Bay County magistrate orders abatements, fines and short extensions in multiple property compliance hearings

A special magistrate for Bay County on Aug. 13 held a day of compliance hearings across multiple properties, finding several in violation of Bay County Code Chapter 17 and authorizing county abatement, assessing fines and placing liens where owners failed to comply.

The session, presided over by Magistrate Tim Justice, focused on property maintenance and unpermitted structures. The magistrate repeatedly authorized Bay County Code Enforcement staff or a contractor to enter properties and abate identified violations when owners failed to comply with earlier orders. For several properties the magistrate also confirmed that fines and abatement costs will become liens on the real property and on other Bay County real or personal property owned by respondents.

Why it matters: the rulings can trigger county-funded demolition or cleanup contracts, place financial liens on parcels and, for some owners, start a path to foreclosure or county-led demolition if violations are not corrected.

Key outcomes and urgent items

- 1734 Buchanan Street, Southport: The magistrate found the property a repeat offender with an unfit primary structure and multiple accessory violations and authorized county abatement. Inspector testimony and photographs documented structural fire and roof damage, derelict vehicles and accumulated materials. The magistrate noted no engineering permit or permit application had been submitted and that the property is scheduled for foreclosure on Oct. 22, 2025. The magistrate directed that the county may enter and abate violations; related abatement costs and fines will be liens on the property. Inspector testimony flagged that an asbestos survey will be required before a pre-bid for demolition.

- 6422 Rogers Drive: The magistrate found the property in repeat violation for junk, derelict vehicles and appliances and imposed an initial fine and daily fines (initial fine $300 and daily fines of $75 for 25 days as described in the record). The county was authorized to abate, and abatement costs and fines will be reduced to judgment and liened on the respondent's Bay County property.

- 1234 Northeast Avenue: Owner James Atkinson and magistrate exchanged extensive argument about whether commercial zoning and screening allow storage of construction equipment on the lot. The magistrate concluded the presence of construction equipment and certain trailers created an unlawful use under the current C-1 zoning and directed Code Enforcement to consult Planning & Zoning; the magistrate said the equipment must be removed or brought into compliance unless planning and zoning provide a permitted solution, and scheduled a follow-up with a request that the owner provide photographic evidence of compliance.

- 2628 Lory Avenue, Lot B (mobile home): Owner Anthony Wright told the magistrate he had obtained title and was attempting to sell the mobile home. The magistrate found the mobile home an unfit, unsafe unit and, because the owner had exceeded the 30-day repair period, authorized abatement if the unit was not sold or removed by the county’s pre-bid/abatement schedule; the magistrate said the county will proceed with abatement if the unit remains and that costs will be liens.

- 6731 North Highway 231 (Benjamin D. Hathaway): Magistrate Tim Justice found the property in violation (junk/personal property) based on a July 9 order and on inspections. Benjamin D. Hathaway asked for more time citing health problems; the magistrate granted a 15‑day extension and instructed Code Enforcement to reinspect around the county’s upcoming pre-bid date. The original magistrate order included an initial fine of $200 with daily fines of $25 if the respondent failed to comply.

Other findings and continuances

- 9104 North Silver Lake (Wilson): The magistrate found unpermitted additions, demolition performed without a permit, and leftover materials and ordered county abatement authority if the owner did not complete permitted repairs or required removals. Investigators noted that portions of the upper story remained and that engineered structural plans would be required for any remaining large structures.

- 213 El Reposo Place: The magistrate found the property remained in violation for unscreened personal property visible from the street after prior orders and authorized county abatement and liens.

- 6740 Topher Boulevard: Inspector Bruning reported a building permit had been issued on Aug. 4; Code Enforcement recommended continuing the matter until the permit expires or a final inspection is complete.

- 6622 Sunrise Avenue and 6509 Dahlia: 6622 Sunrise was found in violation and abatement authorized after reinspection showed unresolved trash and junk; 6509 Dahlia was found to have come into compliance within the time frames and the magistrate recorded compliance.

What the magistrate directed next

Magistrate Justice repeatedly authorized Code Enforcement to proceed with abatement and asked staff to schedule pre-bid inspections tied to the county’s demolition/abatement calendar. For properties contemplated for demolition, inspectors noted asbestos surveys and demolition permits would be required before bids and before work could start; the magistrate referenced the county schedule that generally delays contract work to start on or after Sept. 15 (as discussed at the hearing) even if pre-bids occur earlier.

Quotes from the hearing

- Benjamin D. Hathaway, the respondent at 6731 N. Highway 231: "I've got a lot of health problems, my heart and my back, but I'm working on this as hard as I can now. I'd like for an extension to see if I can get it all cleared up without having to pay much fines."

- April Deal, identifying herself as the buyer and daughter of the owner at 1734 Buchanan Street: "I'm buying the house. And once I get the house in my name, within a couple weeks, I'm gonna put the roof on."

- Magistrate Tim Justice (on repeated noncompliance and abatement authority): "Therefore, the county, through code enforcement staff or a contractor hired by the county, is authorized to enter upon the property and abate any and all violations previously identified in the order. That the cost of such abatement... will all become liens upon the subject property..."

Ending

Owners who were granted short extensions were told that Code Enforcement would reinspect on or near the county’s pre-bid schedule and that abatements (and associated liens) would follow if cleanup or permits were not in place. Several matters were continued or will be re-inspected pending demolition permits, asbestos surveys or additional documentation from owners or their representatives. The magistrate scheduled follow-ups for cases where Planning & Zoning review or building permit outcomes were needed.