Bay County special magistrate accepts enforcement recommendations for seven properties; fines, abatement costs set

Bay County’s special magistrate accepted code enforcement recommendations for seven properties during a March 13 compliance hearing, ordering deadlines for cleanups, up to $14,795 in abatement costs on two properties and daily fines for continued noncompliance.

The hearing, managed by Tiffany Sawyer, involved staff testimony and property owners or their representatives on cases ranging from derelict recreational vehicles to unfit accessory structures. Code enforcement witnesses described repeated inspections, photographs and prior magistrate orders documenting trash, debris, derelict vehicles, and unauthorized structures.

Code enforcement manager Catherine Ashman introduced the first case, and investigators including Rick McKinnon, Brandon Erwin and Robert Clarkson presented reports and photos for individual properties. The magistrate accepted staff recommendations and set compliance timeframes ranging from five to ten days in most cases, with failure to comply triggering fines and liens.

Votes at a glance:

- Case 20243022 (Parcel 01398-000-000): Found in violation of Bay County Code Chapter 17 for trash, junk, derelict vehicles and unpermitted storage structures. Code enforcement recommended five days to comply, demolition or permit/repair requirements for accessory structures, an initial fine of $300 and a $50 daily fine after five days (up to 25 days) and a compliance hearing set for April 17, 2025. Investigator Rick McKinnon testified that the property showed “unfit, unsafe structures, along with, junk and trash.” The magistrate accepted the recommendation.

- Case HM22-00224 (180 Hitchcock Road): Owner Stile Coatney requested reduction or waiver of fines stemming from earlier violations. Code enforcement reported the property remained noncompliant on a recent inspection. The magistrate declined to change the assessed fines but waived accrued interest and reduced the lien balance to $95; the owner was given guidance on how to proceed with payoffs/abatement payoff calculations.

- Case 19-01393 (7410 Baycrest Road): Owner Randall Smith said he purchased the parcel in 2021 and asked that a previous $1,000 fine be reduced because violations predated his ownership. Staff confirmed there were no pending violations. The magistrate reduced the fine to $25 and waived interest, and staff offered to provide a revised payoff so the owner could pay outstanding abatement and taxes.

- Case 20242330 (6721 Sunrise Drive): Investigator Brandon Erwin testified that repeated complaints documented junk, trash and an occupied recreational vehicle connected to water and utilities in violation of Bay County land-development rules. Code enforcement recommended 10 days to bring the property into compliance, with an initial $200 fine and $25 daily after 10 days; the magistrate accepted the recommendation but allowed code enforcement to grant one five-day extension without returning for another hearing if weather delayed remediation.

- Case 20243333 (4437 Garrison Road): Robert Clarkson described repeated complaints, two or more derelict vehicles (including a recreational vehicle), unscreened personal property and frequent sheriff’s department responses. Code enforcement recommended 10 days to remove junk, trash and derelict vehicles (allowing one registered derelict vehicle only), with an initial $200 fine and $25 daily after the tenth day; the magistrate accepted the recommendation.

- Case HM23-00056 (8014 Westwood Avenue): This property had an earlier magistrate order. Code enforcement reported the county contracted abatement at a cost of $12,995, plus an $800 asbestos survey and related expenses. Staff recommended the respondent be ordered to pay $14,795 plus statutory interest and that the cost be recorded as a lien; the magistrate accepted the recommendation.

- Case 20240340 (515 Sandy Lane): Previously ordered for abatement, the county contracted cleanup at $9,981 and staff reported the property was found in compliance on Dec. 20, 2024. Staff recommended the respondent be ordered to pay $10,781 in abatement and incidental enforcement costs plus statutory interest and that costs be recorded as a lien; the magistrate accepted the recommendation.

Across multiple cases, code enforcement repeatedly advised property owners they must submit permit applications and structural reports where repairs were proposed, and that failure to pay abatement or fines could result in liens under county code. Several individual property owners told the magistrate they faced hardship or disputed liability for preexisting violations; in most instances the magistrate moved only to accept staff recommendations, reduce interest or lower fines in specific cases rather than cancel previously assessed fines.

The magistrate scheduled compliance hearings for April 17, 2025, for multiple matters requiring further review.

Less urgent items: staff and owners discussed logistics (mailing addresses, payoff calculations, and pre-bid posting), and the magistrate emphasized that property owners should remain in contact with code enforcement if conditions or timelines change.

The hearing opened at 9:01 a.m. and concluded at 10:14 a.m.