Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Contractor says miscommunication led to work before permits on East 9th Street; planning board grants variance
Summary
At the Panama City Planning Board meeting, contractor Kevin Downing said subcontractor miscommunication led to work beginning without a development order on properties at 1606–1608 E. 9th St; the board granted a setback variance and discussed enforcement options.
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Panama City Planning Board on April 13 approved a variance for properties at 1606 and 1608 East 9th Street after staff and board members raised concerns that construction had begun without an issued development order.
Staff told the board the applicant had not been issued a development order and that construction activity had proceeded past initial site preparation. Board members who inspected the property described visible plumbing and framing and asked staff and the applicant how that work had advanced without required approvals.
Contractor Kevin Downing said the issue was a miscommunication with subcontractors: "I said, guys, we have to hold off for the variance... they heard 45 feet, didn't hear 'hold off for the variance.'" Downing said he instructed crews to stop when he visited the site. Owner Michael Mitchell told the board he had been advised he could begin bringing in fill prior to the first inspection and that he only learned about the setback requirement after staff review.
Staff confirmed no development order had been issued; planners advised that if a variance is later granted, a development order could follow, but if not granted the applicant would need to amend plans to comply with setback standards. Board members noted the risk was on the owner and contractor if construction proceeded in an unapproved location, and that any structures built in the wrong spot might need to be moved or removed if the variance were denied.
The board approved the requested setback variance by roll call. The board did not take additional enforcement actions at the meeting; staff and the applicant discussed stopping work and resolving the variance before further construction.

