A Bay County special magistrate on Wednesday, Jan. 8, ordered multiple property owners in unincorporated Panama City Beach to submit repair plans and obtain permits within set deadlines or face civil fines and possible abatement by the county.

Special Magistrate Tiffany Sarto opened a series of public hearings on code‑enforcement cases and accepted code enforcement staff recommendations in each matter. The magistrate set compliance deadlines, authorized staff to require structural plans or abate nuisances where the owner failed to comply, and in one case allowed an immediate demolition permit to clear hazardous debris.

Those affected included: the unit at 4823 Hispaniola Street Unit C (case 2024‑2981), a multiunit property at 404 Bayshore Drive (case noted in the record as CE‑20241106), a residential lot at 8561 Fremont Road (case 23‑0259), a residence at 209 El Wiposa Place (case 2024‑1820), multiple mobile‑home units at Sherman Pines Mobile Home Park (cases CE2023035 and CE20230471), and other properties in the Panama City Beach area.

The magistrate’s orders generally required owners to submit a detailed action plan with time frames, obtain all required building permits from the Bay County Building Services Division, complete permit inspections, and notify code enforcement of progress. Where staff found no progress by the listed deadlines, the orders impose an initial fine of $200 and a continuing $25 daily fine until the violation is corrected; the fines can be recorded as liens on affected property.

At the hearing for 4823 Hispaniola Street, Unit C (case 2024‑2981), Bay County code enforcement investigators said the end unit had sustained structural damage that left utility meters attached to a damaged exterior wall and tarping on the wall and roof. Investigator Tony Bruning told the magistrate the owner had notified code enforcement that insurance disputes were delaying repairs and that no building permits had been obtained. Contractor Benny Moore, who said he has worked in the county since 1979, described technical and safety constraints around removing and replacing meters and urged additional time to coordinate temporary or permanent rerouting with the power company. "I'm asking for 30 days for the power," Moore said.

Sarto accepted code enforcement’s recommendation for that property and ordered the owner to submit a detailed action plan and obtain required permits within 30 days. The magistrate also explicitly allowed a demolition permit to be pulled immediately for debris removal and directed Bay County Building Services to provide a letter the owner can use with insurers that documents required code repairs. "I am inclined to accept that recommendation, but I also want to be very clear and also that the demo permit is allowed to be pulled immediately," Sarto said.

At 404 Bayshore Drive (case CE‑20241106), investigators reported tarping on the roof, extensive overgrowth and evidence that the occupant may have medical issues limiting their ability to complete repairs. Ashley Whitfield, who identified herself as a co‑owner and the owner’s daughter, described family efforts to maintain the property and said multiple contractors and personal emergencies had delayed progress. Code enforcement set a 30‑day deadline for a detailed action plan, required that any structural repairs follow an approved scope of work (which may include a licensed structural engineer’s report), and warned of the same $200 initial and $25 daily fines for noncompliance.

At 8561 Fremont Road (case 23‑0259), investigators said a new owner had obtained a roofing permit at the end of December and that overgrowth removal and some vehicle removals had occurred. The new owner, who identified himself as Benjamin Toth (investor/owner), told the magistrate his team was working to pull the correct permits and asked for time to provide a construction schedule and contractor contact information. Code enforcement instructed the owner to provide a plan within 30 days and said it would reinspect the property to verify removal of overgrowth and unregistered vehicles.

For several mobile‑home cases at Sherman Pines Mobile Home Park (cases referenced in the record as CE2023035 and CE20230471), code investigators reported recurring trash, unscreened personal property and derelict vehicles. Staff said a prior magistrate order had given park management and mobile‑home owners 60 days in 2024 to correct violations; inspectors found the parks still out of compliance and asked the magistrate to authorize abatement by county contractors if owners fail to act. The magistrate accepted the recommendation and authorized county staff to abate visible junk and unscreened personal property if owners do not comply; abatement costs may be recorded as liens.

At 209 El Wiposa Place (case 2024‑1820), owner Mr. Vanderberg told the magistrate he had removed several items and arranged places to move vehicles and boats but said cost and logistics had delayed full compliance. Code enforcement set short deadlines for removal of trash and derelict vehicles and said that only one derelict vehicle may remain on site; additional derelict vehicles must be registered or removed.

Code enforcement also presented a case involving stagnant pool water and construction debris at 908 Lighthouse Lagoon Court (case CE‑2024‑2480). Investigator Brandon Irwin reported that overgrowth had been repeatedly cut but stagnant water remained in the pool. The magistrate set a 10‑day deadline to drain or properly treat the pool and warned that repeated offenses can be treated as a repeat violation.

The magistrate’s orders include follow‑up compliance hearings already scheduled in the record (most commonly set for mid‑February 2025). Code enforcement staff told owners which county contacts to use to submit action plans and timelines and said staff would reinspect properties and document compliance or continued violations.

Quotes in this story are from participants’ testimony at the Jan. 8 Bay County special magistrate hearing. All corrective timelines, permit requirements and fines were stated on the record and reflected the magistrate’s orders.