Go ahead and call this hearing to order. Statement to read this morning. Welcome to the September 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 on various 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 procedure we'll follow today is that Gina, our secretary, will call the case. County staff will present its case. The respondent shall have the opportunity to present its defense in the case. I will make a decision at a future date, and the respondent will be notified by mail of that decision. All persons testifying today will do so under oath or 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. If you have a cell phone, please silence it or turn it off so it doesn't interrupt the proceedings. And if all those parties or persons planning on testifying today, please stand, and we'll have you all sworn in at one time. Please raise your right hand. 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? Okay, you're welcome to be seated. So what we will do is we have a number of cases that have been withdrawn or in compliance today, so she's going to call the cases. And then if it's been withdrawn and you're here for that case, you don't have to stand anything. It's no need for anybody to testify to that. So, okay, go ahead and call case number one. Case number 24-013836 has been withdrawn. Okay. Second case? Case number 25-006854, Alachua County v. Santelman-Searcy-Dancy. Okay, is somebody here representing the respondent? Okay. We'll have you speak at this podium over here, but first the county is going to present its case. Good morning. My name is Chris Bover, Senior Environmental Specialist with the Alachua County Department of Environmental Protection. In September 24, 2024, during routine desktop review of aerial imagery on the neighboring parcel, I noticed potential unauthorized clearing of vegetation on parcel number 16357-000-000, located at 714 Southwest Wackahuta Road, McAnopee. Here is an image from May 2023, showing the before conditions. It's kind of hard on the slide, but it's basically showing 100% canopy cover. And here is the March 2025 imagery, showing the cleared area. And you'll notice the brownish area to the northeast side, that is a wetland marsh. And then there's an unmapped wetland to the south of the cleared area and within the cleared area. The courtesy letter was mailed to the property owner, Ms. Searcy Denise Santelman, highlighting a potential violation and requesting a site visit. On 10-1-2024, staff met on-site with the owner and her contractor to discuss the unauthorized driveway through the wetlands and wetland buffer, in addition to unpermitted clearing of approximately 1.25 acres of regulated natural resources. This image and the photographs being presented were taken by myself and accurately reflect the violation. This is the driveway we're looking from Wackahuta Road into the property. The limelocked road went partially through a wetland, partially through a flood zone. Here is a site visit image from October 24, showing the cleared area. This is standing on the western property and looking into the property of the cleared area. This is a more recent photo from August of 2025, looking from more or less the eastern side, looking towards that western boundary to show the recovery of native vegetation in that cleared area. And I'll explain why that's important here in a little bit. EPD initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Alachua County Code. The notice of violation was sent certified mail on July 7th to the address on record that included corrective actions. The notice was also posted on the property on August 1st, 2025. Ongoing inspections conducted to date have determined that the respondent remains in violation of the said county code sections. My last inspection was on August 29th, 2025. I've had good service and statements of violations sent by certified mail and posting. Copies have been provided to the magistrate. I request that they be entered into evidence with the following amended corrective actions. So some of the initial corrective actions on the NOV have been partially completed and some no longer apply due to the direction they're taking with their development plans. Okay, so which of those no longer apply? So number one was to provide a survey showing potential development, including the lot split, and then all impacts to the wetlands and wetland buffers. So they've had a wetland survey done, and they submitted a pre-application screening into CitizenServe for their development plan and submitted updated survey with the road and some of the wetland delineation points on their survey. So that one's completed in part. I think the rest of it can be addressed in their pre-application screening requirements for their development plan. And then I'll submit updated corrective actions for the wetland impacts in a moment. So number two on the NOV was also completed in part, and that includes information required on development plan that can also be addressed in the pre-application screening. And then the rest of them are no longer applicable, and they involve, like, if the shared driveway for the parcels that can't be done, then do this. Okay, so what I have on my form here is a current county seeking violation of 406.02, 406.100, 406.41, and 406.43. And I assume the rest of those that you cited are ones that are in partial compliance or not. Yeah, and then there will be, in addition, the tree compliance one would be, apologies. Take your time. The tree compliance one was 406.15, which is unauthorized removal. That required them to submit an after-the-fact tree removal permit, which they did, but it expired in April. There was a mitigation requirement of 10, 15-gallon trees being reflanted. We can also add that as a requirement prior to CO final inspection on their pre-application screening. Okay, but that's still considered a violation at this point? Yeah, because it was unaddressed. You also had mentioned 406.57. 406.57. So that's the flood hazard reduction standards. That involves impacts to the flood zone. So for the part of the road that went through the flood zone, they need to submit a flood-prone area permit, which requires volume-per-volume adjustments for any fill you bring in. So for whatever they brought in for the road, they need to have a compensation basin. And they've kind of shown that on their site plan as well. Public Works did provide some information. Their driveway access was not completely put in front of their property and goes off onto the neighbors, and they've addressed that for a correction to move that culvert and apron over to line more with the property. Public Works, I put that in here, will require that be done prior to any road maintenance or corrections further. And then I think they may need to reapply for that connection permit for the shared common driveway for their parcel split. Okay. Was that a specific code section? That is the 40657. It all falls under that one. Okay. All right. And for our homes, our Public Works will be the... So how much time are you proposing to give them to come into compliance? We would like to seek 30 days for these additional things. If they need more time, we would be open to discussion on that. Okay. And proposed fines, if not in compliance? $250 a day. How much? $250 per day. And then the county would like to recover the prosecution cost of $280, which includes four site visits at $70 a day. Anything else? I do have an image of the wetland delineation. Part of the amended requirements will be permanent protection. The county is willing to go down to the 50-foot minimum buffer, wetland buffer, due to the limitations on developable area on this parcel and the surrounding thing. The blue or dark shaded areas, those are the wetlands based on their consultant wetland line. That straight black line is probably the limit of the northern clearing. CD will require permanent protection via the code of a barrier or permanent fencing along those, that 50-foot buffer part of the code. And I've included in these corrected or updated corrective actions. Anything else? That's it. It's your opportunity to speak. If you want to come up to this podium over here. Pardon? Do I need to swore them? Do you keep the wet? Do I need to swore them again? He's been sworn in. Mm-hmm. Yeah. So if you would identify yourself, sorry, for the record. Yes. Good morning. My name is Sean Brown. I represent Synergy Design, Design, Build, and Development Group. I am the general contractor of record for the new construction. My client is an immigrant from Haiti, legal. She moved here in pursuit of the American dream. Like all of us, we want to own and build our dream house at some point. Unfortunately, when she bought the property, she encountered an unscrupulous contractor who took advantage of her. He actually charged her for three acres to be cleared and cleared 1.23, 1.25, which is to our advantage, of course, because no further damage was done. However, it's brought us to this point where, you know, she is looking to make things right, and we have engaged in environmental consultants as well as George Young surveyors that have gotten us to this point. And I'm currently working with Chris to finalize the site plan and get through the pre-application screening. And, like you said, if you could grant us an additional 30 to 45 days. Well, that's my question. He's asked 30, but from a practical point of view as a contractor, what do you think it can – Our design team needs – Because we'd rather have you not back here because of, you know, you missed a few days. Sure, sure. To be on the safe side, I would say that our design team needs a maximum of 60 days. 60 days. Does the county have any problem with 60 days? We'll accept that. Okay. Okay. Okay. And that's basically it, sir. Okay. Great. Well, thank you for being here. There's really – do the county have anything else at this point on it? None at this point. So my order will put – have in it 60 days for you to come. And please keep in touch with Chris. Yes, sir. You know, we're in hurricane season. Yes. Things happen. If something comes up, you know, let them know because if they're acts of God that we can't control, you know. Sure. That gives you some extra time, okay? Okay. But just don't ignore them. Keep them surprised of what's going on. Yes, sir. Sounds like you are already. But, yeah, just keep that up, please. We can get an updated mailing address. Oh, yeah. If you're both – determination, that'd be great. You can just come up. Please identify yourself. Hi. My name is C.O.C. St. Tillman. I'm the owner. You're the owner. Okay. Yes. Just for the record, I just want to say I did buy the lot, but before I bought the lot, I went to the county building department to ask about it, if there's anything that I should be, you know, suspicious or worried about it before about the lot. But with the survey and anything, there was nothing to say about wetland, just to let you know. In addition to that, yes, I did have a contractor that actually hired a subcontractor to do the clearing. And I spent over $27,000 for the three acres of the – it was supposed to be $30,000, but I didn't pay the last $3,000. So I paid $27,000 just to clear the land. And when I'm asking about the permit, each of them said there was – each of them was supposed to take their permit. So now I'm responsible to actually make sure everything in order. And just, Chris, to let you know, from the day that you told me there was an issue, I've been spending money and been with him and paying everything they tell me as soon as they say, oh, we need to do this, I pay for it for the correction. I was hoping that we didn't get to this point, but we did. And, yes, I never get the letter that you sent to me because the address is wrong. Okay, so can you put on the record what the correct address is? The address is 2332Z Terrace, and we have each, Florida, 33404. Jeannie, did you get that? I don't know if there's any of the proof or anything that I can – you guys want me to show you the check that I paid and the subcontractor that actually cashed the check. I tried to do the right thing from the beginning. Understood. Question for the county. Was there a reason the county didn't cite the contractor since they were obligated? We requested their name and information, but – In addition to that, if there's a way that the county can get things, like if there's a wetland, let the – like, you know, put it out there so people like me won't get on this issue because I went to the county before I bought the lot, and I asked about it. I gave the address and anything just to make sure if there's anything suspicious about, you know, that I should be aware. In addition of the correction that I'm responsible of doing, it was done by the previous owner because the only thing that was done was cleared the lot, but there was some – something that raised up some of the area, but it wasn't done by me, and it was done way back because when you cleared the lot, it was already to that level. I didn't – we didn't do anything except clearing the lot. So you didn't put the road in? Well, we did put the road, but there was a part of it that was ways up with some – It's already filled in. Filling, but it wasn't – Like an old railroad line that used to go through the property? Okay. Very old. Yeah, so it was raised. It would be grandfather existing. Yeah, exactly. Okay, so you're not – they're not responsible for dealing with that. No, just the limerock road section and then the driveway apron. And the limerock too, it was already there, but it is what it is. Yeah, it is. I'm working my best. I'm trying my best to do everything over $60,000 spent already. I'm sorry you got taken by the contractor. Yeah, there are maps and such available for wetlands, but not all wetlands have been mapped in the county. That's the problem. And so unfortunately you got caught in that – and that whole area out there is very wet, actually. It is a big, big problem without putting the wetland map. And we look – only thing I saw was flood zone. Right. But there was no wetland. Right. All right, well, thank you for being here, and it will give your contractor 60 days to come into compliance, and please stay in touch with them, okay? All right. Thank you for being here. Moving on to, I believe now, case number three. Case number 25-006651. Markham, Christopher Lee, Trustee. Michael Williams. Is there someone here representing the respondent? Is there a person here representing the respondent? Markham, Christopher Lee, Trustee. Okay. County, please proceed. Morning. Michael Williams, Code Officer, Alachua County, and Code Enforcement Case 25-006651. The county received a complaint on 6-25-2025 regarding the property located at 3200 Northwest 98th Street, Gainesville, Florida, in Alachua County. And identified by parcels 06234-001-000. The next parcel is 06234-002-002, and thirdly, 06234-005-000. The owner of the property is Markham Christopher Lee. Code administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Alachua County Code of Ordinances. 74.36A, nuisance overgrowth. 74.20A, violations. 357.27A, prohibitions, discharges, and releases. The respondent was not given any time for correction of the violations, as this is a repeat violation. This particular property was cited prior. There's actually four prior cases on record. And so, as a result of that, the property was cited for a repeat, and they were not given any time to comply. My last inspection of the property was conducted on 9-325, which the property was found in violation. I have good service of notices and statements of violation to the respondent set by certified mail receipt. Also, the property was posted. Copies have been provided to the magistrate, and I requested that 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, and I ask that they be admitted into evidence. Also, there's some photos that were taken by EPD here with the county. Those photos will be presented as well. So, these are the photos from yesterday, September 3rd. And I remember this part, so this is a formal golf course, correct? That is correct. In total, with the three lots that actually run contiguous, I'd say I noted that they were probably cut, I'd say, about 20% to 25% in total. There was some attempt being made. Okay, so somebody had been trying to mow the nuisance. Somebody had been given some effort, but not anything substantial. Right. Do you have an idea of how recently that attempt was to cut it? Say that again, I'm sorry. How recently the cutting attempt was? Well, I noticed someone, the first time I noticed someone was out there was Friday of last week is when I noticed. So, it's fairly recent. Yes, fairly recent. And so, these are the photos that were taken by EPD regarding discharges and materials that present as a hazard to the area. If I remember correctly, this was fertilizer and pesticides and herbicides storage area? That is correct. And we do have a representative from EPD available in the event that you'd like for them to provide some additional testimony with regard to what was noted there at the property. Since you didn't take the photos, I would like to let them speak to it. Absolutely, yes, sir. Sir, I remember the last time this case came up, we also had looked at having Florida Department of Environmental Protection also get involved because of the chemicals. Right, exactly. Go ahead and have the EPD person come up. Good morning. Good morning. Excuse me. Good morning. Chris Gilbert, Environmental Protection, has this materials program manager. Mr. Gilbert, did you take the photos that have been shown? No, sir. One of my inspectors, Julie Pocklinton, was accompanied and took all of those photographs while doing the site visit. Did you say Julie Pocklinton? Julie Pocklinton. Yes, sir. Julie from DOT days. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. So, in general, have you had any conversations with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection? Because last time this case came up, obviously the chemicals and stuff is also within their purview as well, too. Correct. To my knowledge, that has not occurred, although I don't have any emails or information that Julie may have reached out and contacted. Okay. All right. That's what I need to know. Okay. Yeah, and we can definitely follow up with them. They do cover eight counties with their division, and that's extremely distant. Yes, sir. Correct. Anything else from the county at this point? We do have representatives from the community that would like to provide some testimony and information to you as well. Go ahead. Please identify yourself for the record. Tim Weissert, 3204 Northwest 105th Terrace. I live in Meadowbrook. Okay. That's a community. Right. This is the residential community that's near and adjacent to the golf course? That is. Okay. I apologize. I was unable to get my PowerPoint to work, but I have a hard copy of that. I'd like to miss every one relative to the property. If you take a look at the video board, the green area is the golf course, and it constitutes about 98 acres. Everything inside that area is Meadowbrook community. We have 277 doors there, 277 places of residence. So the point in showing this is that unlike a lot of places where maybe one or two or three properties adjacent are impacted by a failure to comply with the zoning laws, in our case, we've got 277 people that every day contend with the adverse effects of the maintenance of the Meadowbrook golf course property. Mr. Williams indicated relative this was a repeat violation. Just for a sense of chronology, the golf course was closed in July of 2021. The owner of the golf course walked away and, to the best of my knowledge, has not ever returned. During a period of time there were, as a matter of fact, a year ago today, almost exactly we presented before you, the property was declared a public nuisance, a $500 fine per day was exacted, on top of a $100 fine per day, which had previously been exacted. Since that time, fines in excess of $304,970 have been accumulated. I would like to just point out that from July of 2021 until October of 2024, there were no efforts on the part of the owner of the golf course to do anything. In October of 2024, in response to the public nuisance, the golf course owner contracted with, actually it turns out to be his local realtor, and they began some limited bush hogging. Between that period of time and January of 2025, they completed, and I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, 90% of the bush hogging. They did nothing else. There was equipment that needed to be removed. There was the problem associated with the maintenance buildings and the chemicals, a problem associated with debris, problems associated with the condition of the entrance to the golf course via the community, and nothing has been done. About two weeks ago, we were surprised to find out that some limited bush hogging has occurred. I think Mr. Williams indicated he felt maybe 25%. I wouldn't be so generous, but they did initiate some more bush hogging. So with that, I hope that gives you a sense of the chronology. Just a side, I would appreciate, or thank, and appreciate the help that we've gotten from code administration, Mr. Williams and Mr. Krijuski. Williams presented relative. Yeah, and I don't, it's repetitive, so if you want to flip through them, that's fine. They're in evidence in terms of, from the county's point of view, the nuisance overgrowth. This photo shows the entrance to our community, which are the white fences, and then the fences actually north and south along 98th Street that form the perimeter of the golf course and are owned by the golf course. This is just, I'll show you a series of photos that show the condition of the fences. This is long a main route between 23rd and 39th. People traverse that route every day on northwest 98th Street, and this is what they're subjected to. They see this fence. They would see and up the back and also point out there's a public sidewalk there as well. So you not only, the golf course perimeter is the fence. As you can see, it's impossible to take care of the vegetation because you can't get a bush hog close enough to the fence without some other means of cutting it, and the fence is in such poor condition that it potentially, it's not only objectionable from a sight point of view, but it's objectionable from a walking point of view. People walking could interact with the fence should it further damage and come across the path. Is that a county-maintained sidewalk? Is that a county right-of-way? Yes. This is not a very good photograph, but a year ago in the photographs that I had, I showed you debris from, actually, debris from irrigation shed, demolition, and also some restrooms. There are two places where you can't see this because the vegetation has grown up, but there are piles of debris that need to be removed. The clubhouse view from the street, this is from 98th Street. It's certainly not something that a community would like somebody to see as they came into the community, especially if they're looking to purchase a home in that area. It has an adverse effect upon that. There remains debris in and around the clubhouse. This has been there since July of 2021. Further debris, this is around the clubhouse, a maintenance facility where they used to maintain the golf carts. And this is just a lot of debris that they've thrown out in the area and never collected cans, bottles. This is probably, in my view, one of the most serious problems on the course. You saw the problem with the chemicals. And back when I was here a year ago, I pointed out that I was concerned about children in the area and people accessing. Well, they certainly have done so over this last year. You can see the graffiti on the wall. You can see the graffiti inside the structures. The structures are wide open to children from our community and children adjacent in countryside. You can see that they've been there. They've interacted in some way. This was objectionable to me. I saw this on the doors. This, this, debris, the fertilizer. Some of it's not only the nitrogen, potassium type of fertilizer, but it's ammonium nitrite. And you could actually, with the proper, you could take some, do some bad things. More debris around that facility. Barrels, these actually have fluids in them. I don't know what they are, but they are there. This area, at least, is used. Oil is at least encompassed by a barrier that, should it be compromised, it would prevent the runoff. Another piece of equipment that's been permitted to stay there and decay. This is what the facility looks like as you come up on it. So, again, I feel very strongly about the fact that children have accessed this facility. And they, I'm worried as an ex, as a parent, still a parent, I'm a grandparent. I just really am concerned that we've left that facility wide open. We've got the chemicals there. The kids have obviously entered the facility, are using it as a play area. It's an accident waiting to happen. And I just, I feel strongly that we need to do something. I don't know what it is. I don't know how you get these people to act, but it's a bad situation for our community. I also think that, given that facility, I'm trying to show here that the downhill, pointing back up again to the golf course, the maintenance buildings are right about, and then down at this point here, there's a natural flow that would occur in the event of a serious rain or any rain. And if there was, if the building was compromised from the standpoint of opening up some of those chemicals, it would be possible for those chemicals to move. And this is a picture of the sink. It's located right here. It's actually located in countryside. But you go into this area. This is a wetland area here. And there's actually a small stream that seems to be draining continuously into this wetland area. And the water disappears because there's an elevation to the south and one to the north, so everything channels to the sink. So in the event that there was a compromise of the chemicals in the maintenance building, it would be an adverse effect on possibly the aquifer. Are the homes on wells or city water? Are you on GRU water? We're all, in our area, we're on GRU water. Okay, so there's no wells. No. Just to clarify that. Also, again, a few other things that our community puts up with. We have trees adjacent to us. Remember that from last year? That are on. This one happened to fall recently. This is the, actually he's here today, my neighbor. And the tree, his property is located in this area. Had that tree fallen this way, it would have damaged his property. It fell this way. This was within just the last two weeks. This is a picture of, in another area of Meadowbrook, where branches or large limbs have fallen from the tree and damaged the spouting. Given the fact that we have an absentee landlord, we have no recourse to talk to him to get anything taken care of as we see these things. Another really adverse impact, and these are videos, but the golf course prior to closing down changed the direction of water flow by filling in a path for the water to exit via the 18th hole of the golf course. And as a consequence, water became channeled into a drain area that was not sufficient to take that water. It was never meant to. It was meant to go another direction, but because the golf course backfilled and filled an area and changed the direction of flow, in August of 2022, we had a major flooding event where you can see these are homes. There were actually four homes that were severely damaged, two of which, or three of which, have invalids that live within the homes. And fortunately, there was no problem associated with getting them out and getting them to safety. But in the event that we have another rain event, like we did in August of 2022, we still have a serious problem, and we have no way of dealing with the golf course. The drains come in to the golf course area and then drain across our properties, and then they actually go into that sink that I showed you earlier. So this is a serious problem for us, and I'm not sure how to correct it. We have talked to Mr. Gavret and James Link, and they tell us that short of us doing some, we have no easements, short of us being able to work with the golf course owner, we're really at a loss for what to do, and we're just waiting for another major rain event. It may or may not occur, but if it does, it's created this problem. You can see some more of this. These are actually the homes in Charlestown. You can see the water. They actually went into the backland eyes and damaged the drywall. Anyway, I guess in summary what I'd like to say is the golf courses had the directive from you that they do bush hogging and cleanup a year ago. They did a 90% job on the bush hogging. They even had the audacity to tell code administration, that's all you're going to get. Then we did have during that period of time another case that you'll look at today where a tree that was in danger of falling across a main access road in our community, the code officer gave notification to the golf course owner that there was a safety issue. They, of course, ignored it, or not of course. They ignored it as they have everything, and as a result, the county actually interceded, removed the tree for us, thankfully. Thankfully, again, no one was hurt. And then this most recent attempt at bush hogging confuses me because they've made no efforts in the past to do anything really completely. They did a 90% bush hogging. They didn't clear up the other issues associated with public nuisance. And then they come in and do kind of a half job so far of cleaning up, given the condition of the fence, given the fact that the overgrowth has become so severe that with a bush hog that you would typically use, there's not enough power there to actually cut all the debris. So it's just a serious, ugly situation for us. And I guess just in concluding, I guess you can sense perhaps my frustration, and I think I share the frustration of 277 folks in our community with the fact that we've lived with this since July of 2021. And I'm not sure where we go from here. We are putting together, hopefully, a presentation we may be able to make to the Board of County Commissioners maybe in a month or so. We have some ideas as a community how the course might be used. It's listed now on MLS listing as a golf course for sale. There had been some interest previously to do it, to acquire the property and build on the property. However, the individuals that were looking at it walked away because we actually do have three or four floodplains on the area. So even though it's 100 acres, I can't give you the exact number, but I'm guessing that probably 50% of the community is buildable. The remainder is wetland or floodplain. So we do have some ideas that we do plan on presenting to the Board of County Commissioners relative to the community and our thoughts. We are hopeful of doing that within the next month or two. I guess $304,000 hasn't been sufficient to get the attention of the owner and the realtor. So I guess today my final request to you would be what do we need to do to get his attention? I know you have the ability to exact fines up to $5,000 per day. I would ask on behalf of our community that you give consideration to a very, very severe and serious fine in order for our community to get something done in conjunction with this owner. Thanks a lot for hearing me out. Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to hear from the county on what they propose for appropriate fines in this case. I have the presentation. Yeah, if you want to give that to Gina. I need to hear from the county in terms of penalties that you're proposing. Time is zero for correction. So in view of, you know, this whole situation, the county is asking for a finding of a repeat violation and a fine amount be increased to $1,000 per day and an order for an immediate abatement of the property, you know, where the county would have its contractors go in and abate the property. And in that abatement, in that order, we'd like to be able to address all three issues. So all three violations? Yes. Okay. Anything else? All right. That'll conclude case number three. So you want to call, let's go through, I believe we have a bunch of withdrawals coming up. Case number four, two, five. Yeah, sure. I would like to say that once, if this abatement is undertaken by the county and we've taken care of, then we've got about a three or four month period where we have the nuisance overgrowth occurring and then we go through this process again, I just wonder if there's some way that we can shortcut the process and do something such that we do not have to every three, four, five months come back with another complaint. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Go ahead. Case number 25-0067699, withdrawn. And it's in compliance. In compliance. Number five. Number five, case number 25-007404, withdrawn in compliance. Number six. Case number 25-007449, withdrawn in compliance as well. Seven. Case number 25-007595, withdrawn. And on to case eight. Case number 25-007965, Alachua County versus fearing Randy J. and Judy D., Kelly Poyer. Is there anybody here representing the respondent today? Someone representing Randy Fearing or Judy Fearing. Okay. If you want to have a seat over there, and we'll have you come up and speak after the county presents its case. County. Case 25-007965, county received a complaint on July 31st regarding work without permits. Property is located at 426 Northeast 55th Boulevard, Gainesville, in Alachua County. Identified by parcel number 18-10865-007-000. Owner of the property is Randy and Judy Fearing. Code administration initiated enforcement proceedings and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Alachua County Code. 402.140B, improvement to property prior to issuance of a building permit. The respondent was provided at a reasonable time to correct the violations and notes the violation was sent to the respondent that included corrective actions. Ongoing inspections conducted to date have determined the respondent remains in violation of the set Alachua County Code section. Permits have not been applied for as of September 4th. I have good services, notices, and statements of violation to the respondent sent by certified mail, receipt, or postings. Copies have been provided to the magistrate, and I request that they be entered into evidence. I have had contact with the respondent regarding the violation, which was by email on August 26th. Photographs being presented were taken by myself and reflect the violations and asked they be admitted into evidence. County recommendations that respondent be found in violation of said sections 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. County has incurred $350 in cost in bringing the cakes to hear the hearing. Okay. Anything else going? No, Your Honor. It's your turn. Please state your name and your relationship. Randy J. Fearing. I'm the owner. Okay. My wife and I. So what can you tell me? You may remember me. My son, I bought the property five years ago, and my son, who is a heroin addict, I took him off the street, put him in there. Right now that you mention it, I do. Yes, I do. And I spent the first three years trying to keep him from hoarding, and finally his truck broke down, so he quit hoarding. So we had, four or five years ago, intended to improve the property. It was a house built in 49 and was in pretty bad shape. In October of 2024, why, the floor in the bathroom kind of gave way, and I decided it was finally time since I hadn't had to pay a bunch of all-off junk fees anymore. So my younger son, Kevin, and I started repair, and it started out to be just to fix the floor and get the toilet working again, and it turned into, it kind of snowballed. And I kept finding more and more termite problems, and next thing you know, we're tearing up the floor all over, and then the walls are termited. And so I've actually been, my son and I have been working on it since October, and I'm a chiropractor. I work three days a week, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and I spent Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday working on a house. So I'm tired. I bet you are, especially when you keep uncovering things that you didn't want to uncover. Yeah, one of my patients said, you never, never start on an old house. Yeah, well, that's right, or you never finish an old house. Anyway, the, we had gotten to the point where we determined that the electrical was all chewed up by rats and squirrels and such, and we pulled all that out. And actually, in late, early July, I talked to an electrician because I knew I couldn't do the electrical work. We'd done everything up to that point. And, of course, he said, you know, you really need a permit. And I said, oh, okay. So, the electrician, we hadn't started that yet. Yeah, he's going to have to pull a permit for he can legally do it. Yeah. And so that was about a week later I got the letter from the county, and here I am. Okay, so my question to you is, the county has proposed 30 days to come to compliance, and Kelly, is that to apply for a permit? Yes, Your Honor. So, basically, that's getting down there and applying for the permit, which brings him into compliance, assuming the permit's issued. Correct. So, it's not asking a lot from you to come into compliance, so they've suggested 30 days, and I think that's a reasonable time to apply and get a permit. So, I went down there, and I talked to them, and they said I needed to get an architect to look at it. Architect or engineer, I assume. A PE, and I've spent three weeks trying to find that, and I now have someone. Okay. And I have some information about that, if I can give it to you. Or if you want to put it on the overhead there, they can. So, my question to you is, I want to be able to give you enough time, since it's clear you're trying to do things, want to do things correctly. Yeah. And getting professional involved in time, it takes people a long time sometimes to get all that. I have no idea how long it takes. I've never done this before, obviously. So, he and I are meeting at the site Tuesday, and he has given me these documents showing that I have. So, Kelly, do you have a problem if we give them 60 days, since they've got an architect or engineer trying to do stuff? Okay. So, what I propose is, if you're comfortable with it, we give you 60 days to get you to work with this person and to get that permit applied for them. Okay. I appreciate that. Now, the other thing is, if something happens and out of your control and stuff, you know, don't let it run until the last minute. Keep Kelly involved and let her know what's going on so that she knows, you know, that you're making progress. Because we don't want to have you come back for a violation. Yeah, I'm feeling like a frequent flyer, so I don't really want to be here. I understand. But, okay, so my order will give you 60 days on the end, and it'll come out next week or week after next. It just depends on when we get all the orders done. Anything else that you want? And do you need your documents back? No, that's your copy. Okay, thank you. Kelly, anything from me? I just wanted to state for the record, Your Honor, the photographs were also taken by Building Inspector Mark Banville. So, I just wanted to let you know, sir. Okay, I appreciate that. All right. I don't think there's anything else. All right. Thank you, sir. Thank you for showing up. Yes, sir. All right, let's move on to case nine. Case number 25-006341, Withdrawn in Compliance. Okay. And case number 25-006116, Alachua County versus Randall's Ann Life Estates. Okay. So, is there someone here representing Randall's Ann Life Estate? Okay. Not? Please proceed. Case 25-006116. County received a complaint on June 12th regarding recycling. Property is located at 10308 Northwest 161st Street, Alachua, in Alachua County. Identified by parcel number 04-009-0000, owner of the property is Randall's Ann Life Estate. Courtesy letter was sent giving the respondent 10 days for compliance, after which a notice of violation request for hearing was sent, given an additional 30 days. There has been no contact from the respondent. Code administration initiated enforcement proceedings and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Alachua County Code 75.304C, Recycling Program, from the Solid Waste Violation Section. The respondent was provided a reasonable time to correct the violation, and notice of violation was sent to the respondent that included corrective actions. Ongoing inspections conducted to date have determined the respondent remains in the violation as said Alachua County Code Section. I have good service of notices and statements of violation to the respondent sent by certified mail, receipt, or postings. Copies have been provided to the magistrate, and I request to be entered into evidence. I have had no contact from the respondent regarding the violations. Photographs being presented were taken by myself and accurately reflect the violations and ask that they be admitted to evidence. County recommendation of the respondent be found in violation of 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, and if not in compliance, then pay a fine. The amount of $25 for each day of the violation continues past the date set for compliance. County has incurred $280 in cost in bringing the action to hearing. Okay. Again, there's someone here representing the respondent. Okay. Anything else from me? No, you're on. Okay. So that will conclude case number 10. 11? Case number 25-008270, Alachua County v. Trenton Medical Center, withdrawn in compliance. Okay. Case number 12? Case number 25-008306, Alachua County v. The Common Guys, LLC. There's someone here representing the Common Guys, LLC. Somebody here representing the Common Guys, LLC. No? Ready? Please proceed. Good morning, Your Honor. 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 SM 25-008306, the respondents are the Common Guys, LLC, a.k.a. Blue Sky Holdings. It's the property owner. The Wawa Corporation is the owner-operator of the business on site. On May 30, 2025, I observed the completed installation of a new irrigation system prior to the submission of an irrigation application at the Wawa store, number 5323, located at 4322 Southwest Archer Road, here in Gainesville. The parcel number is 06818-002-00. On June 2, 2025, I mailed a warning letter via certified mail to the physical location on Archer Road and also to the property owner of record and the operating business owner. On June 25, 2025, a notice of violation 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. On July 1, 2025, I received an e-mail inquiry from the Wawa representative and subsequently had phone conversations regarding the NOV and next steps. On July 31, respondent's irrigation contractor submitted an incomplete application, which was also found to be deficient and not meeting code requirements. On August 14, 2025, the review of the application was completed with a re-submission required to address the absent and incorrect information. To date, no further action has been completed by the respondents. As a result of the noncompliance of the application approval process, respondents are operating an unapproved in-ground permanent irrigation system. The staff recommends a finding of guilty to the respondents for Section 77.60, which is irrigation system approval process. We recommend that they immediately discontinue the use of the irrigation system until the application is resubmitted, approved, and passes inspection. That they be given seven days to complete an approved application via citizen serve. That upon approval of the application, the date to which the application is approved, schedule an inspection with EPD staff within seven days to verify the compliance with the code. That they permanently remove and disable the portions of the system that have been installed in excess to the allowable limit, which is up to 50% of the permeable area of the property. That they register the system to comply with Section 77.63F, which requires that the respondent register with the county and submit an annual irrigation system inspection and audit. Further, the county recovered administrative costs of $360.12. Additionally, a fee of $75 per day until compliance is achieved. And that concludes my testimony. Okay. Is there someone here representing the respondent? Seeing none, thank you for your presentation. Thank you. I believe it's the next case, please. Case number 25-004038, Alachua County versus 6500 Southwest 53rd Ave. So, there will be Thomas Thorklinson. So, is someone here representing? So, if you want to have a seat over here by the podium. Good morning. Gerald Sapp, Code Officer of Alachua County. In Code Enforcement Case 25004038, the county received a complaint on 4-23-25 regarding the property located at address 6500 Southwest 53rd Avenue in Elachua County, Florida, and identified by parcel number 06-890-092-000. The owner of the property is Thomas A. Thorklinson. The court administration initiated an enforcement proceeding and found there to be a violation of the following sections of Electric County Code of Ordinances. 74.20 accumulation of junk. The respondent was provided with a reasonable time to correct the violations. A notice of violations was sent to the respondent that included corrective actions. Ongoing inspections conducted to date have determined that the respondent remains in violation of the said Electric County Code sections. My last inspection of the property was on September 3rd, 2025. I have a 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 a contact with respondent several times regarding the violations. The photographs being presented were taken by myself and accurately reflect the violations and acts that the property be admitted into evidence. The county recommendations if respondent be found in violation of the said 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 compliance is not met, then pay a fine in the amount of $75 for each day the violations continue past the date set for compliance. And prosecution costs? $280. All right. Your opportunity to speak over at the podium there? And if you would identify yourself in relationship with your property. I am Thomas Torkelson. And you're owner of the property? Yes. Okay. What can you tell me? Yeah, there's my spot and it got out of hand. I'm a carpenter that brought stuff home all the time. And we had seasonal difficulties, you know, heat, rain, darkness. But Mr. Sapp's a very good guy and came up and was cool and said, just take care of it. So my question to you, they suggested 15 days. Is that enough time for you to get this done? Because I don't want to have you come back for having violated. But, you know, we're not interested in your money. What we want you to do is come into compliance. Yes, sir. Yeah, I thought it was today it had to be done by. So we've just been busting. And he's offering you 15 days. But, you know, if you think you're going to need more, you know. We can always make it look better. But we've tried to make it look like I got it all done. Can he have any problem with giving him 30 days? That's very generous. Thank you. And as you've heard me say before, stay in touch with him as you make progress. You know, if you get it in compliance 10 days into it, you're done. Give him a call. But he can't know that. He can't stop everything until you let him know that. And he can come out and say, yeah, you're done. Thank you. So please. Front yard's clear. And really it's just the porch at this point. Just the porch. Okay. Yeah. Which is visual from the road, of course. Right. Yeah, thank you. Okay. Well, thank you for being here. Appreciate it. Okay. All right. I believe we're moving on to the penalty hearing side of things now. Correct? Case number 24-003202, Alachua County versus Henderson, Nick Frederick. So is Nick Frederick Henderson or Mr. Henderson here? Seen up. Please proceed, County. Good morning. Good morning. My name is Alante Webb, code officer for Alachua County. This case 24-003202 was seen before you on March 6, 2025 due to noncompliance of the notice of violation. A new compliance date was issued for June 17, 2025. And as of a re-inspection of June 25, 2025, it resulted in a property being in noncompliance, which led to the penalty hearing today. As of September 3, 2025, it remains in noncompliance. So the county is asking for a placement of a lien? Correct. Okay. Again, somebody here representing the property owner. Okay. Next one, please. Case number 25-002603, Alachua County versus Jans Robert J. Life Estate. There's someone here representing J. Robert J. Life Estate. Somebody here representing the property owner. Okay. This report with code administration. Case 25002603. I think we lost the microphone there. I couldn't hear. Okay. Go ahead. For some reason. Case 25002603. Guilty but non-incompliance. So they owe a daily fine of $75 a day. Prosecution costs of $350. And total fines $7,250. So we'd like to place the lien on the property. Okay. And I assume fines continue to accrue during that time. Okay. All right. Again, someone here representing the property owner. All right. Next penalty case. Case number 25-001235. Withdrawn. They have paid. Okay. Next case. Case number 25-000728, Alachua County versus Moran Moran. Someone here representing Moran and Moran. Someone here representing the respondent. Go ahead. Go ahead, please. So case 25-000728. They're guilty, not in compliance. So they have a daily fine of $150 a day. Prosecution costs $490. Total fines $21,190. So we're asking for the lien. Okay. And fines will continue to occur until compliance. Yes, Your Honor. Okay. Again, somebody here representing the respondent. Seeing none. Go ahead with the next case, please. Case number 24-001767. Has been withdrawn. Okay. Next one, which I believe is the last one. Case number 25-001447. Alachua County versus Malcolm Christopher Lane. Trustee. Okay. Someone here representing the respondent. Someone here representing the respondent. Okay. County. Case 25-001447. So they're guilty, not in compliance. Daily fine is $100 a day. Abatement fee, $850. Prosecution costs $280. The total fine is $14,530. So we're asking for the lien. Okay. All right. Any further cases? All right. I will call this hearing closed at 10-15.