OCALA, FL (352Today.com) – A local property owner told Ocala City Council that code enforcement fines stemming from the removal of declining trees nearly disrupted the sale of a separate parcel, even after staff had discussed resolving the issue through a pending site plan.
Clay Albright, representing ROC Holdings, addressed Ocala City Council during public comment at their August 4, 2026, meeting and said his client spent about $40,000 landscaping and improving a medical office building at the corner of Southeast 17th Street and Southeast 11th Avenue, a former doctor’s office now associated with an orthopedic group. As part of the work, trees that were dead or dying and posed an insurance risk were removed.
Code enforcement cited the property for removing the trees without a permit. Albright said the company attended multiple meetings and two code enforcement hearings. At the most recent hearing, which included the company’s engineer and landscape architect, staff agreed the replacement trees could be incorporated into a new site plan already in preparation. That plan also calls for expanding parking on an adjacent vacant lot with connectivity to 11th Avenue.
Albright presented a date-stamped plan from April and said the parties left the hearing with a shared understanding that the tree issue would be handled as part of the new site plan once it moved forward.
Despite that discussion, the company was assessed daily fines that accumulated for roughly a month. Albright said the fine notices were mailed to the address on file, which had been invalid for two years, so the company never received them. The unpaid fines created a cross-attached lien that threatened an unrelated property ROC Holdings was scheduled to close on that week.
“We didn’t get the notification because it went to the wrong address,” Albright said.
“There was no sympathy, there was nothing, no compassion whatsoever,” he continued.
Ocala City Manager Pete Lee told the council he had spoken with Albright earlier and could not reverse actions already taken by the code enforcement board or magistrate. He said the engineer had not yet formally submitted a restoration or site plan for the doctor’s office property, noting the engineer was still waiting on a survey.
Growth management director for the City of Ocala Jeff Schrum said during the meeting that he had just received word from the code enforcement manager that an agreement was already in place to release the cross-attached lien once prosecution costs, described as less than $300, are paid. That step, Schrum said, should allow the pending sale to proceed while the underlying compliance issues are addressed separately.
Councilmember Kristen Dreyer asked whether the daily fines themselves would be waived. Schrum clarified that only the cross-attachment of the lien was under discussion at that moment; the company would still need to work through the normal process of coming into compliance and seeking any fine reductions from the code enforcement board.
Lee described the original trees as having been planted when the building was constructed roughly 25 years ago. He said the trees had been visibly declining and that removal without updating the site plan is a violation the city routinely works through. He noted the engineer is familiar with the site constraints, including tight curb lines and existing infrastructure, and that the new parking lot plan offers a way to resolve the tree requirement at the same time.
Albright used the remainder of his comments to voice a concern about local code enforcement culture.
“I do want to say something publicly, as being on the receiving end of your code enforcement violations on numerous occasions. You have a group of people who have got very arrogant, and I’ll repeat, arrogant personalities. The general public needs some relief from your code enforcement body. We have nowhere to turn. We have nowhere to question. We have nowhere that, if you question anything with these code enforcement officers, they will slap a file on you so fast, and there’s nobody you can plead your case to,” Albright said.
“I would urge the commission, the city council, to at some future point in time, please establish some sort of a board that oversees your code enforcement commission because there’s nobody that they’re answering to is the bottom line, and something needs to be done. This has been going on for years,” he continued. “The general public is tired of it. I can tell you firsthand, there are things that I think are warranted out there from a code enforcement violation. There are other things out there that are totally just nonsense, and you can’t reason with these people. You can’t have an intelligent conversation. I have always lived by the rule that reasonable people can find reasonable solutions to reasonable problems. You cannot have a reasonable conversation with anybody on the code enforcement department.”
Ocala Public Information Officer Greg Davis addressed how the city ensures consistency and coordination in code enforcement.
Davis said decisions are based on the City of Ocala Code of Ordinances, Florida Statutes, and the specific facts of each case. The same standards and procedures apply regardless of the property owner, neighborhood, or location, he said.
“Code enforcement cases are documented throughout the enforcement process and are subject to supervisory review,” Davis said.
When a case reaches a hearing, it goes before the Municipal Code Enforcement Board or Special Magistrate under Florida Statutes Chapter 162, providing an additional level of review before fines can be imposed.
On coordination with other departments, Davis said Code Enforcement works with the appropriate city staff when a violation involves permits, applications, inspections, site plans, or related actions. That information is considered when evaluating the case. Property owners are also encouraged to stay in contact with their assigned inspector and provide documentation of ongoing efforts, so the department has current information.
Regarding how the city decides between warnings, extended compliance time, citations, and daily fines, Davis said the action depends on the circumstances of each case. Factors can include the nature and severity of the violation, whether it presents a health, safety, or welfare concern, whether it is a repeat violation, the property’s compliance history, and the time reasonably needed to correct the issue.
“For many first-time violations, property owners are provided a reasonable opportunity to voluntarily correct the issue before the case proceeds through the formal enforcement process,” Davis said.
Daily fines are not automatic; when authorized, they may be imposed by the board or special magistrate based on the case.
On the question of daily fines continuing while a property owner is actively working toward compliance through a pending permit or site plan, Davis said documented efforts, including pending permits, site plans, inspections, or contractor activity, may be considered. However, submitting an application or starting the permitting process does not by itself bring a property into compliance.
“If a case is already subject to an order establishing a compliance deadline or daily fine, that order remains in effect unless it is modified by the appropriate authority,” he said
Property owners are encouraged to keep code enforcement informed of their progress. The city’s overall goal, Davis said, is to achieve compliance with city codes.
Davis added that consistency does not require every case to follow an identical timeline or produce the same outcome. Each case is evaluated on its individual circumstances, including severity, compliance history, life-safety issues, permitting requirements, and the time needed to achieve compliance, while applying the same ordinances and procedures citywide.
In Albright’s case, city officials indicated the cross-lien issue could be resolved in time for the scheduled closing once the prosecution costs are paid. The tree and landscape compliance remains open pending formal submission of the site plan and any subsequent request to the code enforcement board for relief from the accumulated fines.