The Bay County special magistrate on Oct. 15, 2025, found a series of properties in violation of Bay County Code and authorized county staff or contractors to enter the premises to abate violations, imposed or confirmed fines and set follow-up dates for a number of cases heard at the Bay County Government Center.

The cases involved unsafe or blighted structures, derelict vehicles, junk and overgrowth. The magistrate repeatedly said county abatement costs and any imposed fines would become liens on the owners’ real and personal property under the Uniform Assessment Collection Act and chapter 21 of the Bay County Code.

Why this matters: County-authorized abatement can result in contractors removing structures or debris and creating liens that follow the property rather than only the current occupant. Residents and property owners at the hearing raised timelines, probate and possession questions, and several speakers said they were working to secure permits or contractors to remedy the problems.

The magistrate’s rulings and directions by case (addresses as recorded in the hearing):

2109 Bento Court — The magistrate noted a prior order requiring the respondent to remedy an unfit mobile home and accessory structures. Attorney Richard Schenck, representing property owner James Minshew, told the magistrate that “he has affirmatively signed a contract with MK Weber to get some engineering plans and start the abatement process.” The magistrate said that once a signed contract is in place he would not object to an extension for engineering and set a status return for Nov. 19 at 1 p.m. The magistrate directed staff to monitor progress and said, “Put as much squeeze on Weber as you can to get them to expedite this thing.”

7113 Timber Run Road — Inspector Chris Hubbard testified the parcel had multiple derelict vehicles, three RVs and a vehicle in the woods. A friend of the owner told the magistrate the owner, Phyllis Hand, is incarcerated and expected to be released in mid-November. The magistrate found a violation of Bay County Code section 17-2 for derelict vehicles, authorized county entry to correct the violations if they are not removed within 10 days, and imposed no initial fine but a daily fine of $10 that would run for 20 days following the 10-day compliance period; any costs would become a lien on the property.

6701 E. Fifth Court (presented by Joseph Paul Comix) — The magistrate reviewed prior orders finding the primary structure and accessory structures unfit and noted that asbestos surveys and a bidding process may delay county abatement. The magistrate initially said he would reduce a $1,000 fine to $100 in light of partial corrections; later in the hearing the magistrate stated the fine had been waived at this session. County staff was authorized to initiate abatement steps, including an asbestos survey, and any abatement costs would be recorded as liens if incurred.

5025 Orange Avenue — The magistrate described similar findings of unfit structures, junk and construction debris; the case file included photographs and prior orders requiring compliance. The magistrate authorized county staff to proceed with abatement steps and said the cost of abatement would become a lien in public records; the hearing record shows the initial fine had been waived at this session.

8119 Zula Avenue (Brandon Sheffield) — Inspector Thorpe testified the owner had applied for demolition but had not paid for or received the permit. Sheffield said he had ordered windows and was arranging materials. The magistrate waived the $25 initial fine but imposed a $5-per-day fine beginning Oct. 11 until Sheffield provides the product-approval code and secures a window permit; the magistrate also authorized county cleanup and said the county could cancel pre-bid work if the property is cleaned before bidders are engaged.

7521 Harvey Street — Inspector Chris Hubbard said the property featured storage of RVs and other vehicles on a vacant residential lot, in violation of the county Land Development Regulations (LDR) 405. The magistrate found the respondent had been given time to comply, authorized county abatement and ordered an initial $200 fine and a $25 daily fine for up to 20 days if compliance is not achieved; abatement costs would be liens.

4929 Deerwood Avenue — Inspector Thorpe described unfit accessory structures, an unsafe pagoda built without permits, appliances and overgrowth. The magistrate found the respondent had failed to comply, authorized county abatement, and imposed a $200 fine; abatement costs and fines would become liens.

8825 Firebird Lane — The magistrate found an unfit, unsafe mobile home and accessory structure, noted damage and a collapsed deck, and said the respondent had not submitted engineering or permit applications. The magistrate authorized county abatement and recorded that previously imposed fines and any abatement costs would become liens; the record indicates a higher fine amount was contemplated in the earlier order.

2315 Allison (Lisonbee) Avenue — Inspector Thorpe described a large collapsed accessory structure and overgrowth. The magistrate found the property remained in violation, authorized county abatement and confirmed a $1,000 fine in the prior order; abatement costs would become liens on the property.

2211 Crooked Oak Court — Inspector Thorpe described two unsafe accessory structures behind a primary mobile home. The magistrate found the respondent had not complied, authorized county entry for abatement with a $100 initial fine (as recorded in the hearing) and said abatement costs would be liens on the real and personal property.

Discussion versus decisions: In several cases owners or representatives described efforts to obtain engineers, contractors or permits and asked for time; the magistrate routinely distinguished progress-oriented continuances (for example the Nov. 19 status date for Bento Court) from formal abatement authorizations and fines. Where owners presented signed contracts or permit materials, the magistrate permitted reasonable time for engineering and permitting; where compliance had not been achieved and complaints persisted, the magistrate authorized county entry and lienable abatement costs.

Next steps: County code-enforcement staff will proceed with asbestos surveys, pre-bid activities and contractor selection where required. Several matters returned for status on Nov. 19 at 1 p.m.; others proceed to county-sponsored abatement with costs to be recorded as liens in the public records.