Bay County hearing finds several properties in compliance; fines and liens remain for uncorrected site

Bay County code enforcement held a compliance hearing on Thursday, April 17, where county staff reported that most properties on the agenda either were brought into compliance or were in the process of being corrected, while one property remained subject to fines and a possible lien.

The most immediate action involved parcel 0139-800-0000 (letter B on the agenda), where county records show a magistrate previously ordered an initial fine and daily fines for ongoing violations. Kevin Fortson of Code Enforcement told the hearing that the magistrateordered an initial $300 penalty and a $50 daily fine to begin March 19, 2025, with a potential total of $1,550 if the property was not brought into compliance. Fortson said reinspections showed the property remained in violation on multiple dates in March and April and that code enforcement recommended the magistrateenforce that order; the record shows the hearing officer took up code enforcementrecommendations during the April 17 session.

Two properties were found in compliance and had their matters closed. For 6721 Sunrise Drive (case CE 2024-2330), Catherine Ashman, Bay County Code Enforcement manager, said photos taken March 25, 2025, showed the property in compliance; the hearing officer stated, "I will accept the recommendation of code enforcement and find this property. Property is in compliance," and closed the case. For 4437 Garrison Road (case 2024-3333), Ashman told the board that the owner had cleaned the property after the initial hearing; the officer said she viewed photos from March 18, 2025, that showed the property in compliance and closed that case as well.

A separate matter at 903 East 25th Street (case 2024-1328) involved a longer history of citations for a blighted structure. Code Enforcement presented the magistrateorder that had required compliance within 30 days or fines would accrue. The record shows the property was later inspected and found in compliance on March 13, 2025; the inspector reported that siding had been placed on the structure and an affidavit of compliance had been filed. At the April 17 hearing, code enforcement recommended assessing fines for the prior noncompliant period (a $25 daily fine over 144 days, totaling $3,600, plus statutory interest) and the creation of a lien if costs remain unpaid. The hearing officer said she had viewed photos showing the property in compliance on March 13 and accepted code enforcementrecommendations with regard to the property during the hearing.

A compliance hearing for 7116 Brown Road (case CE 2024-2891) also concluded without new penalties. Inspector Thorpe told the hearing that permits and engineering for the property had been submitted and approved and that the owner was addressing the violations. Thorpe said, "They've applied for permits, engineering's been submitted, case review has been done and approved, and they're on their way to hopefully get it fixed." The hearing officer noted that if permits expire or are revoked, the county would schedule another compliance hearing.

What happened administratively

- Parcel 0139-800-0000 (agenda letter B, case 20243022): Code Enforcement presented a magistrate order imposing an initial $300 fine and a $50 daily fine beginning March 19, 2025; inspectors reported continued violations through April 14, 2025. Code Enforcement recommended enforcing the magistrate order and that enforcement costs be recorded as a lien against the property. The hearing officer took up those recommendations during the April 17 hearing.

- 6721 Sunrise Drive (case CE 2024-2330, agenda letter A): Inspectors reported compliance based on photos dated March 25, 2025; the hearing officer accepted the recommendation and closed the case with no fines assessed.

- 4437 Garrison Road (case 2024-3333, agenda letter E): Owner cleaned the property after the first hearing; photos dated March 18, 2025, were viewed and the hearing officer accepted the recommendation that the property is in compliance; no fines assessed.

- 903 East 25th Street (case 2024-1328, agenda letter D): Property had previously been ordered into compliance; inspections showed the property was found in compliance on March 13, 2025 (siding placed; affidavit of compliance filed). Code Enforcement recommended collection of fines for the prior noncompliant period (recommendation presented as a $25 daily fine over 144 days, totaling $3,600, plus statutory interest) and recording costs as a lien against the property; the hearing officer said she had viewed photos showing compliance and accepted code enforcementrecommendations on the matter.

- 7116 Brown Road (case CE 2024-2891): Inspector Thorpe reported permits and engineering had been submitted and case review approved; the hearing officer closed the day's hearing but said the county will schedule another compliance hearing if permits expire or are revoked.

Quotes

- "They've applied for permits, engineering's been submitted, case review has been done and approved, and they're on their way to hopefully get it fixed," Inspector Thorpe said about 7116 Brown Road.

- "I will accept the recommendation of code enforcement and find this property. Property is in compliance," the hearing officer said when closing the matter for 6721 Sunrise Drive.

What this means locally

Code Enforcement continues to use magistrate orders, daily fines and liens to press for cleanup of blighted properties. At the April 17 hearing, most properties were either reported fixed or were in the process of being fixed; at least one parcel remained subject to a previously issued magistrate order with fines and a potential lien if unpaid. The court-like enforcement process means unpaid costs and fines can be recorded as liens against properties, which can affect future owners.

Meeting context and next steps

The hearing officer repeatedly told staff that if permits expire or if owners do not complete required cleanup, the county will schedule additional compliance hearings and pursue fines and liens as allowed by Bay County Code. Code Enforcement staff indicated they will continue reinspections and, where ordered, levy fines and record liens per the magistrate orders.