Bay County orders resident to cleanup hazardous property or face daily fines

The Bay County Code Magistrate Hearing held on April 16, 2025, addressed ongoing code violations related to property maintenance and safety concerns. The hearing focused on a specific case involving a property owner who has faced multiple complaints regarding junk and hazardous conditions on their property.

The proceedings began with the property owner discussing their situation, including a recent fire that had occurred in November, which they claimed posed a hazard not only to themselves but also to their neighbors. The magistrate reviewed previous complaints dating back to October 2024, which led to an investigation confirming violations on the property.

The property owner acknowledged some progress in cleaning up the site, stating that over 70% of the debris had been removed. However, the magistrate noted that much of the remaining junk appeared to have been merely relocated rather than properly disposed of. Photographic evidence presented during the hearing indicated ongoing issues, including hazardous materials and improperly stored items.

The magistrate emphasized that the property owner had been given adequate time to rectify the violations but had failed to comply with the cleanup order issued in March. As a result, the magistrate imposed a fine of $1,200 for non-compliance, with an additional daily fine of $25 starting from April 2025 until the property conditions are corrected. The county is authorized to enter the property to address the violations, excluding the mobile home deemed blighted.

Throughout the hearing, the property owner expressed frustration over the fines and the perceived lack of support, citing personal hardships, including the loss of their husband and the challenges of managing the property alone. The magistrate reiterated the necessity of adhering to local codes and regulations, stating that while the property owner has rights, they must also comply with established rules.

The hearing concluded with the magistrate's ruling, which highlighted the need for continued compliance and the potential for further action if the property conditions do not improve. The case underscores the ongoing challenges faced by residents in maintaining property standards while navigating personal difficulties.