close, then they'll deal with the issue between themselves. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Sure, appreciate you being here and sorry to hear about you. Thank you. And I'm just going to leave a couple pictures for you for the file, Your Honor. Okay. That's the current. When were these taken? It was on the bottom right there. This morning, Your Honor. This morning? Okay. Okay. So let's go on to case number nine under penalty, please. Case number 25-002647, Alachua County versus Challah Hanimi. Okay. And I'm present. County, please proceed. Good morning. This is Andrew, the senior forester for Alachua County in case number 25-002647. Guilt is not in compliance, still not in compliance as of 11-6-25. After the factory permits still not paid for or issued. Prosecution costs 140, daily fine 100, and total fines $10,000. Date set for compliance 7-28-2025. Okay. Thank you. The last case under penalty, I please. Case number 25-008306, Alachua County versus the Commons Guys LLC. Is this a Wawa? This is. Okay. All right. Just make it clear for the record. Okay. All right. So, county, please proceed. Rebecca Hoffman here again. We made the determination that they are in compliance. They reached it on 10-28 for the irrigation system. However, the fines have not been paid. The persecution. Prosecution. Prosecution. It was 280. The daily fine was from 100 with the total fines at 4-200. And the date set for compliance was September 26, 2025. Okay. So, your response? No objection. No objection? Okay. Who do we make the checkout to or who do I need to get my contractor to send it to? Gina can get you that information. Okay. And they have your contact information. She can give you her card if you want. Perfect. And she can, or if you have a card, you can give it to her, too, as well. So, contact information. That way, make sure that contractor. Okay. Okay. Thank you. All right. We are now moving on to a different old business, which is request for reduction. And I have a statement to read for those of you who are here for the reduction process. The code enforcement special magistrate will now hear requests for reduction of fines and rescissions of liens. The decision to grant or deny your request is solely within my discretion according to Florida Statute Chapter 162 and Alachua County ordinances. In making my decision, I may consider recommendations from Alachua County. 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 finding of guilty for the violations. Please refrain from commenting on the original proceedings since I have no authority to revisit or revise the final action. The policy is to hear reduction requests a maximum of two times. If you request a hearing and then fail to appear, that will be counted as a request. If this is your second reduction request, you must present new information that the special magistrate has not previously heard or have a compelling reason for making the request. This is different than the other cases we had. The burden falls on the person seeking the reduction and they have to present a case to me of why I should reduce the fine or rescind the lien on the property. And so what we will do is have Gina call the cases. Case number 24-005836, Alachua County versus White, Jean. Jean White. Jean White. Jean White. Somebody here representing. Okay. If you want to come over to the podium, please. Please identify yourself. My name's Anthony Mazza. And how are you related? How are you related to this? I purchased the property and closed on it September the 18th. Of this year? Yes, sir. Let me hang on just a second. I'll make some notes here. Were you aware of the existing fines and liens? Yes, sir. I was supposed to close in June, but it's been a total mess. Okay. And so the outstanding fines right now are $21,900. I assume the property's in compliance, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Correct, Your Honor. And prosecution costs were paid because that's a requirement. Okay. Did you take any efforts to bring it into compliance? Was there any compliance when you bought it? I spent money out of my pocket to bring it into compliance and I emailed receipts to the Okay. How much did you spend? I've spent close to $7,000, but this week I'm spending more money on additional stuff. Okay. Like what? Can you give me a rough estimation? I'm up to $17,000, really. Okay. Does the county have a position on, since he was not the creator of the problem here and he obviously spent a lot of money cleaning it up? No, he's done a lot of work, you know, cleaning up the property and we appreciate that. So any reduction that you can give him, we would be fine with that. Okay. All right. You'll get a reduction, but I'll take it into consideration. But just for the other folks coming behind you, you know, letting me know what you spent, the efforts you've taken and stuff like that helps me make my decision and justify reductions. Okay. So I appreciate you being here and it'll come to you in the mail. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Could it come to my address in Raleigh because... Sure. If you can give that to her, you can email it to her or send it to her or write it down there if you'd like. Okay. Making some notes there. Sorry. Go ahead and do the next case, please. Case number CE-2018-06-0010, Wagner-Jeffrey B. I believe this is a Zoom case. No, your honor. He's here. Oh, he's here. Okay. There's also a witness that he had. Okay. Okay. Make sure I get the right. Okay. Please state your name for the record. Jeffrey Wagner. Okay. And go ahead. Sure. Your case. Okay. This case goes all the way back to 2018. I was first charged with accumulation of trash. I moved from Gainesville in 2012 to Carabelle. On this property that was in question, what was my nursery? I had several buildings on the property, barns, and mobile homes. So while I had moved away, some vagrants moved in on the property and trashed it out. Left all the trash and moved RVs and vehicles onto the property. There were several people living on the property. I had to do an eviction before I could get onto my property to clean it up. That eviction took three to four months. There was a hearing in 2019 where I was fined $50 a day until it was cleaned up. I couldn't attend that hearing because my sister had died and there was a funeral on that day. So I had Ms. Candace Wilson attend that hearing for me and that's my witness today. And maybe it would be a good time to hear from her what happened. So my question is how is that relevant to your request for reduction? It's relevant because I never got a notice that I was not in compliance and I was being fined $50 a day. Let me stop you right there so let's find out from the county. No, there was notification as that as far as the fines $50 a day. He has paid his prosecution costs but the fines kept on running and he never contacted the office. Back then we allowed people to pay monthly payments. Right. So he could have gotten that down but he never contacted our office. Do we have proof that he got the actual notice? I don't have it on me but our other legal secretary who had retired, she does have that in her file. He's already been here. Yes. Scott, go ahead. Yeah, just so you know there was a previous reduction hearing for this. Right. So obviously there was a follow-up to the penalty hearing and he was granted a reduction at that time. Right. And so this is a separate violation? So this is his second reduction hearing. Okay. I just want to put that out there. And the reason this is the second one, my witness wasn't able to get into the Zoom to be there on the first hearing. Oh, I remember that. Yeah. We were having technical difficulties. Was this the one we had technical difficulties? No. Okay. But she's here to testify on Zoom today. Well, I'm still trying to struggling with, you signed according to certified mail for the fines running on, let's see, November 8, 2018. Show that to him. Yes. This doesn't say anything about the $50 fine, $50 a day fine. Yeah. This one, this one I got. Yeah. This, this isn't the, none of these. This is the non-compliance hearing. Right. And this would have had. See, it was returned to you. I never got it. And where's the, and here's the receipt back here where I never got it. It was sent back to you. And then. And there was no second notice ever since. And then you spoke with Kathy. Yes. There were several charges. They, the vagrants had RVs on the property. There was accumulation of trash. There was, uh, RV. People live in an RV. And there were vehicles that weren't supposed, that weren't licensed. Those hearings, I, I, I did get notice of. And I did attend and took care of them. Uh, and, uh, I have affidavits of compliances for those hearings. But the, Ms. Wilson was going to attend the hearing where I was opposed the fine. The $50 a day fine for me. But they let her go before they had a hearing that morning. She could testify to what happened that day. And I, I think it's very relevant that, and I never knew there was a $50 fine being sent to me until 2023, when they had the notice of lien. Okay. And then at that, at that stage, so for the county, for me, the fines that have accumulated here, they accumulated during what time period? From 2018 to the present. Okay. And so, even though you said you got it in 2023, you didn't take any action to bring it into compliance in 2023, so the fines have still been running. I did take action to bring it in compliance. In, on June 6, 2019, when they did the hearing, during this time, okay, I had the three or four different charges. And then I took care of them all, all of the charges, and then a tree fell on my barn. Then I, there was another charge about the tree, destruction property. I forget the term, but it was for having dangerous property out there. And when I called the code enforcement, Mr. Clark, he should have cleared everything at that time. I had no idea that there was a fine being added, $50 a day. I took care of everything on time. I have affidavits for compliance on the dangerous structure. Affidavit of compliance on the vehicles. Affidavit of compliance on people living in an RV. And all I'm asking the court to recognize is that I did not get notification there was a fine adding up $50 a day. Okay. Let me ask you up there. That's the county. What is the $50 a day fine for? What is the specific violation? That was before he was in compliance. That was the first accumulation of junk. So that's what the $50 a day is being? Hi, Derek. He is in compliance and the fine did stop. So to go back. Okay. He wouldn't be here if he's in compliance. Correct. And he had a reduction hearing. And there's notice from Kathy, the previous admit, that she even had an order to release the lien on March 7, 2024 upon him paying. He never paid for that reduction. It was reduced to $15,000 and I don't have $15,000. Right. Because penalties at that time were $57,000. So you were aware at that time. At that time. Yep. That's in 24. Right. And so you're back here asking for, so you never paid the $14,250, which is what it was reduced to according to the document I have here. Hardship summary. Yeah. And the reason why is because my witness wasn't able to get through on my first hearing and I thought it was important to hear from her. Well, I'm still trying to figure out what she can provide me. That she was here for the hearing when they find me $50 a day, but they let her go. They dismissed her and told me, told her that I was in compliance. So her message to me was, Jeff, you're in compliance. Everything's okay. Then I don't hear anything until after COVID to 2023 when I get a lien put on my property. We will have a recording of that hearing. So I think we're going to need to look at the record and see what. I wasn't here at the hearing. No, no, but we'll be a record of her. Oh, yeah. Yeah. She was here. She needs to testify. They told her that she could go, that there's no reason for her to wait. It was like today. There was a lot of hearing. Well, that's what my point is, is that there will actually be a video of that if that happened. Okay. I will love her testimony. There was long hearings before that, and they said they came up to her and asked her, said, what are you here for? I'm here for the Jeffrey Wagner hearing. You can go. He's in compliance. That's the message I get. I'm in compliance. I don't know that I'm being fined $50 a day until 2023 when they put a lien on my property. Okay. And the problem is, at that point, did you come into compliance when you found out about the lien in 2023? I was way in compliance. I was in compliance back in 2019 when they came to inspect the barn that had gotten. The tree fell on the barn. I was in compliance of everything. We can review everything. I was going to say, we're going to continue this because the county is going to have to go back and check the records and look at this. But could. Yeah. Ms. Wilson. I will let her testify. Okay. Thank you. What it's going to control is if there was any record of it in the video and stuff. Okay. For that hearing. Because it's recorded. It's TV and sound. But she never got to come up and speak because they stopped her back here. There was a break in between. Well, I understand there was a break and they told her that I was in compliance and she could go. And so she left. Okay. Well, let's go ahead. Is she on Zoom? Yes. Do we know that? Is she on Zoom? She was on at nine o'clock. Okay. Let's go ahead and bring her up. Hello. Can you hear us? Hello. Yes. Can you identify who you are, please? My name is Candace Wilson. Okay. And Mr. Wagner says that you were attending on his behalf at a hearing. Is that correct? Well, yes, what happened was I went in and I, you know, of course, was not scheduled or anything. And there was a break in the hearings. And I, somebody asked me, what are you here for? And I said, I'm here to let the court know that Mr. Wagner can't be here today because his sister has committed suicide and he needs to go and take care of his 90 year old mom. So they said, oh, okay, well, we'll just, you know, we'll put a hold on this and Mr. Wagner doesn't need to worry and we'll just, you know, contact him later. And then I said, do I need to stay for anything? And they said, no, you may leave. And I left. And none of that was recorded. This was during a break. Do you remember who spoke to you? I spoke to the gentleman from the fire department. Fire department? We usually don't have anybody from the fire department here. He was a fire department codes guy and there were several other people there at the table too. We will have a record of who was here. If we're trying to find it right now, they've got the records in front of them. But so we don't delay any longer. I would say let's, let's, I'm going to continue this, let the county and Mr. Wagner figure out what happened. Okay. And then we can come back. We can bring it back. We can bring it back. We can bring it back. We can bring it back immediately to December. Yeah. We'll bring it back into the December hearing. I live in Carabell. You can attend by Zoom. Okay. I mean, I've, I've seen you now. Okay. Yeah. So I'm not going to. I've really tried to straighten all of this out. I understood. There were several charges. If they would have just put one at the time, they charged me with the junk accumulation. Why didn't they put the same charges on the RV and the other stuff if they did it separately? Well, typically we don't do separate fines. It's a fine to come into compliance. And so it covers all four of them. And if you come in, but. Exactly. That's what I was thinking I was getting. Okay. That I was in compliance. All right. So we will get back with you in December. Hopefully county will have the research and also be in community. I'll ask them to stay in communication with you. So when they have stuff in hand, you'll know what they have and where we stand on things. Okay. Okay. But the hearing in question was the one where I was fined $50 a day. Right. And that's when. That's when Ms. Wilson came. Okay. That's the one we need to look at and see what the story was behind. There was a continuance, but they brought it back. So there, there was a continuous I found in here. Okay. And it will come back like a month later. Oh, okay. So yeah. I probably need to. Let's share. We make sure we share that information with you. And you spread this whole thing out on a desk and look at it. Okay. And just do a timeline. Right. Just when, who got what and. Okay. Okay. Fair enough. All right. So we'll see you in December. Thank you. And by Zoom. Okay. Okay. I believe we are now in case number 13. Is that right? And that is Michelle Lewis. Yeah. Yes. Number 23-01-5348. Sure. It should already be in the file. If it's in the file, then I'll have it. But I accidentally, I sent you the wrong letter. I sent you the first draft. Okay. And then when I got the thing of, it was a little bit more detailed information. I redid it. Okay. And I emailed that over this morning. And there's also some private information in there with a tax return that I didn't want kind of on public record. Well, you need not to put, give it to me because once it's in, it's public record. It's got like our social security numbers on it. Yeah, you're allowed to black those out on the state statute now so we can make sure that those stay confidential and redacted. Okay. All right. Thank you. So, as you heard, it's your story to tell, your case to make. Identify yourself for the record. Steve Flanagan. Okay. Michelle's husband. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to make this appeal. Um, we respect, respectfully submit, um, today regarding our ongoing court violation, court, right? Code violation case and request a reduction in the current fine, which is accumulated, uh, over 40,000. We understand, except the responsibility for having performed unpermitted work on our home. And we sincerely apologize for both the initial oversight and the extended time it's taken, um, to secure the necessary permits. The property is our primary home, our homestead residents, and we have been highly motivated to resolve the issue, especially concerning the, the daily fines that have been, uh, occurring. Um, we've also, uh, um, have attended the code enforcement, uh, uh, the, the court hearings and the magistrate consistent, consistent communication with both court and code enforcement officers throughout the process. And, um, uh, thank you, officer Kelly for, um, putting up with my constant phone calls, but you've been very gracious in answering all my questions and multiple trips to, uh, the Alachua County, uh, permit. Um, I've worked with, uh, three or four different people that have kind of scratched their head, um, trying to help me get the permits through. Um, and finally, I, uh, was able to speak directly with the supervisor. Um, and she was able to help get all the, the, the permit through. And I've just recently, uh, well, a couple of months ago, I had to renew, uh, the permits for some extra time. Uh, initially we attempted to navigate the requirements between code enforcement office and the city Gainesville building department ourselves. However, after several weeks of confusion, we decided to hire a general contractor to assist us. We engaged Sylvester Brown with bison contracting and Jr construction. He informed us that he could not proceed in pulling the permits until a structural engineer had evaluated the property. Uh, we then contacted Mike Driscoll, who kindly agreed to assess the property. Uh, but he cautioned that this, uh, his schedule is extremely full. Um, and after some coordination, Mr. Driscoll visited the property, took measurements. He agreed to help us, but was able to commit to a timeline due to his workload. He later advised us, uh, that given the unique construction of our home, that it would be better to involve an architect. Mr. Driscoll referred, referred us to an architect. Um, we reached out, waited for availability, finally received a quote. He actually came out to the property and did measurements, um, at double the cost of what Mr. Driscoll, uh, had given us, uh, because the architect planned to produce the drawings, but would still need a structural engineer to approve them. Still trying to move forward. We returned to Mr. Brown. He referred us to a draftsman, Sam Bird, who came out. Uh, he wanted, uh, for him to have the availability to, to see the project. Uh, but he too advised us that a structural engineer was required. We reached out several other structural engineers, but were repeatedly told the project was either too small or too complex to be worthwhile. Most engineers prepared to work, um, on new construction rather than modification of existing homes, particularly ones, um, with unusual layouts like ours. And I presented, um, the final, uh, structural engineer, uh, from Sean Holloway. Um, finally, desperate. We turned to our church community for guidance and we referred to Sean Holloway of dwelling place design build after, uh, the usual waiting period for availability. Sean graciously a gear agreed to take the project. Despite his full schedule, he warned us it would take several months. Ultimately, the structural work was complicated and delivered on February 9th at a cost of over $6,300. We finally found a structural engineer willing to take our projects. We also learned of preexisting issues with the home. For example, we discovered the house was built without exterior sheathing and remediation. It will now require adding zip wall or plywood to the exterior, a considerable and unexpected expense. Following the structural design, Mr. Brown submitted the required documentation to the building department. Unfortunately, this triggered a prolonged period of back and forth between code enforcement and building officials, further delaying the permit approval. While this process was taking longer than any of us had expected, Um, it has not been for lack of effort, uh, commitment or intent. I also wish to, uh, just share some financial and medical challenges, uh, compound of the just difficulties. And to have three are rental properties. Um, our primary source of income required several new roofs due to insurance cancellations based solely on age, even though there was no leaking. In addition, we experienced multiple evictions and vacancies, which return, uh, resulted in some substantial financial losses. Um, and, uh, we've gave you the, uh, tax return for documentation during this time. Also, I suffered two serious shoulder injuries, uh, that prevented me from doing any work, uh, myself, um, which caused additional financial hardship. First one was in August of 2023 and leading to not only rotator cuff repair, but they had to reattach my bicep tendon. Uh, the next surgery is, uh, was in, um, September, uh, uh, 24. Same thing, rotator cuff surgery on my right side, reattaching my bicep tendon. Um, and I wasn't able to, to do work, which I've learned. I'll be 68 next month. And, um, I've learned to, uh, let the younger workers, uh, do the heavy work. Or find a piece of machinery that will do it for you. Uh, yes. So, um, which is frustrating because I enjoy the work that we do. And, um, this process has been just very stressful, time consuming, um, stressful on our finances and our, you know, of course our marriage, um, our persistent efforts to comply with permitting the unexpected structural challenges, financial hardships on our rental properties, um, my medical limitations. We hope that this will convey our genuine obstacles we faced and sincere effort we put in resolving this issue. We respectfully request leniency in the amount of the fines, uh, giving our continued communication proactive attempts to correct the violation. And the financial burden already incurred, um, professional fees, remediation costs, and medical hardships. Um, I also want to add that, um, we, we have the permits to get the work done. Um, but. You wouldn't be here if you weren't in compliance. Right. Okay, so that's, that's a given. You don't have to. Okay. Just to save you some time. You know, the, the, the final work has not been completed. Okay. So I just want to add that the problem with getting the permits was getting a structural engineer that could look at it. Understood. And. It's a chicken or egg. You don't get the one without the other. And then once we, there's a report there from our, um, from our, uh, engineer. Right. That kind of explained why it was such a complicated, um, complicated job and why it took so long for him to kind of come up with a solution for it. And, um, so the built was, the house was built in the seventies and then, um, it had some, there was a permit pulled for some changes in 95. So we were lucky enough that we were actually able to find the original blueprints for the house, which was a lifesaver. Cause that was kind of one of the problems. Oh yeah. Absolutely. So we were able to, to get original copies, but then when they got it, they found that some things had been changed and then we found problems. Like I said, that like, they're like, this has no sheathing on the house. Like there's supposed to be plywood or a zip wall. And so there were other problems that had nothing to do with this that we're also going to have to, um, that's going to be pretty expensive to go ahead and do those, uh, that remediation work from, from initial problems and then from problems from, from 95. Okay. So it's going to be pretty expensive. So, um, yes. So does the county have a position on the reduction? Well, I just want to state a couple things for you, Your Honor. Um, this case was opened back in April, 2023, came into compliance on March, 2025. They had to do quite a bit to come into compliance. Yeah. There was, um, there was a couple of stop work orders. Um, but those were corrected really quickly with the after fact permit. Uh, everything that they have done, the county does appreciate it. And so we have no recommendation for you, Your Honor, but a reduction. But you're not opposed to a reduction. Correct. Okay. That's what I need to know. Okay. Do you have anything else? Okay. We'll get, we'll get, come to you in the mail. You will be a reduction. I'm just, I need more time to read through all this with, um, but I appreciate you being here. It's quite the novel. Right. It is. Thank you. I appreciate it. You're welcome. Thank you for being here. 15. Is that right? Cause 14 was withdrawn. Yes. That's correct. Okay. So this will be. Go ahead. So 15, 16 and 17 are all together. Oh, they're all together. Oh, okay. So it would be in case number 23-021911, 23-021913, 23-021907, Gable 2017 Holding, LLC. Okay. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record. Yes. My name is Randolph Amaya. I represent the owners of Gables. Okay. All right. And so as you heard, it's your opportunity to convince me that you should have some fines reduced. Yes. So the burden is on you, unlike the earlier cases we had today. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I would like to, to ask the court for the reduction on the fines. Mm-hmm. We did comply for everything. I know you know that you're, that's the reason we are here. Right. It took us, I mean, a little more time than expected. We applied in May of, May 5th, 2024. Mm-hmm. And really got approved until, we got, we closed the permit on August 1st, 2025. I was in contact with Mr. Scott. It was a little difficult to get the permit because it is, it's a townhouses, they have a patio on the back. Mm-hmm. So the city thought that we were, somebody kind of complained because they fixed the pickets on the perimeter, on the fence. Mm-hmm. So the county thought that we built a new, a new patio, you know, the structure and all that. So they were always getting back to us about, you need a structural foundation and all this. So, but it's very hard when you don't, when you're over the phone or by emails. Right. So like before you go and present the, the plans when it was before digital, you can explain to the reviewer and it's an easy process. But now it kind of lost in, in, in, in translation a little bit. And, but regardless of that, we, we did the work. Mr. I was in contact with Mr. Scott to, to solve the problem. He helped me with the building department. Mr. Dan Gargas had to go personally and see that it was true that it was not a, that we didn't build a patio. Okay. The patio is pre-existing? Mr. It was pre-existing. Yeah. They have a, even a permit from, actually the permit was from, hold on, sorry. The permit was like the nineties when they built the, when the original built the, the property. Right. So, um, we would like to really ask for a reduction. It's, um, financial hardship now. He's been around. So how much money did you spend fixing the problems? Do you know? Uh, yeah. And also we have, last time when we had a, the fine reduction hearing, we actually hired a lawyer because not here and it didn't go well. I don't know what he's playing, but they didn't get the extension. I see everybody gets an extension and I don't know why they didn't get it. So that also went straight to, you know, collecting the fines. When you, when you're saying, was that an extension to get extended time to comply? Yes. Yeah. I think that was a penalty hearing. It was a penalty hearing. Oh, a penalty hearing. Okay. Back when the lien was filed. Okay. When he authorized for lien. I'm sorry. Yeah. And he did it through SUMA. I think SUMA is not a good idea. My opinion is better to come in person. Yeah. I can, I can understand your opinion on that sometimes. Yes. If people know each other already. Yes. It works fine. If you've got a different, I understand the concern. That's, that's positive. Yeah. I'm never going to turn another meeting. Um, or do you have a suggestion for what it should be reduced to? No, really? It's up to you guys. But I mean, I don't want to tell you, but. Well, it's your call. I mean, that's what you're here for. That's your job. Maybe you can. I mean, we, we already paid the, the, the fees. The prosecution cost. And you are compliant. So obviously you wouldn't be here without doing both of those. So, yeah. So basically, you know, I, I, I, you know, it's your ask. So. I would like, if all the fines can be removed is, I mean, that would be. Okay. Great. Yeah. We're like, we haven't hardship collecting rents really like that. Our tenants are also in distress and everybody's complaining about the situation. You know. Now is this, uh, are these, uh, is this low income housing? No. No. Okay. But there's not so expensive the rent and. Yeah. I mean, but yeah, cause there's, there is low income housing where. I understand. Rents are subsidized and stuff. Yeah. Okay. No, it is not. Okay. Does the county have a position? Go, go back through the files and everything. This happened, obviously, before I got here, there was some issues. Was it a deck? Was it a fence? Was it railing? Right. He did go back and forth. It fell through the cracks for, I guess, a year. When he contacted me earlier this year, we had a good conversation and we understood what needed to be done. He came in, he immediately reopened. They had, they had closed out the three permits for lack of follow through. Right. He immediately came in and, and processing did what he needed to do. So there, there was some communication problems over the last couple of years on that. Okay. And another reason, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. Another reason they said that I needed a permit because Alachua doesn't regulate fences. Mm-hmm. But this is like a fence. It was a railing. It turned out to be the railing and they did require a permit. Yeah. So, but we still got the permit. Okay. All right. So there's no, there's- The county doesn't have an objection to a reduction. Okay. Better leave it up to me. Okay. Okay. All right. I appreciate it. Have a good day. You're welcome. Thank you. Terry, we did have a couple come in that came in late. They went to the wrong courthouse. Okay. It's a new business case. Which one? It's a new business case. Okay. We're going to go back to the beginning. Okay. And what's the case number? Was it? Number two, two, four, dash, zero, one. Okay. All right. Do you want to go through the repeat since they weren't here? Have the officer talk about what the county said? Yeah. Okay. Do you want to translate? You're going to have to translate for him? Okay. All right. Would you have him identify himself for the record? My name is Bartolo. My address is 9012 Southwest 106 Terrace, Gatsby, Florida 32608. Okay. Thank you. All right. I'm going to let the county proceed first and then I'll ask you to respond. Okay. Okay. Yeah. My name is Gerald Sapp, code officer for Electric County. In code enforcement case 24014113, the county received a complaint on 11-20-24. Regarding the property that's located at 9012 Southwest 106 Terrace, Gatsby, Florida 32608, Electwood County, Florida, and identified by parcel number 07350-030-004. The owner of the property is Alonzo Bartolo Griguerio. The code administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found that there to be a violation in the following sections of Electric County Code of Ordinances 402.140, improvement of property prior to issuance of building permit. 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 date have determined that the respondent remains in violation of the said Electric County Code sections. My last inspection of the property was on 8-19-25. I have good service of notice and statement of violation to respondent sent by the certified mail receipt 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 violations. The photographs being presented were taken by myself and accurately reflect the violations. So what is the nature of the violation? It's building a shed. Building a shed. Okay. So that's what I'm trying to get because it can be many things. Yeah. I mean, I assume the shed is larger than the exemption because the shed is below a certain size. Yes. My understanding about the building department, yeah, it's bigger than the allotted size that it should be. Okay. Yes. Okay. And so you're asking what, for 15 days? Yeah. I've been doing this close to a year and I've done a post and I did a post extension. I posted the front gate, back gate, and just never gotten to it. And so to bring it into compliance, what would they have to do? Get a permit? Permit. That's it. Just get a permit or get it demolished one or the other. Yeah. Or removed. Or removed. Yeah. Okay. All right. Excuse me. I need to be sworn in before I translate form. I thought you were already sworn in. Sorry. Please raise your hand. Oh, that's right. You need to swear him in. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in this case is the truth and the whole truth? Yes. Oh, he needs to be sworn in too. Oh. I thought you were already here sorry. Mm-hmm. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give in this case is the truth and the whole truth? Yes, I swear. All right. So what can he tell me about the shed? He built that. You didn't first do a rempli that he called out, what name is up to Terry Jackson. He built that. Yeah. I didn't. He didn't realize he needed a permit for that, but he is going to buy one. Yeah. He realized now he needs to Get a permit. permit I asked him if he's got filled out the paperwork okay he said the other one is there but he knows he needs to okay he's going to remove it he knows he now needs a permit for demolition but then he just removes it it would not be demolition he could I mean to remove it completely and then he's just buying another new shed and he realizes he needs to get a permit for that shit if it's larger than the exemption so that's the question yeah because it before when about the pulper there was like a small shed behind the trailer but the things that since I moved and I got a lot of furniture stuff stuff like that and when it usually way like who gave me this one's a lot sometimes and when it went it like wound all of my furnitures my sofa stuff like that that's why I didn't really like do an investigation or like I really double check about if I need a permit before like putting that shed it's a 15 feet by 16 feet so it's kind of like yeah that's exceed exceed I think it's what I see 10 by 10 by 12 or 10 by 10 by 12 but I didn't like do any any of that like I didn't like check it out to see if I didn't need to know until I got the paper but I don't live right here in Gainesville anymore it's my family that lives here I'm on Jacksonville living right now my partner's right there so it's like for work I move up right there in Jacksonville so I don't usually come along right here in Gainesville and they haven't received the paper but then like sometimes my brother or my mom forget to send me the paper I don't tell like I got like the notice and saying like hey I need like to be on on this notice and I come to the oh the last you know he went to the city of Alachua instead of the county of Alachua that's it only in this county do we have a city named for the county so I'm trying to get a permit so they told me to remove that one so now I kind of already kind of like purchase a shed it's bigger but they got a permit for it yeah well that if you buy a shed a lot of times they come with the engineering and it's easy to get a permit for them because it's already been qualified and in this case I need to let him know when you buy the shed before you have it set you need the permit and you need to make sure it meets the rear and the side setbacks right very important on those even yeah so I I would recommend that he actually get somebody from the county come out and make sure that where you want to put it is going to be compliant the reason that I haven't removed it is just because since I got all of my I tried to save some of my stuff and it's still got a lot so I put it inside right there and I don't got enough room to put inside their mobile home that's why I haven't removed it so I'm just waiting for like the new shed approaches in that permit I went to try to get a permit but they didn't approve it because it didn't say they didn't show like a digital like who are the creator of the thing he didn't meet the setbacks in the rear so I'm telling him that before he buys and has that shed delivered he needs to make sure along with the permit that he meets the side and rear setbacks or it didn't set back from the house too he says he's on an acre but again it depends on the subdivision and the address and then we need to look it up and then we need to go back to them to get the permission so they can get the permission so I can do the permit and then I can get delivered we're Alachua County and the building department that'd be us through the building department I can take you and show you down there but he's the inspector and we'll before you leave we'll get your phone number for the inspector because no not in your family no I'm your mouth no I'm the owner and I didn't like really hear much information about it but so the question for you the county is offered 15 days what do you think it would take reasonably for you able to get the permit it's been already almost five weeks that I purchased it because it was gonna be six weeks to get delivered so as soon as I'm gonna get all of the it wouldn't be the delivery we went how long would it take to get the permit no quieres que te lo llegan a tu casa porque si no tiene permiso no lo pueden poner ahí pero antes que ellos te lo lleven a tu casa primero esperas que usted tiene ese permiso en su mano ok so que no te lo lleven a tu casa para lo stop it y también la pregunta que él te está haciendo es cuánto cuánto tiempo tú piensas usted piensas porque no es fácil que tomar para hacer todo ese proceso o sea contando comprándolo también el proceso para hacer el permiso con el condado va a ser más de 15 días eso es la pregunta que te está haciendo cuántos días o semanas necesitas para que todo está te quiere dar suficiente te quiere dar suficiente tiempo vas a tener que pagar una multa o si en dólares al día eso eso va a subir por eso te está preguntando eso avisa ese es el tiempo que le tiene que decir cuánto tiempo te va a tomar a lo mejor puede ser 90 días tres meses uno tiene porque depende donde podría ser 90 días para lo que tardan que ellos mandarlo y yo tardar en sacar el permiso con ellos he's asking 90 days 90 days sir uh that way he gets my spanish is good enough i'm following he's asking on the deliveries and getting because i told him it makes a difference on the permit too so he needs to stop the delivery until he gets it approved and has that paper in his hand right so nowadays everything is delayed i mean today's society can't have objection to 90 days since he's no okay okay so we're going to give him 90 days okay okay thank you okay anything else all right not a record but close close to 11 10 no okay no okay no okay