Magistrate orders permit filing, schedules compliance hearing for Spring Hill Road property

Bay County Special Magistrate Tiffany Serto on Thursday directed the owners of 13010 Spring Hill Road (Youngstown Park) to submit a permit application for the accessory structure within five days and set a compliance hearing for Sept. 18 at 1 p.m., after code enforcement reported lingering violations despite partial demolition of a single-wide mobile home.

The order follows an extended enforcement history that began with a magistrate finding on April 4, 2024, that the parcel violated Bay County Code 17-2 for an unfit/unsafe structure, trash and debris, and unsafe accessories. Bay County Inspector Bill Thorpe told the magistrate that a demolition permit for the mobile home was issued in May 2024 and that the mobile home has since been removed, but that RVs and accessory structures remain. Thorpe said an earlier permit for the accessory structure was not finalized and that an extension requested in May 2025 had been denied because of the pending hearing.

Why this matters: The county can hire contractors to abate violations and assess abatement costs as a lien against the property; the magistrate reiterated that authority and ordered immediate administrative steps to move the case toward compliance. Thorpe noted that previous orders included a possible $5,000 fine and lien language if the respondent did not comply.

Thorpe summarized the inspection and permit history, saying photographs from the original hearing and subsequent reinspections showed cleanup progress but remaining violations. He told the magistrate that a demolition permit had been issued and expired and that code enforcement had not observed a final demolition inspection for the accessory structure.

Property owners spoke in the hearing. Property owner James Robert Holland said, “We haven't stopped working on it,” and described salvaging materials and continuing cleanup. A co-respondent (name not specified in the transcript) told the magistrate she had medical appointments and mobility limits that slowed progress and disputed some permit-notification details, saying she had been in contact with county staff and that a permit pickup was attempted. Both respondents described the work completed to date and said they intend to remove remaining items, including a mobile-home frame and some RVs, but asked for time given health and financial constraints.

Magistrate Serto said she would allow the respondents five days to submit the required permit application for the accessory (barn) and scheduled a compliance hearing Sept. 18 at 1 p.m. She warned that if the parties did not meet the permit-application deadline or otherwise failed to progress, she would authorize county staff and any contractor hired by the county to enter the property to abate violations and that the county may assess abatement costs as a lien against the property.

Next steps: The respondents must file the permit application within five days of the June 19 hearing. Code enforcement will monitor progress and return the matter to the magistrate on Sept. 18 for an updated compliance determination.