Bay County magistrate reviews multiple code-enforcement cases; fines imposed, one fine cut to $1 after cleanup

The Bay County special-magistrate hearing on July 17, 2026, reviewed seven code-enforcement cases involving overgrowth, junk, derelict vehicles and occupied recreational vehicles. Magistrate Tiffany Sotto accepted code-enforcement recommendations in each matter, authorizing abatements and recording liens in several cases and reducing one respondent's fine to $1 after evidence of compliance.

The most contested matters involved properties cited under Bay County code section 17-2 and related land-development regulations. Inspector Scott Thorpe summarized case 20241573 (7203 Highway 2302), telling the magistrate that the respondent had retained engineers and submitted plans and that, in Thorpe's view, "the respondent did comply with the magistrate's order" by meeting the conditions set at the June 19 continuation. Attorney Brian Montague, representing the owner, said the owner had taken "affirmative steps to comply in good faith" and asked that further enforcement occur only after notice and a hearing. Magistrate Sotto accepted the recommendation to monitor permit review and close the docket if permits move forward.

In case 20261010 (19420 Alta Vista Drive), Ashman, Bay County code-enforcement manager, and investigator Tim Justice presented photo evidence showing overgrowth and testified that prior orders had not been complied with. Code enforcement asked the magistrate to find the respondent had been given adequate time, authorize county staff or contractors to enter the property to remove overgrowth if necessary, and permit imposition of fines and the recording of liens at a final hearing. The magistrate accepted those recommendations.

Case 20260931 (209 El Reposo Place) was presented as a repeat violation involving junk and derelict vehicles; no respondent was present. Justice urged authorization to remove junk and assess fines and costs. The magistrate authorized abatement authority and the assessment of fines and liens consistent with the prior order.

In the final‑hearing matter 20260001 (11640 Preacher Johns Road), investigator Rick McKinnon testified the case had a history of trash, derelict vehicles and an occupied RV. The respondent, who identified himself for the record, said he had spent significant time and money cleaning the property and asked that fines be waived. After inspection and testimony that the property was in compliance, the magistrate accepted code enforcement's recommendation and reduced the fine to $1 "to show that there was a problem that it's been corrected," acknowledging cooperation and cleanup.

Case 20261131 (8613 Houston Street) and case 20251670 (8127 Closter Road) involved vacant parcels with significant trash, appliances or an RV. Investigators presented photographs, notice and reinspection results showing violations or, in one instance, that a towed RV produced subsequent compliance. The magistrate authorized standard remedies: abatement authority, assessment of abatement costs and fines at a final hearing, and recording liens where appropriate.

For 20260126 (1826 Callahan Street), county-contracted abatement had removed accumulated junk at a cost of $1,145; code enforcement recommended the magistrate order the respondent to pay abatement costs plus fines (initial $400 and daily $100, totaling $2,900 in fines plus statutory interest). The magistrate found the property was in compliance as of the contractor's May 26 abatement but entered an order to recover costs and fines and to record a lien upon the public records if unpaid.

The hearings repeatedly referenced the Uniform Assessment Collection Act (chapter 21 of the Bay County Code) as the mechanism to recover abatement costs and impose liens. Where respondents were present and demonstrated compliance, the magistrate sometimes reduced penalties to reflect remediation; where respondents did not appear, the magistrate authorized abatement and preserved the county's right to recover costs and to levy liens.

The hearing concluded with the magistrate accepting code-enforcement recommendations across the docket and adjourning at 1:45 p.m. on July 17.

"If everything's taken care of and all in compliance, I'll make that finding so we can go ahead and put this closed," Magistrate Tiffany Sotto told a respondent whose repairs and permits were under review.

What happens next: several matters include follow-up steps — either recording orders and liens or returning for a final hearing if permits fail plans review or if abatement costs remain unpaid. The county will continue to track permit outcomes and, where necessary, proceed with abatement and financial recovery.