Bay County special magistrate authorizes abatements and fines for multiple property-code violations

The Bay County special magistrate held a compliance hearing on Aug. 11–12, 2025, and found a series of residential parcels in violation of Bay County Code section 17 (property maintenance), authorizing county staff or contractors to abate the violations and imposing fines and liens where specified.

The magistrate found violations ranging from junk, derelict vehicles and overgrowth to unfit or unsafe structures. Inspectors testified that many properties remained noncompliant after magistrate orders issued on July 10, 2025. Where inspectors had engineering reports or permit activity, the magistrate in some cases gave owners additional short deadlines to obtain permits; in other cases the magistrate imposed fines and authorized immediate abatement.

Key actions and orders

2038 Ballpark Road (Item D): Tim Justice, senior investigator for Bay County Code Enforcement, introduced photographs and testified that the property remained in violation for junk, appliances, overgrowth and unscreened personal property after a July 10 magistrate order. The magistrate found the respondent failed to comply with the July 10 order and determined an initial fine of $200 and a daily fine of $25 had accrued through the Aug. 11 reinspection; the county is authorized to enter and abate violations and place abatement costs and fines as liens on the property. Justice noted the parcel is scheduled for a tax-deed sale on Sept. 30, 2025. Frederick Brugge, who identified himself as present on behalf of the property, said he was removing the trailer and its contents the afternoon of the hearing: "I've got the junk stuff cleared up. I'm actually taking the trailer this afternoon, taking it and getting rid of everything on it, and then I've got almost everything cleaned up."

930 West Pearson Drive (Item F): Inspector Scott Thorpe testified the July 10 magistrate order found the structure unfit and unsafe as well as in violation for junk, debris and overgrowth. Southeast Consulting Engineers provided an engineering report concluding the primary structure is overall in good condition but that a damaged addition/sunroom needed repair or removal; no permit application had been filed as of the Aug. 11 reinspection. Owner Eddie Walker said he had retained engineers and planned to obtain permits but missed the magistrate's 30-day deadline; he told the magistrate he had been out of town for family matters. The magistrate found Walker failed to comply, authorized county staff or contractors to remove overgrowth and debris, imposed a $1,000 fine, and set a deadline of Sept. 9, 2025, to obtain required building or demolition permits for structural corrections. The magistrate scheduled a compliance hearing for Sept. 10, 2025, and told Walker: "September 9, it's gonna shut down. Your window will close."

9407 Indian Bluff Road (Item H): Inspector Thorpe summarized a long history beginning in December 2024, including tornado damage and transient activity on the parcel. The magistrate noted an earlier July order requiring payment of $3,300 (asbestos survey and contractor mobilization) and that Coastline Engineering and Construction had provided an engineering letter. Owner Mr. Savage said he had removed roughly 20,000–30,000 pounds of trash and retained a general contractor; he said engineering drawings were in hand and a permit packet would be submitted the week after the hearing. The magistrate continued the matter to Sept. 17, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. for follow-up on permit submittal and remediation progress.

13210 Sherry Lane (Item A): Investigator Rick McKinnon presented photographs showing derelict vehicles, trailer loads of trash and overgrowth that remained after a July 10 order. The magistrate found the respondent, Angela Batson, had adequate time to comply but failed to do so, authorized abatement by county staff or contractors, and imposed an initial fine of $200 plus a daily fine of $25 for up to 15 days; abatement costs and fines will become liens on the property.

7514 Jefferson Avenue (Item B): The magistrate noted the property had been sold at tax-deed auction on July 15, 2025, and the new owner (James Bacak, Seashore Properties representative) promptly corrected overgrowth. Based on photographic evidence and testimony, the magistrate found the property in compliance and waived fines that had applied to the prior owner for repeat violations.

7401 Wiregrass Boulevard (Item C): Investigator Tim Justice presented photos of a vacant lot with multiple derelict vehicles, an accessory structure and unscreened personal property. The July 10 order required removal of junk and derelict vehicles; the magistrate found the respondent failed to comply. The magistrate imposed an initial fine of $200 and a daily fine of $20 for 20 days, and authorized county staff or a contractor to enter and abate violations; abatement costs and fines will be liens on the parcel.

1119 Fourth Street (Item E): Justice testified photographs show appliances, junk and unscreened personal property on the subject lot. A tenant provided a photo indicating some appliances were removed, but reinspection on Aug. 11 found remaining junk and unscreened property. The magistrate found the respondent failed to comply with the July 10 order and authorized abatement, imposing an initial fine of $200 and a daily fine of $25 for 20 days; abatement costs and fines will be liens.

8813 Fremar Avenue (pre-bid cleanup / item unnamed): Inspector Scott Thorpe described a dilapidated mobile home and two accessory structures with unsecured pool and extensive interior and exterior damage and vagrant activity. The July 10 order gave 30 days to comply or face a $1,000 fine; the magistrate found the property remained in violation, imposed the $1,000 fine, and authorized county staff or contractors to abate the unfit/unsafe mobile home and accessory structures, with abatement costs and fines to become liens.

2601 Beach Street (Item I): Brandon Erwin, Bay County code enforcement, presented photos of junk, a damaged shed, overgrowth and on‑site personal property. The magistrate found the respondent remained noncompliant after the July 10 order and imposed an initial fine of $300 plus a $50 per-day fine for 25 days; county code enforcement or a contractor is authorized to abate violations and recover costs as liens. The magistrate noted that county staff may use assistance from the Bay County Sheriff's Department for abatement where necessary.

The magistrate repeatedly instructed staff to document post-abatement conditions with photographs and confirmed that abatement costs and fines become liens on affected properties. For several cases the magistrate set follow-up hearings on Sept. 10 or Sept. 17, 2025, to review permit filings or to consider final compliance. Multiple owners said they had retained engineers or contractors and expected to submit permit packets in the coming days or weeks.

Quotes and attributions in the hearing were limited. Investigators presented photographic evidence and magistrate findings were issued from the bench. The magistrate summarized findings on multiple properties: "...the respondent was given adequate time to correct the violations and has failed to do so," and in some cases, "...code enforcement staff or any contractor hired by the county is hereby authorized to enter upon the premises and abate any and all violations then found to exist." The statements above are drawn from testimony and orders introduced into evidence at the hearing.

The county will record abatement costs and fines as liens where assessed; owners who obtain the listed permits and demonstrate remediation before the next scheduled hearing may avoid further enforcement or additional fines per the magistrate's orders.

For details on each parcel (inspection dates, fines and next hearing dates), see the structured actions and provenance data accompanying this report.