Walton County magistrate waives fine for Miramar Beach property; three other properties given deadlines or fines

Special Magistrate Hayward Dykes on March 12 presided over Walton County’s monthly code compliance hearing and resolved four cases: he waived a large accrued fine for a Miramar Beach property, and ordered three other properties to obtain permits or face daily fines and administrative fees.

The magistrate’s ruling matters because it ends an accrual of daily fines tied to a post-development order dispute, and it sets explicit compliance deadlines and fines for three separate properties in unincorporated Walton County.

In the first and most contested case, the magistrate granted a full waiver of accrued fines for property listed to Jeffrey Stuckey at 1039 Foreshore Drive, Miramar Beach. Greg Forhand, a code compliance officer, submitted a final summary reporting that a violation under the Walton County Land Development Code (referenced in the record as a post-development order violation) was found on Nov. 15, 2023, and that a $150-per-day fine had been accruing after a compliance deadline in February 2024. Forhand’s summary calculated a 127‑day accrual at $150 per day totaling $19,050. Forhand recommended a 90% reduction to $1,905 and said administrative costs appeared paid.

Attorney Shipman, representing the property owner and noting he also serves as board attorney to the Walton County Zoning Board of Adjustment, argued that the underlying work had been the subject of a variance approved on June 20, 2024, and that county processing delays and uncertainty about an available permit had prevented completing formal compliance sooner. Shipman said, “He never should have been here because there isn't a permit requirement for what he did,” and asked that the fine be waived.

Special Magistrate Hayward Dykes agreed with Shipman’s account and said he would “be going with Mister Shipman's request and reduce this to a 0 fine.” Dykes noted that previously paid administrative fees would not be refunded.

Votes at a glance — other cases

CE24-00878 (Fluffy Landing Road; owners Joelle and Natasha Daniel): Drew Galloway, code compliance officer, reported an active clearing without a required clearing permit in October 2024 and recommended a compliance schedule. The magistrate found a violation of the Walton County Land Development Code (clearing permit provision cited in the record) and ordered the property to obtain a clearing permit or submit an approved restoration/mitigation plan within 60 days (on or before May 12, 2025). If the property is not brought into compliance by that date, a $150-per-day fine will begin to accrue. An $88 administrative fee is due within 30 days.

CE24-00866 (67 First Street, Santa Rosa Beach; owners Jason and Rachel Tibesar): Darnell Bennett, code compliance officer, reported a nonpermitted storage/utility building and ongoing plan review in planning after the owners uploaded documents on Jan. 14, 2025. The magistrate found a violation of the Walton County Land Development Code (storage/utility building provision cited) and ordered the property to be brought into compliance within 60 days (on or before May 12, 2025). If not, a $100-per-day fine will be imposed and a $98 administrative fee is due within 30 days.

CE24-00893 (Lot 24 Quail Park; owners Baller Investment Group LLC and Amy Kirkland): Bennett reported clearing, fill dirt placement and tree removal observed in October 2024 without permits or approvals. The magistrate found a violation of the Walton County Land Development Code (development-approval provision cited) and ordered the property to be brought into compliance on or before April 11, 2025; otherwise a $100-per-day fine will be imposed. A $98 administrative fee is due within 30 days.

Discussion, evidence and procedure

For each case county officers submitted final summary reports and photographic backup into evidence and requested magistrate orders consistent with county staff recommendations. Notices of violation and notices of hearing were mailed or posted as described in the officers’ reports; officers cited Florida statutes governing notice procedures in their reports. In the Stuckey matter, Shipman presented a composite exhibit and recounted the variance history, the engineering measures placed on the property to address roadway drainage and the difficulties obtaining a building or stormwater permit. Forhand recorded that a recorded affidavit of compliance was filed June 20, 2024, which he said ended fine accruals as of that date but left a prior accrual period totaling $19,050.

Magistrate Dykes explicitly distinguished between administrative fees (which he said would not be refunded) and the fine accruals (which he waived in the Stuckey case). In the other three matters, officers and the magistrate imposed compliance deadlines tied to either obtaining permits (clearing permits or development orders) or completing restoration work; each order specified a daily fine and an administrative fee if compliance is not met by the deadline.

What’s next

The magistrate signed the orders and said he would sign them offline; the hearing concluded with the magistrate adjourning the session.