Bay County magistrate continues and fines multiple code-enforcement cases; several owners ordered to secure permits or face abatement

Bay County special magistrate hearings on Feb. 2025 reviewed multiple property compliance matters, resulting in continuances with deadlines for corrected permits, and orders to assess abatement costs and fines in several cases.

The magistrate told multiple property owners they must obtain required permits or documentation by court-set deadlines or face fines and county abatement. “You have got to address the issues that the building department raises by that date,” the magistrate said during the hearing on the case at 6811 Thomas Drive, continuing that matter to March 12, 2025.

Why it matters: these enforcement actions can lead to immediate fines, daily penalties and, if the county performs abatements, monetary liens against the properties under Bay County’s enforcement authority. Neighbors and property buyers can be affected by abatement liens and demolition actions.

Most consequential outcomes

- 6811 Thomas Drive (compliance hearing): Investigator Robert Clarkson presented photos and a prior magistrate order finding violations for junk, overgrowth, derelict trailers, unscreened personal property and an unsafe balcony. The magistrate continued the matter to March 12, 2025, and ordered the owner to address building-department requirements (including a temporary egress plan) by that date. Earlier magistrate sanctions included an initial fine of $200 and daily fines of $25 starting after the original order if not corrected; the magistrate reiterated that unresolved issues could lead to abatement.

- 1628 East Ninth Street (third compliance hearing): Code enforcement reported an incomplete demolition/repair permit application submitted Feb. 10 and additional documents (product approval/energy forms) were outstanding. The magistrate gave the owner until Feb. 21, 2025 (end of day) to submit all paperwork Builder Services needs to issue a permit; if not submitted, a $100 initial fine and $15 daily fine would begin and the case was set for another hearing on March 19, 2025.

- 606/608 Lagoon Oaks (unsafe structure/demolition): The magistrate recounted a previously-issued demolition permit that had expired. The owner requested time to secure a licensed demolition contractor and a valid permit. The magistrate directed that a demolition permit must be obtained by the end of February 2025 (permit preferably pulled by a licensed contractor); if no permit is pulled, the item will be returned to the docket on March 12 for possible county-initiated demolition or abatement.

- 1109 Sixth Street (unsafe/unfit structure): Building inspector Scott Thorpe presented photographs showing severe structural decay and missing floor areas. The magistrate referenced the prior 60-day compliance order and found the property noncompliant at this hearing; the order authorizes county abatement and imposes an initial fine of $100 if the order remains unfulfilled, with abatement costs to become a lien if incurred.

- Multiple abatements ordered and costs assessed: For properties taken to county-contracted abatement earlier in 2024, the magistrate issued second orders assessing abatement costs and fines that will become liens if recorded. Notable amounts recorded at the hearing: - 2304 E. 304th Place: county abatement cost assessed at $4,901 plus a $100 fine (both subject to statutory interest and lien recording). - 12232 Harrington Road: county abatement cost assessed at $5,800 plus a $100 fine (subject to interest and lien recording). - 1827 Hedgewood Way (accessory structure): county abatement cost assessed at $1,491.91 plus a $500 fine (subject to interest and lien recording).

Other items and scheduling

- Cases where property owners demonstrated progress (yard cleanup, roofing contractor pulled preliminary permits) were continued to Aug. 13, 2025, to allow permits and inspections to proceed; the magistrate and staff will cancel the hearing if permits are finalized before the scheduled date.

- For several cases code enforcement emphasized that permit review remains incomplete because applications lacked required engineering, product approval sheets, signed energy forms or other supplemental documents. Investigators repeatedly instructed owners to work with Builder Services and to submit revised construction documents and written responses addressing the building department’s plan-review comments.

What the owners were told to do

Owners were repeatedly instructed to: 1) contact the building department (Builder Services) to learn exactly what supplemental documents are required; 2) ensure demolition or repair permits are pulled by licensed contractors where required; 3) provide temporary safe egress solutions (for second-floor doorways affected by deck removal) while plans are under review; and 4) meet the magistrate’s deadlines or expect fines, daily penalties and possible county abatement with liens.

Court and administrative context

Bay County code enforcement cases in this hearing relied on Bay County Code section 17-2 (property maintenance / unsafe or unfit structures). The magistrate repeatedly cited the authority to assess abatement costs and to record liens under the county’s Uniform Assessment Collection Act (chapter 21 of the Bay County Code).

Ending: several owners obtained short continuances but were given firm deadlines; owners who do not secure permits or submit required paperwork by the dates set risk fines and county abatement, which can create liens on their properties.