[Code Magistrate Hearing on September 17, 2025.]
[00:00:03]
IT'S 1:00. I HAVE REVIEWED THE DOCKET.
DO NOT SEE A BASIS FOR ANY RECUSAL IN ANY OF THE CASES.
I HAVE NOT HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING ANY OF THE CASES WITH ANYONE.
IF YOU ANTICIPATE, EXCUSE ME, GIVING TESTIMONY IF YOU WOULD STAND AND BE SWORN. TO SERVE FROM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. SO HELP ME GOD. I DO.
OKAY. THE RECORD TO REFLECT THAT, EVERYONE ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
IF YOU HAVE A TELEPHONE, I'D ASK THAT YOU TURN IT TO VIBRATE OR SILENT. ONE OF THE TWO, AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE, MISS ASHMAN. THE WE'RE JUST ASKING THE PROPERTY OWNER TO COMPLY WITH YOUR ORDER.
ITEM B, WHICH IS 9724 DAVENPORT AVENUE.
WE'RE JUST HERE TO ADVISE YOU THAT THEY DID FULFILL YOUR ORDER, AND THEY ARE NOW IN COMPLIANCE AS WELL.
WE'RE JUST ASKING YOU TO FIND THE PROPERTY IS NOW IN COMPLIANCE. OKAY.
BASED ON THE TESTIMONY I'VE HEARD AND THE EVIDENCE THAT I'VE SEEN IN THE FORM OF PHOTOGRAPHS INTRODUCED IN THIS MATTER, I'M GOING TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY AT 9724 DAVENPORT AVENUE IN YOUNGSTOWN HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE, AS EVIDENCED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. THAT WILL BRING US TO ITEM F, 9407 INDIAN BLUFF ROAD.
THIS IS ALSO A HEARING FOR COMPLIANCE AND WHAT TO TELL THEM.
TELL HIM ABOUT. WE DON'T HAVE PHOTOS FOR THIS ONE.
OKAY. OBTAINED A BUILDING PERMIT? YES.
THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS OBTAINED BUILDING PERMITS AS OF THE 16TH.
THERE HAVE BEEN APPROVED PLANS, REVIEW AND EVERYTHING. SO HE'LL HAVE HIS PERMITTED 180 DAYS. OKAY.
WINDOWS AND DOORS ARE ON ORDER.
HE'S HERE IF YOU WANT TO ASK HIM ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT.
OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY IF YOU WANT TO WRITE BASED ON THE TESTIMONY FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS PRESENTLY I GUESS YOU'D SAY UNDER A PERMIT.
THAT WILL BE GOOD FOR 180 DAYS.
YOU NEED, YOU KNOW, IF YOU NEED TO EXTEND IT OR WHATEVER.
YOU NEED TO GET UP WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ON THAT AND SEE HOW IT'S GOING AND EVERYTHING. BUT AT THE PRESENT TIME, WE'LL REMOVE IT FROM THE DOCKET PENDING EVIDENCE OF FULL COMPLIANCE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ITEM G IS ALSO PRESENT.
THAT PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 8370 HENGJI CIRCLE.
OH, OKAY. AVENUE. MAGISTRATE INSPECTOR THORPE, BUILD INSPECTOR FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT. SUBMITTED MY CREDENTIALS FOR THE RECORD. AS IF YOU REMEMBER, THIS WAS A DOUBLE WIDE MOBILE HOME.
WE GOT A COMPLAINT OUT HERE, MYSELF AND THE TRADES INVESTIGATORS.
AS YOU CAN SEE, I ADDED A FEW PHOTOS.
UNPERMITTED WORK. ACCESSORY AS WELL.
SIDING AND ADDED ON TWO ADDITIONS ON THE REAR ROOF.
THIS HAD THE ONE WHERE IT WAS MISSING. SHEETING ON THE ROOF AND HOLES IN THERE.
THEY HAVE FINALLY OBTAINED A DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR BOTH STRUCTURES.
LAPSE TIME FOR THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERMIT.
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. BASED ON THE TESTIMONY THAT I'VE HEARD AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS I'VE SEEN INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE, I'M GOING TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 370 CIRCLE IN PANAMA CITY IS PRESENTLY UNDER A PERMIT, AND WE WILL REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM THE DOCKET PENDING A FINAL EVIDENCE OF COMPLIANCE FOLLOWING THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERMIT OR CLOSING OUT THE PERMIT BY VIRTUE OF THE DEMOLITION.
WHAT ARE YOU HERE FOR? 4113 RAINFOREST.
HE IS AN EDWARD? YES. THAT ONE.
[00:05:09]
NEXT. YES. OKAY. ITEM E PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 4113 RAINFOREST ROAD.THIS CASE WENT BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE ON MAY 14TH, 2025 AND WAS CONTINUED UNTIL JUNE 18TH, 2025.
AND SCOTT THORPE IS HERE TO TESTIFY.
AND GO AHEAD AND SHOW YOU SOME OF THE PHOTOS JUST TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY.
THESE WERE TAKEN TWO DAYS BEFORE THAT FIRST HEARING IN MAY.
DOUBLE WIDE MOBILE HOME THAT WAS MADE INTO MULTIPLE LIVING UNITS WITHOUT PERMITS.
THERE WAS WHAT THEY WERE CALLING LIKE A CHICKEN COOP IN THE BACK.
AND. WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND PICK UP THE BOOK? OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON, INSPECTOR THORPE AGAIN.
THIS CASE WENT BEFORE A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE JUNE 18TH, AND WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF COUNTY CODE 17 DASH TWO, IN THE FORM OF AN UNFIT, UNSAFE, MOBILE HOME, UNFIT, UNSAFE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND JUNK.
THE RESPONDENT DID APPEAR AT THE HEARING. PHOTOGRAPHS INTRODUCED AS EVIDENCE AS EXHIBIT A AND CONTINUING THE CASE FILE.
THE MAGISTRATE ORDERED THAT THE RESPONDENT HAVE 60 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER, OR A FINE OF $500 TO BE IMPOSED.
ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY ON WHICH THE VIOLATION EXISTS AND UPON ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY BY THE RESPONDENT. A COPY OR ORDER IS INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE AS EXHIBIT B AND CONTAINED IN THE CASE FILE. THE PROPERTY OWNER DID OBTAIN TWO PERMITS.
ONE WAS FOR THE CHICKEN COOP, WHICH HAS BEEN REMOVED, AND THE OTHER ONE WAS TO DEMO THE SURROUNDING PORCH THAT WAS ATTACHED DIRECTLY ONTO THE MOBILE HOME TO INCLUDE THE ADDITION AT THE END, WHICH WAS CALLED THE CLOSED IN PORCH.
BOTH PERMITS EXPIRED EXPIRE 1ST OCTOBER, AND NO INSPECTIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED TO DATE, SO THEY'RE NOT FAR FROM THERE.
THE FRONT OVERHANG THERE IS STILL ATTACHED, BUT THE ONES TO THE LEFT AND RIGHT ARE REMOVED. NEXT PHOTO AND THE ADDITION ENCLOSED PORCH THEY CALLED IT IS STILL ATTACHED TO THE END OF THE MOBILE HOME.
THE BACK? YES. BACK. STILL SEMI ATTACHED.
BUT THESE ARE ALL PORTIONS OF THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE TWO DEMOLITION PERMITS. YES. OKAY. THERE'S A DEBRIS IN THE SIDE.
SIDE BACKYARD ISH. ON SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2025, INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED AND THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN VIOLATION.
THE ADDITION IS STILL ON THE END OF THE MOBILE HOME, WHICH WILL BE THE NORTH END.
NO ADDITIONAL BUILDING PERMITS, NO ENGINEERING, HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, AND IT WAS REQUESTED THAT IT BE SUBMITTED TO BRING THE MOBILE HOME BACK INTO THE SINGLE FAMILY OCCUPANCY.
AS OF I BELIEVE IT WAS EIGHT APARTMENTS.
IT WAS SECTIONED OFF INTO THAT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO DATE YET.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A DEMO PERMIT, IT'S NOT TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM.
ALL THE PROBLEMS. SO JUST TO REMOVE THOSE PORCHES.
OKAY. MA'AM, DO YOU WANT TO TESTIFY? OKAY. YOU NEED TO BE SWORN.
SWEAR. AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE IS THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. I DO.
OKAY, TELL US YOUR NAME AND GIVE US A GOOD MAILING ADDRESS.
VICKI PERKINS, 4113 RAINFOREST ROAD, PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA 3244. AND SO I DO HAVE UPDATED PHOTOS THAT I TOOK.
BUT I JUST HAVE THEM ON MY PHONE.
[00:10:02]
SO. SO I HAVE HIRED A GUY IN THE LAST WEEK TO FINISH IT UP. FINALLY, I'VE GOT SOMEBODY THAT IS WORKING ON IT AS WE SPEAK.I'D SNAP THOSE PICTURES ON MY WAY IN.
HE'S BEEN WORKING DAY AND NIGHT SINCE HE STARTED TO GET THE.
BUT HE'S GOT THIS PART PRETTY MUCH DONE.
THERE'S JUST TWO PHOTOGRAPHS. IS THAT ALL? WELL, I JUST DID THOSE ON THE WAY OUT BECAUSE, I MEAN, IT'S NOT I THINK HE'S GOTTEN THE REST OF THE CHICKEN COOP, OKAY, BUT. I MEAN, THERE'S STILL A LOT TO BE CLEANED UP AND ALL THAT, BUT THE LADY FROM THE BUILDING PLACE DID CALL ME AND SAY I HAD TO.
OCTOBER 1ST WAS WHEN MY PERMIT ENDED, SO I SHOULD BE DONE WITH THAT.
AS FAR AS THE LAND ON THE 26TH, THEY'RE STARTING FORECLOSURE.
AND THE HOUSE, THEY'VE ALREADY SENT ME WHERE THEY'RE FORECLOSING ON IT.
I MEAN, WELL, IN LIGHT OF THAT, DO YOU INTEND TO PROCEED ON OR ARE YOU? THE PROPERTY IS NOT IN YOUR NAME, THOUGH, IS IT? THE PROPERTY? IS THE PROPERTY IN YOUR NAME? YEAH. OKAY. I THOUGHT THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT SOMEBODY.
AND SO THE. I BROUGHT THE PAPERWORK FROM 21ST MORTGAGE.
BUT THEY'RE THEY'RE TAKING THE HOUSE.
WITH A MORTGAGE ON THE TRAILER ITSELF.
BUT, I MEAN, UNLESS SOMETHING HAPPENS IN THE NEXT NINE DAYS.
I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO FIND A PLACE TO LIVE.
I WON'T EVEN HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE BECAUSE EVEN THE LAND COMPANY.
I'LL BE THREE, THREE MONTHS BEHIND.
BUT I DO HAVE SOMEONE FINISHING UP.
WHAT? I GOT THE PERMITS ON TO FINISH UP ALL THE PORCH AND ALL THE CLEANUP AND ALL THAT.
LET ME LET ME MAKE SURE I'M GETTING THIS.
THE HOUSE IS IN YOUR EX-HUSBAND'S NAME OR BOYFRIEND OR WHATEVER SIGNIFICANT OTHER.
IS THAT CORRECT? I NEED YOU TO ANSWER IN THE AFFIRMATIVE OUT LOUD.
THE DIRT IS IN YOUR NAME? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, LET ME ASK YOU AT THIS POINT, WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THEY'RE TAKING THE HOUSE? WELL. I'M AT THAT POINT OF IF SOMETHING DOESN'T HAPPEN AND I DON'T GET SOME SORT OF LOAN AND SAVE ALL OF IT, THEN I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE TO FIND A PLACE TO LIVE. I MEAN, I'M GOING TO BE THAT UNKNOWN OCCUPANT IS ME THAT THEY'RE EVICTING, TOO. WELL, I MEAN, SINCE IT WAS CHOPPED UP, I THINK THEY PROBABLY HAD TO LAY UNKNOWN OCCUPANTS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WERE RENTING ANYTHING OUT OR WHATEVER. I MEAN, I HAVEN'T TOTALLY GIVEN UP YET, OR I WASN'T HIRED SOMEBODY TO DO THE KEEP TEARING DOWN THE PORCHES AND ALL THAT.
I MEAN, OTHERWISE, I JUST WOULDN'T HAVE SHOWN UP TODAY. I MEAN, BUT I HAVEN'T GIVEN UP.
IT'S JUST. I'M A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER.
[00:15:23]
MR. LEWIS, I WILL NOTE THAT THE CAPITAL, 21, WAS NOTIFIED OF THE JUNE HEARING.I BELIEVE THAT THEY RESPONDED.
THEY WERE NOT PRESENT, THOUGH WOULD HAVE BEEN SENT A COPY OF THE ORDER SHOWING THE COMPLIANCE HEARING DATES.
THE THE DEMO PERMIT DOES NOT, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU, DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MOBILE HOME ITSELF.
JUST THE ATTACHED PORCHES AND THE ADDITION ON THE SIDE AND THEN CHICKEN COOP IN THE REAR.
THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT DEMO PERMITS. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. I HAVE TALKED TO SEVERAL DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS AND STUFF, BUT I HAVEN'T FOUND ONE THAT I CAN AFFORD IN ORDER TO DO THE REPAIRS.
WELL IT'S SORT OF A. WEIRD SITUATION IN THIS THING, SINCE YOU'VE GOT TWO SEPARATE, I GUESS YOU'D SAY KINDS OF STRUCTURES THAT HAVE SUPPOSED TO BE REMOVED.
ONE IS THE THE IMPROPER ADDITIONS TO THE PREMISES.
AND I'M REVIEWING THE ORDER THAT I SIGNED ON THE 18TH OF JUNE.
AND I'VE GOT TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR FAILING TO REQUIRE THAT SHE CORRECT THE JUNK AND TRASH AND DEBRIS AROUND THERE, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ORDER. I THINK THAT MAY HAVE BEEN CORRECTED PRIOR.
AT ONE POINT, THE THE DERELICT VEHICLES AND EVERYTHING WERE REMOVED.
THESE ARE ALL FROM AFTER THAT HEARING.
SORRY. I DON'T SEE I DON'T SEE IT.
IN THIS ORDER OF JUNE THE 18TH.
IS THERE A A NEWER ORDER THAN THAT? NO, BECAUSE THAT ONE REFLECTS SEPTEMBER THE 17TH IS THE THE HEARING DATE.
OKAY. WELL, I WILL I WILL ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR FAILING TO INCLUDE THAT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ORDER.
BUT I AM GOING TO FIND THAT AS IT RELATES TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE THAT YOU YOU HAVE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY KIND OF ACTION PLAN ENGINEERING, ANY OF THAT SORT OF STUFF HAVE TO CORRECT THAT UNFIT OR UNSAFE PORTION OF THE STRUCTURES FOUND ON THE OR.
STRUCTURE FOUND ON THE PREMISES.
AND SO I AM GOING TO FIND THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF THE ORDER AS IT RELATES TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE THAT IS ON THE PREMISES THAT THOSE THAT THE FAILURE TO OBTAIN THOSE PERMITS TO CORRECT THOSE ISSUES RELATED TO THAT PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF THE ORDER OF JUNE THE 18TH OF 25.
BASED ON THAT, I'M GOING TO AUTHORIZE THE COUNTY TO ENTER UPON THE PREMISES.
AND TAKE WHATEVER ACTION IS NECESSARY TO ABATE THE VIOLATIONS.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO IT, QUITE FRANKLY, WITH THE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ATTACHED THAT SHE HAS A DEMO PERMIT FOR.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD ACCOMPLISH THAT.
WELL, THIS WILL NOT GO TO PRE BID UNTIL THE END OF OCTOBER AND THE PERMIT EXPIRES OCTOBER 1ST. OKAY. OKAY. GOOD DEAL.
ALL RIGHT. OKAY. SHOULD THE PERMIT EXPIRE ON OCTOBER THE 1ST
[00:20:04]
WITHOUT THE DEMOLITION.DEMOLITION BEING COMPLETE AS IT RELATES TO THE.
SCOPE OF THE PORTIONS OF THE STRUCTURE CONTAINED IN THOSE DEMO PERMITS, IF THEY REMAIN UNCORRECTED AS OF OCTOBER 1ST THEN THEY SHALL ALSO BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE CODE ENFORCEMENT FOLKS TO DEMOLISH AND GET THEIR FREE BID ON AND EVERYTHING. BUT AS IT RELATES TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, I'M GOING TO FIND THAT THERE IS A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE ORDER THAT A $500 FINE SHOULD BE IMPOSED.
AND AS I INDICATED, THE COUNTY SHALL BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER UPON THE PREMISES AND DEMOLISH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.
AND THE COST OF SUCH ABATEMENT WILL ALSO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE.
COST TO BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE PREMISES.
ADDITIONALLY CAN I AT LEAST HAVE TILL THE END OF THE MONTH TO GET MOVED OUT AND FIND A PLACE? WELL, LIKE SHE SAID THAT THE THE INSPECTIONS WILL BE SOMETIME IN THE MIDDLE OF OCTOBER.
IS THAT IS THAT CORRECT, MISS ASHFORD? OCTOBER 3RD BIDS. THREE BIDS ARE AT THE END OF OCTOBER, SIR. END OF OCTOBER. AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERMIT IS WHEN I WILL.
I WILL SCHEDULE THE PRE-BID STUFF AND PRE-BID.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A PERIOD OF TIME TILL THE END OF OCTOBER OR ABOUT THE END OF OCTOBER TO MOVE OUT. BUT I AM GOING TO BASED ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS I'VE SEEN, I'M GOING TO ALSO THOSE SAY THAT I SEE TODAY IS THE 17TH OF SEPTEMBER.
WHEN IS OUR NEXT HEARING? IN OCTOBER. OCTOBER? ALRIGHT.
DO WE HAVE ONE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THE LINE? WE SHOULD HAVE ONE THAT FOLLOWING WEEK.
WAIT, NO, I'M ON AS IT RELATES TO THE JUNK, TRASH, DEBRIS, OVERGROWTH ETC..
I'M GOING TO GIVE HER TEN DAYS FROM TODAY'S DATE TO CORRECT THAT.
AND THEN WHEN WOULD BE CAN WE HAVE A HEARING? SO TEN DAYS FROM TODAY WOULD BE THE WE'RE STILL IN SEPTEMBER THEN.
YES. OKAY. SEVEN OF SEPTEMBER.
SO THE 29TH, WE WOULDN'T GO OUT THERE BEFORE THAT.
AND THAT'S A SAD. SO. SET IT ON THE EIGHTH FOR A HEARING AS IT RELATES TO COMPLIANCE.
AS TO THE JUNK, TRASH AND DEBRIS OVERGROWTH.
I THINK WE ARE JUST HAVING WARNINGS THAT DAY, RIGHT? I SURE THAT WE HAVE TEN SCHEDULED.
SO RIGHT NOW YOU DON'T HAVE ANY 1:00, SO WE'LL PUT IT ON THE 9:00 AGENDA.
THAT'S FINE. WHAT I'M DOING, I'M GIVING YOU SOME TIME TO CLEAN UP THE JUNK, TRASH AND DEBRIS IN THERE BECAUSE THAT WOULD SAVE YOU COST OF ABATEMENT.
SO. BUT THAT'S GOT TO BE DONE WITHIN THE NEXT TEN DAYS.
AND THEY WILL DO A COMPLIANCE OR INSPECTION AS IT RELATES TO THAT.
SO AND AGAIN, THAT'S ALL UP TO YOU.
BUT THE WEATHER GOT THAT GUY IS WORKING ON IT.
SO. OKAY. WELL LIKE I SAID, ANYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE THAN ANY OF THE OTHER ONES HAVE DONE THIS WHOLE TIME.
SO ANYTHING THAT YOU CAN DO TO REDUCE THE WORK THAT THE COUNTY HAS TO DO SAVES YOU MONEY. I MEAN, IN THE END, BECAUSE WHEN THE CONTRACTOR GOES OUT THERE AND HE SAYS, OKAY, I'VE GOT TO DEMOLISH 2400FT², OR HE'S GOT TO DEMOLISH 1200 SQUARE FEET, THAT'S GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN IN WHAT HE'S GOING TO BE CHARGING THE COUNTY.
AND THEN IN TURN, WHAT WILL BE PASSED ON TO YOU.
SO LIKE I SAID, I'M GOING TO FIND THAT THERE IS NONCOMPLIANCE AS IT RELATES TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. THERE'S NO PERMIT THAT'S BEEN PULLED.
AND AS IT RELATES EITHER TO DEMOLITION OR RECONSTRUCTION.
SO AS IT RELATES TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, YOU'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE.
[00:25:02]
THE FINE OF $500 WILL BE IMPOSED.THE WE WILL BRING IT BACK TO DETERMINE WHETHER THAT IS IN COMPLIANCE. THE. YEAH.
THE TRASH AND JUNK ON THE NINTH.
OKAY. EIGHTH AT 9:00. ALL RIGHT.
WHEN DO WE NEED TO BRING THE PRIMARIES? WELL. OKAY. YOU DON'T NEED TO BRING IT BACK.
I'M SORRY, BUT WE THAT THAT PLACE IS REALLY A HAZARD.
SO. AND IF YOU, YOU KNOW, IN THE INTERIM, IF YOU WANT TO GET A PERMIT TO DEMOLISH IT TOO, THAT'S AGAIN, THAT'S UP TO YOU.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. IT'S A PERMIT THAT EXTENDS FOR SIX MONTHS SO SHE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET A DEMOLISH PERMIT TO DEMOLISH AT THIS POINT.
SHE PASSED HER TIME. OH, OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. SORRY. NO PERMITS AVAILABLE.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO FROM THERE.
ITEM A THEN OR DID YOU WANT TO GO TO K.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL THE FELLOW AND SEE WHAT HE WANTS.
FOR THE RECORD, ITEM K IS 1734 BUCHANAN STREET.
THIS IS. MAGISTRATE REQUESTED HEARING.
THE RESPONDENT REQUESTED A HEARING, AND I JUST OBLIGED.
YES. OKAY. AND I DO HAVE WE DO HAVE PHOTOS IF YOU NEED TO SEE THEM.
YOU DO WHAT? WE DO HAVE THE PHOTOS TO REMIND YOU OF THE PROPERTY.
HELLO, MR. TORPEY. THIS IS JODY WITH THE BAY COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT.
YOU'RE CURRENTLY IN THE MAGISTRATE HEARING.
CAN I GET. EXCELLENT. THANK YOU.
CAN I GET A GOOD MAILING ADDRESS FOR YOU, PLEASE? OH, YES. JUST GIVE ME ONE SECOND.
WE'VE GOT. I THINK THE BAY COUNTY OFFICE MIGHT.
SO THE ADDRESS FOR US WILL BE 4408 DELLWOOD LANE, NUMBER 14, PANAMA CITY BEACH, FLORIDA. 329408. RESERVE STREET AND CODE ENFORCEMENT.
MR. TORPEY, AM I PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY? THAT IS CORRECT, SIR. YES.
YES, SIR. OKAY. OKAY. THIS IS YOUR MOTION TO BASICALLY STAY THE DEMOLITION, YOUR ORIGINAL MOTION APPARENTLY WAS FILED IN THE CIRCUIT COURT, AND IT WAS AN INJUNCTION TO HALT THE DEMOLITION.
I'M JUST SIMPLY CONSIDERING IT AS A MOTION TO STAY THE DEMOLITION, SINCE I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE INJUNCTIONS.
BUT I'M GOING TO LET YOU PROCEED WITH YOUR ARGUMENT AS IT RELATES TO STAY IN THE DEMOLITION. YES, YOUR HONOR.
SO ESSENTIALLY TO TWO ESSENTIAL POINTS HERE, IS THAT ON THE ONE HAND, THE THE FIRST THE FIRST HEARING THAT OCCURRED THERE ON THE NINTH ADVISES THAT SHE WAS THAT SHE WAS ADVISED NOT TO ATTEND THAT MEETING AND THAT THAT PLAYED A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN HER IN FINAL DECISION.
[00:30:05]
AND SO JUST WANTED TO KIND OF POINT THAT OUT, THAT THERE THAT THERE WAS NOT A PR POINT AT THAT POINT, BUT NOW THERE IS. AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST, YOU KNOW, NOW THAT NOW THAT THERE IS A PR APPOINTED, JUST HAVE HER HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL TIME HERE UP TO A MONTH.MOST SO SHE'S WHAT WHAT SHE'S DONE IS SHE'S YOU KNOW, SHE'S SPOKEN WITH A WITH A WITH A CONTRACTOR.
THEY HAVE A SITE PLAN IN PLACE.
ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT OR ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SHE RAISED WAS THAT THE, THE PR ADMINISTRATION OR THE ORDER APPOINTING PR WAS SORT OF THE ONE THING THAT THE MAGISTRATE COURT WAS SORT OF ASKING OR REQUIRING FROM HER.
SO THAT WOULD BE SORT OF THE SECOND THING IS JUST KIND OF POINTING THAT OUT THAT THAT SHE DID HAVE THE ORDER APPOINTING PR AND THAT SHE'S PREPARED TO OR THAT SHE'S ALREADY SORT OF BEGUN THE PREPARATIONS TO CURE THE TO CURE THE ISSUES.
NOW, ONE THING I DO WANT TO ALSO ADD IS THAT AGAIN JUST KIND OF AS A CONCESSION HERE, RECOGNIZING THE THE, I MEAN, THE TIME THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP AS WELL. MR. LOUIS DURING THE HEARING WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME HAD PASSED.
AND WE WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT BUT JUST REEMPHASIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, AS SOON AS AS SOON AS THIS DEAL SORT OF PUT US ON THE MATTER, WE'VE BEEN ALMOST EVERY DAY SORT OF MAKING EFFORTS TOWARDS MAKING SURE THAT SHE HAS EVERYTHING TOGETHER AND THAT AND THAT EFFORT WON'T, WON'T STOP. YOU KNOW, ONCE A DECISION IS MADE HERE, WE WE PLAN TO SORT OF BE A WALK HER THROUGH THE REST OF THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT SHE'S SATISFYING EVERYBODY. AT THE STATE LEVEL, GOVERNMENT LEVEL AS WELL.
AND WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR, I WOULD REST.
YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S ESSENTIALLY EVERYTHING I HAVE.
YEAH. WELL, ONE OF THE HEARINGS THE WE WERE ADVISED THAT SHE WAS.
MISS DEAL WAS INCARCERATED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING.
IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT? NO, SIR. NOT AS FAR AS THE AS FAR AS THE FIRST HEARING ON THE NINTH.
AT WHAT SHE REPORTS TO US IS THAT SHE WAS SHE WAS EVEN AT THE LOCATION AT THE TIME AND WAS ABLE TO SEE YOU KNOW, INSPECTORS, IN THE AREA.
SO SHE WAS NOT INCARCERATED? HER HER BROTHER IS INCARCERATED.
HE IS SOMEBODY WHO'S CURRENTLY IN PRISON.
BUT AS FAR AS AS FAR AS WHAT'S BEEN REPRESENTED TO US BY BY MISS STEELE SHE WAS NOT SHE WAS NOT INCARCERATED FOR ANY OF THESE HEARINGS.
WELL, WHO ADVISED HER NOT TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING? SO, ACCORDING TO MISS STEELE, IT WAS AN.
AND I HOPE THAT I'M SAYING THIS RIGHT, MR. SCOTT? THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY SHE SHE HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT WHAT SHE NEEDED TO DO WAS GET THE THE ORDER FOR, FOR PR AND AND SHE ACTUALLY HAD FOLLOWED UP AND WENT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH THAT, BUT WAS TOLD THAT YOU KNOW, NOTHING THERE WAS NOTHING SHE COULD DO NOW, REGARDLESS OF YOU KNOW, HAVING, HAVING GOTTEN THAT.
AND SO THERE'S I GUESS SORT OF WHERE WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS JUST KIND OF ON A, ON A FOLLOW UP MISSION HERE.
JUST SAYING. OKAY. WE'VE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE ORDER APPOINTING PR IS, IS IS ISSUED, IT'S OUT.
AND AND YEAH, IF THAT'S IF, IF, IF THAT, IF IT BE THE CASE THAT THAT WAS SORT OF THE CENTRAL CONDITION THAT CONDITION IS SATISFIED AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE SURE ALL OTHER CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS.
WELL. AM I CORRECT IN THAT THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DIED IN 19 OR.
EXCUSE ME 2021. THAT IS CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.
AND THAT WAS SOMETHING I WAS I WANTED TO, AGAIN, SORT OF MAKE SURE THAT WE KIND OF CONCEDE AT THE, UP FRONT IS THAT THERE WAS A LONG PERIOD.
[00:35:02]
I MEAN, IT'S 2021 WHEN HE DIES.WE'RE SORT OF JUST GETTING THESE ORDERS OF P.R.
NOW. BUT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, SHE HIRED US, YOU KNOW, JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO. APPARENTLY THE LAW FIRM THAT HIRED BEFORE WAS NOT JUST MOVING SLOW, BUT PERHAPS EVEN MOVING UNLAWFULLY, AND AS SHE REPORTS, HAS BEEN SUBJECT TO INVESTIGATION AS A RESULT OF THEIR TREATMENT OF HER AND OTHER CLIENTS.
AND SO THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING OF YOU KNOW, WHY THERE'S BEEN SO MUCH DELAY AT LEAST THIS YEAR. BUT AGAIN, I, I YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
2021, YOUR HONOR. IT'S NOT THIS WASN'T A IT'S NOT A DEATH THAT OCCURRED YOU KNOW, RECENTLY. WELL, THERE'S BEEN A VIOLATION IN 22 AND A VIOLATION IN 23.
AND AS IT RELATES TO THE FIRST TIME.
THE FIRST CASE IS 22. THEY BROUGHT THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE.
BUT THE SECOND ONE, THE COUNTY HAD TO BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE.
SO THERE IS AND I'M LOOKING RIGHT NOW AT A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PREMISES.
AND. QUITE FRANKLY IT IS A DISASTER.
IT IS. IT LOOKS LIKE A BOMB HAS BEEN DROPPED ON THE PLACE.
AND YOU KNOW. IS LET ME SEE, THE 24 CASE THAT WE'RE PRESENTLY CONCERNED ABOUT IS BASED ON A COMPLAINT FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
SO QUITE FRANKLY, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE COMPLAINING.
THE PLACE. YEAH, LIKE I SAID, IS IS A DISASTER.
YES, SIR. THE THE TIME OF THE APPEAL AS IT RELATES TO THE ORDER IN THE 24 CASE HAS EXPIRED.
JULY THE 9TH. AND WHEN WERE YOU RETAINED? WE WERE RETAINED. I CAN GET YOU THE EXACT DATE HERE, YOUR HONOR. LET ME JUST PULL IT UP.
SO WE FIRST ACTUALLY HAD OUR FIRST TALK WITH HER ON THE 20.
LET'S SEE 21ST ENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT 21ST OF AUGUST OKAY.
YEAH. AND SHE SIGNED THE AGREEMENT ON.
AND AS SOON AS THAT HAPPENED WE STARTED WE STARTED MOVING.
THE WHEN WAS THE ESTATE INITIALLY FILED A PETITION FOR THAT? OKAY, SO WE FILED THE PETITION ON.
OKAY. SO WE FILED THE PETITION, AND IT'S FOR ROBERT CONGLETON.
COURT FILINGS. OKAY. SO LET'S SEE.
SO THE PETITION. LOOKS LIKE WE GOT THAT ON THE 2ND OF SEPTEMBER. TIMBER.
LET ME JUST MAKE SURE THAT'S TRUE.
YES. SO WE FILED ON SEPTEMBER 1ST.
[00:40:01]
I SEE WE HAVE AN AMENDED PETITION HERE ON SEPTEMBER 1ST AND THEN THE ACTUAL ORDER.THEY WERE ISSUED LIKE THE NINTH OR SOMETHING. THE ACTUAL LETTERS AND ALL OF THAT, I THINK.
YES, THE NINTH. SO THE LETTERS WERE ISSUED, THE LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION WERE ON THE NINTH, BUT THE ORDER, I BELIEVE, CAME AFTER THAT.
IT CAME ON THE 15TH. THEY ACTUALLY CAME.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT CAME ALMOST LIKE DURING OUR HEARING OR SHORTLY THEREAFTER.
LET'S SEE. I MEAN, THE TIME IS 10:38 A.M.
ON THE 15TH. SO, YEAH, IT'S KIND OF WE'VE BEEN KIND OF JUST PUSHING, LIKE, ALMOST LIKE EVERY SECOND LAST, LIKE YEAH, JUST A SUPER, SUPER TIME CRUNCH SINCE WE'VE GONE ON IT.
BUT BUT AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, I MEAN, WE WE WE DON'T WE DON'T CHALLENGE THE FACT THAT HE DIED IN 2021.
I MEAN, IT HAS BEEN A REALLY LONG TIME, BUT WHERE WHERE SHE'S, YOU KNOW, BROUGHT US ON. WE'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, VERY ACTIVE AND YOU KNOW, NOT ALLOWING FOR DELAY WHERE WE COULD, WHERE WE COULD PREVENT IT.
WELL, MY PROBLEM IS ONE THE THE.
WHAT I CALL VERY DANGEROUS CONDITIONS, AS EVIDENCED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHS PREVIOUSLY ENTERED IN THIS FACT AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS TWO THERE ARE TWO PRIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS EVIDENCING WHAT I'M GOING TO CLASS AS A, AS A WILLFUL NEGLECT FOR THE PREMISES AND, AND FOR JUST CONSTITUTE WILLFUL VIOLATIONS.
THE THE FACT THAT FILING OF THE APPEAL, THE TIME FOR THAT HAS EXPIRED.
NOW, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU DO HAVE THE FORECLOSURE PUT OFF FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.
SO THAT'S I GUESS YOU'D SAY THAT WORKS IN YOUR FAVOR, BUT WHEN WHEN WILL THE AND THE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE, AND THEY HAVE TO DO SOME THINGS BEFORE THEY DO A A DEMO, BUT WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED ALL THAT.
OH, THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. YEAH. YEAH, I THINK IT WAS PLANNED.
IT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ON THE 15TH.
IT WAS LIKE 9000 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I SPOKE TO I THINK I SPOKE, YEAH, SORRY NOT TO CUT YOU OFF.
SORRY. NO, NO, ABSOLUTELY I WE'RE INFORMAL HERE, SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT PART OF IT.
BUT THE THEY HAVE ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED THAT, WHICH REQUIRES THE EXPENDITURE OF MONEY ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY FOR THE ASBESTOS INSPECTION, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF THIS THE.
AND THE GENTLEMAN THAT'S HERE FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SAYS THAT HE NEVER TOLD YOUR CLIENT NOT TO SHOW UP.
SO YEAH. I AM THE NOTICE PROCEED WAS ALREADY ISSUED, AND WE'RE SETTING UP TO DEMOLISH.
TODAY. AND THEN WE GOT YOUR ORDER, SO WE HAD TO CANCEL IT.
SO. ALL RIGHT, SO YEAH, TO TO SAY THAT IT'S LAST MINUTE IS AN UNDERSTATEMENT. I HEAR THAT, YOUR HONOR.
[00:45:02]
BEEN APPOINTED THE PR AND INTENDS TO CURE THE VIOLATIONS.QUITE FRANKLY, I, I DON'T I DON'T HAVE ANY FAITH THAT THAT CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED.
I THINK THAT THE THE SOLUTION IS DEMOLITION BASED ON.
SO WHAT SHE AND SHE WOULD INTEND TO DEMOLISH.
I MEAN, WHAT SHE'S WHAT SHE AIMS, WHAT SHE AIMS TO DO IS TO.
AND THIS IS WHERE SHE, SHE SHE SHE WORKED ON THE ON THE SITE PLAN AND PRESENTED IT PRIOR WAS SHE WAS WANTING TO CERTAINLY TO DEMOLISH THE STRUCTURE.
BUT WANTED TO PULL PERMITS ON THE SHEDS.
SHE WOULD HAVE THE SHEDS PUT UP AND, AND DEMOLISH THE HOUSE.
IT WOULDN'T BE A, IT WOULDN'T SHE WOULDN'T BE AIMING TO I GUESS RESTORE THE HOME OR OR OR OR, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, DO REWIRING OR OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT, OR EVEN ATTEMPT TO CURE ANY ASBESTOS, BUT RATHER HAVE PERMITS FOR THE SHEDS AND HAVE A PERMIT TO DEMOLISH THE HOME.
AND WHAT SHE'S PROPOSING IS THAT IT COULD BE DONE IN A MONTH.
IN A MONTH'S TIME. THAT IN AND OF ITSELF EVIDENCES THAT I GUESS YOU'D SAY THAT I'M HEADING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BECAUSE THAT THAT'S THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND I REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT YOUR PETITION FOR THE INJUNCTION REQUIRES, AS A MATTER OF LAW, SOME SORT OF ASSERTION THAT LIKELIHOOD TO SUCCEED ON THE MERITS.
AND QUITE FRANKLY, I DON'T I DON'T THINK THAT THE BASICALLY WHAT YOU HAVE PRESENTED THUS FAR DOES NOT SHOW SUCH A LIKELIHOOD.
SO ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD? I'M PREPARED TO RULE AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
SO THAT IS OKAY. WELL, I THINK THEN I WILL, I GUESS I'LL TALK TO.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND TALK TO APRIL AND LET HER KNOW.
SO WHAT? I GUESS WHAT COULD WE EXPECT FOR WHEN THE WHEN YOUR WHEN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT WILL ACTUALLY PERFORM THE DEMOLITION? DAD, I CAN'T TELL YOU. I MEAN, I, I JUST ISSUE THE ORDERS, AND THEY, THEY HAVE A PROCEDURE THAT THEY'VE GOT TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS IN THIS INSTANCE, THEY'VE BASICALLY SHUT DOWN THE MOBILIZATION THAT WAS GOING TO OCCUR.
AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIND OUT WHEN THEIR CONTRACTOR CAN PUT IT BACK IN HIS ROTATION. IF THEY DON'T HAVE I DON'T I ASSUME THAT THEY YOU WON'T HAVE TO REBID IT, WILL YOU? OKAY. ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE, SIR? NOTHING. JUST ONE MOMENT.
ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR. LET ME JUST BE SURE THAT I'VE COVERED EVERYTHING. OKAY.
OKAY. YOUR HONOR, I HAVE NOTHING FURTHER, BUT I DO APPRECIATE.
ALL RIGHT. WELL BASED ON THE ARGUMENT OF COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT OR FOR MISS DEAL, I'M GOING TO CALL HER THE INTERVENOR. IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY IS TITLED AND THE CRUNKILTON NAME, AND I HAVE ALLOWED HER TO INTERVENE IN THIS CASE BASED ON A WHAT? I'M GOING TO CALL AT LEAST A FACIALLY SUFFICIENT INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY TO MERIT HER INTERVENTION IN THIS ACTION.
I'M GOING TO FIND THAT THE THE FOLLOWING FACTORS WEIGH AGAINST GRANTING THE MOTION TO STAY ONE THAT THE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ACTUALLY DIED IN MAY OF 2021 AND THAT THERE'S NO PROBATE ACTION HAS BEEN FILED UNTIL BASICALLY THIS MONTH OF 25.
SEPTEMBER OF 25. THE TIME FOR THE APPEAL.
IN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION HAS EXPIRED.
THE PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO A FORECLOSURE ACTION.
[00:50:03]
THAT APPEARS TO BE. DUE AND OWING ON ABOUT $34,000.THAT WHILE THAT HAS INITIALLY BEEN STAYED UNTIL THEY, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY RESERVE THE THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE RELATED TO THE ESTATE. THERE HAVE BEEN TWO PRIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS.
ONE REQUIRING COUNTY INTERVENTION TO CORRECT THE INTERVENOR BASED ON TODAY'S HEARING HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE GOOD CAUSE TO STAY THE DEMOLITION OF THE UNFIT OR UNSAFE STRUCTURES ON THE PREMISES.
A REVIEW OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE THE PREMISES POSE A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE WAS A COMPLAINT ON THE PREMISES THAT BROUGHT THE INQUIRY AS IT RELATES TO THE 2024 CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTION.
THE PREMISES REMAIN IN SUCH A STATE AS TO CONTINUE A RISK TO THE PEOPLE AROUND IT.
AND THE PRIOR. I'M GOING TO CALL IT NON-RESPONSIVENESS OF THE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY HAVE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE A.
GENUINE EFFORT TO CORRECT THE ISSUES FOUND ON THE PREMISES.
BASED ON THIS AND. OTHER REASONS NOT YET RECITED, I'M GOING TO FIND THAT THE MOTION TO STAY THE DEMOLITION SHOULD BE AND IS HEREBY DENIED.
OKAY. YOUR HONOR. IS THERE ANYTHING? AND AGAIN, YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
CODE ENFORCEMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT IS NEEDED FROM ME AT THIS STAGE? NO, SIR. I'LL SEND YOU OR THE.
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT CLERK WILL SEND YOU A A COPY OF THE ORDER IN THIS MATTER.
THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD DAY. ALL RIGHT.
YOU TWO. ALL RIGHT. BRING US BACK TO ITEM A TO WHERE? ITEM A, WHICH IS ONE, TWO, 206 EDGEWOOD ROAD.
OKAY. THIS IS ALSO A HEARING FOR COMPLIANCE.
SCOTT THORPE IS HERE. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. THORPE. THIS CASE WENT BEFORE A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE BAY COUNTY, ON AUGUST 13TH, 2025, AND WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF BAY COUNTY CODE 17 DASH TWO, IN THE FORM OF AN UNFIT, UNSAFE STRUCTURE AND OVERGROWTH.
THE RESPONDENT DID APPEAR VIA PHONE AT THE HEARING.
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY ARE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE AS EXHIBIT A AND CONTAINED THE CASE FILE. THE MAGISTRATE ORDERED THE RESPONDENT HAVE 30 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER, OR A FINE OF $1,000 BE IMPOSED.
ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY IN WHICH THE VIOLATION EXISTS, AND UPON ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY RESPONDENT. A COPY OF ORDER IS INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE AS EXHIBIT B AND CONTAINED IN THE CASE FILE. IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR, THE THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTED IT REMOVED AND WANTED US TO MOVE FORWARD.
AFTER THE HEARING, WE SCHEDULED IT FOR ASBESTOS SURVEY ON AUGUST 26TH, AND IT WAS CONDUCTED AT A COST OF $800.
ON AUGUST 27TH, THE PRE-BID INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED ON THE PROPERTY.
A COPY OF NOTICE OF HEARING WAS POSTED AT THE PROPERTY IN BAY COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER ON SEPTEMBER 2ND, AND ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED.
THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN VIOLATION. AND WE DO HAVE A WINNING BIDDER AND WE'RE AND THE PERMIT IS PULLED AND THEY ARE JUST WAITING THE EXPIRATION TIME OF THIS HEARING.
OKAY. BASED ON THE TESTIMONY THAT I'VE HEARD AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS I'VE SEEN, I'M GOING TO FIND THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS GIVEN ADEQUATE TIME TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS AND FAILED TO DO SO. THAT BASED ON THAT FAILURE TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS, CODE ENFORCEMENT IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO ENTER UPON THE PROPERTY EITHER.
I GUESS YOU'D SAY PERSONALLY OR THROUGH A CONTRACTOR AND ABATE ANY AND ALL VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER.
ALL COSTS RELATED TO THE ABATEMENT WILL BE ASSESSED AGAINST THE RESPONDENT, AND CONSTITUTE A LIEN ON THE PREMISES ON WHICH THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE WILL BE A FINE OF $1,000 IMPOSED.
[00:55:04]
ITEM C. PROPERTY ADDRESS 19933 TIMBERCREST ROAD.THIS IS A HEARING FOR COMPLIANCE.
AND INSPECTOR SCOTT THORPE IS HERE TO TESTIFY.
INSPECTOR THORPE. AGAIN, THIS CASE WENT BEFORE A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE IN BAY COUNTY ON OCTOBER.
ON AUGUST 13TH, 2025, WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF BAY COUNTY CODE SECTION 17 DASH TWO FORM OF UNFIT, UNSAFE STRUCTURE, JUNK OVERGROWTH AND YARD DEBRIS.
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY ARE INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE AS EXHIBIT A AND CONTAIN THE CASE FILE.
IT'S A LARGE METAL FRAME ACCESSORY THAT IS ABOUT 70% COLLAPSED.
SITS AT THE REAR. THE REST OF IT IS WRECKED PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY.
THE MAGISTRATE ORDERED THE RESPONDENT HAVE TEN DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER CONCERNING THE JUNK OVERGROWTH AND YARD DEBRIS, OR INITIAL FINE OF $200, AND A DAILY FINE OF $25 FOR 20 DAYS WILL BE IMPOSED.
THE MAGISTRATE ORDERED THAT RESPOND TO HAVE 30 DAYS TO COMPLETE TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER FOR THE UNFIT, UNSAFE STRUCTURE OR A FINE OF $1,000 WILL BE IMPOSED.
ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY ON WHICH THE VIOLATION EXISTS, AND UPON ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY RESPONDENT. A COPY OF ORDER IS INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE AS EXHIBIT B AND CONTAINED IN THE CASE FILE. SEPTEMBER 2ND AND INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED AND THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN VIOLATION.
ON SEPTEMBER 8TH. THIS IS WHAT IT STILL LOOKS LIKE AND REMAINS IN VIOLATION.
AND NO PERMITS OR ENGINEERING.
OKAY, DOKEY. BASED ON THE TESTIMONY THAT I'VE HEARD AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS I'VE SEEN INTRODUCED IN EVIDENCE, YOU'RE GOING TO FIND THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS GIVEN ADEQUATE TIME TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS AND HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THE ORDER PREVIOUSLY ENTERED IN THIS MATTER.
THE CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF, OR ANY CONTRACTOR HIRED BY THE COUNTY, IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO ENTER UPON THE PREMISES AND ABATE THE VIOLATIONS THAT THEY FIND TO EXIST AT THE TIME OF THEIR ENTRY.
ABATEMENT WILL BE A LIEN ON THE REAL PROPERTY ON WHICH THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED IN ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT.
COUNTY COMMISSION IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT THESE BY VIRTUE OF THE UNIFORM ASSESSMENT COLLECTION ACT IN CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE.
THERE WILL BE A FINE OF AS IT RELATES TO THE JUNK OVERGROWTH AND YARD DEBRIS OF $200 AND A DAILY FINE OF $25, WHICH WILL RUN FOR 20 DAYS.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE WILL BE A FINE OF $1,000 THAT AS IT RELATES TO THE UNFIT OR UNSAFE STRUCTURE, THOSE FINES WILL BE THE THE SUBJECT OF THE FINAL ORDER RELATED TO THE TOTAL COST INCURRED. EXCUSE ME.
THIS IS ALSO A HEARING FOR COMPLIANCE AND INSPECTOR THORPE IS HERE.
POPULAR GUY TODAY. APPARENTLY SO, SIR.
THIS CASE WENT BEFORE A SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOR BAY COUNTY ON AUGUST 13TH, 2025. IS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF BAY COUNTY CODE SECTION 17 DASH TWO AND FORM AN UNFIT, UNSAFE STRUCTURE AND OVERGROWTH.
THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE AS EXHIBIT A AND CONTAINED THE CASE FILE.
WE WERE INITIALLY THERE TO YARD DEBRIS AND CLEAN THE PROPERTY.
AND LO AND BEHOLD, WE FOUND HOLES IN THE ROOF AND COLLAPSED PORCH AND A COLLAPSED ACCESSORY IN THE REAR. THE MAGISTRATE ORDERED THE RESPONDENT TO HAVE 30 DAYS TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDER, OR A FINE OF $1,000 TO BE IMPOSED.
ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST REAL PROPERTY IN WHICH THE VIOLATION EXISTS, AND UPON ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT. A COPY OF THE ORDER IS INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE AS EXHIBIT B AND CONTAINED IN CASE FILE.
ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED AND THE PROPERTY REMAINED IN VIOLATION AS OF THIS DATE. NO ENGINEERING, NO PERMITS AND NO CONTACT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
OKAY. BASED ON THE TESTIMONY I'VE HEARD AND THE EXHIBITS IN THE FORM OF PHOTOGRAPHS ENTERED INTO EVIDENCE, I'M GOING TO FIND THAT THE ORDER OF AUGUST THE 13TH PROVIDE THE RESPONDENT WITH ADEQUATE TIME TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS, AND THE RESPONDENT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THAT ORDER.
THEREFORE, CODE ENFORCEMENT STAFF, OR ANY CONTRACTOR HIRED BY THE COUNTY IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO ENTER UPON THE PREMISES AND ABATE ANY AND ALL VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED
[01:00:01]
UPON THEIR ENTRY AND OR IDENTIFIED IN THE ORDER.THE COST OF SUCH ABATEMENT WILL CONSTITUTE A LIEN ON THE LAND ON WHICH THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED, AND ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE DEFENDANT HERE IN BAY COUNTY. COUNTY COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO ASSESS THESE COSTS BY VIRTUE OF THE UNIFORM ASSESSMENT ACT. IN CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE, THERE IS IMPOSED A FINE OF $1,000 AS IT RELATES TO THE FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER.
THAT ALSO WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF THE FINAL ORDER RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COST OF ABATEMENT. ITEM H. PROPERTY ADDRESS 209 EL RAPOSO PLACE.
THIS IS A HEARING FOR COMPLIANCE.
WE DID FIND THAT THE PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE.
IT WAS A VIOLATION OF DERELICT VEHICLES WITHIN THE TIME FRAMES THAT YOU SET IN YOUR ORDER. THIS LAST SEPTEMBER 16TH SLIDES SHOW THE ACTUAL TAGS THAT WERE HAD NOT EXPIRED TAGGED.
SO THEY ARE ASKING THAT YOU FIND THAT THE PROPERTY IS NOW IN COMPLIANCE.
OKAY. BASED ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS I'VE SEEN AND THE TESTIMONY I'VE HEARD IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY AT 209 EL RAPOSO PLACE IN PANAMA CITY BEACH.
I'M GOING TO FIND THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE ORDER PREVIOUSLY ENTERED IN THIS MATTER, AND THE CASE SHALL BE CLOSED.
ALL RIGHT. ITEM I, AS AN ITEM PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 252535 13TH STREET. THIS IS HEARING FOR COMPLIANCE.
GOOD AFTERNOON, MAGISTRATE ROBERT CLARKSON, BAY COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT.
I'VE SUBMITTED MY EXHIBITS AND AFFIDAVITS FOR THIS CASE.
THIS CASE WENT BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE OF BAY COUNTY ON AUGUST 13TH, 2025, AND WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF BAY COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SECTION 3504. RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, LIVING AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, AND BAY COUNTY CODE SECTION 1702 PROHIBITION IN THE FORM OF DERELICT VEHICLES, DERELICT VESSELS, WATERCRAFT, UTILITY TRAILERS, BOAT TRAILERS, UNUSED UNSCREENED PERSONAL PROPERTY, JUNK AND TRASH. THE RESPONDENT DID NOT APPEAR AT THE HEARING, HOWEVER, HIS SON DOUG GREEN APPEARED ON HIS BEHALF.
PROPERTIES ARE INTRODUCED AS EVIDENCE.
EXHIBIT A THESE ARE THE PHOTOS THAT WERE SHOWN TO YOU ON THAT DURING THAT HEARING PRIOR TO THE HEARING. YOU FOUND THAT THE RESPONDENT HAS TEN DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY IN COMPLIANCE OR TO FIND $25 TO BE IMPOSED FOR 20 DAYS, OR WHEN THE PROPERTY IS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST.
ALSO, THE RESPONDENT HAD 30 DAYS TO REMOVE OR CEASE HABITATION IN THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, OR DAILY FINE OF $25 WOULD CONTINUE FOR EACH AND EVERY DAY.
THAT THE VIOLATION CONTINUED CONTINUES PAST THE 30TH DAY.
ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS OF ENFORCEMENT SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN AGAINST THE REAL PROPERTY.
YES. THE REAL PROPERTY WAS THE VIOLATIONS EXISTED AND UPON ANY OTHER REAL PROPERTY OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE VIOLATORS. COPY OF THE ORDER IS INTRODUCED AS EXHIBIT B ON AUGUST THE 14TH. COPY OF THE ORDER WAS MAILED TO THE RESPONDENT'S PRIMARY ADDRESS, CERTIFIED AND REGULAR MAIL.
THOSE WERE RETURNED BECAUSE THE PROPERTY IS VACANT IN VEGAS.
COPY WAS SENT TO THE RESPONDENT'S ITS ALTERNATE ADDRESS, WHICH WAS THERE ON 13TH STREET ALONG WITH THE.
THOSE WERE BOTH RECEIVED AND DELIVERED ON AUGUST THE 18TH.
ON AUGUST 25TH, IRENE INSPECTED THE PROPERTY, AT WHICH TIME THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLE WAS REMOVED.
BUT THERE'S PROBABLY STILL IN VIOLATION WITH JUNK, TRASH AND DEBRIS. THE PHOTO SHOW HERE.
THERE'S A REFRIGERATOR BACK IN THE BACK.
ON ITEM TEN, THE BOAT IN THE BACK, AND THE TRAILER THERE IN THE FRONT.
THAT WAS THE CAR THAT WENT ALONG WITH THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES NOW BEEN PUT ON THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND LOOKS LIKE THEY TOOK SOME JUNK OUT OF IT.
[01:05:01]
THE CAR DOES HAVE A VALID TAG.SEPTEMBER THE 15TH WENT AND RE-INSPECTED THE PROPERTY.
THE CAR IS STILL THERE ALONG WITH THE GARBAGE DEBRIS.
SLIDE 15. NOW THE BOAT AND THE TRAILER IS GONE.
BUT THE JUNK AND ALL STILL REMAINS.
AND PROPERTY STILL IN VIOLATION AS IT STANDS.
BASED ON THE PHOTOGRAPHS I'VE SEEN INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE AND THE TESTIMONY I'VE HEARD, I'M GOING TO FIND THAT AS IT RELATES TO THE JUNK TRASH, DEBRIS OVERGROWTH OR AT LEAST PART OF THE OVERGROWTH.
IT GROWS BACK. IT GROWS BACK SINCE THE ORIGINAL HEARING.
YEAH. REMAINS IN VIOLATION AS IT RELATES TO THOSE MATTERS.
THEREFORE I'M GOING TO FIND THAT THERE SHOULD BE A.
DAILY FINE OF. APPARENTLY, I DIDN'T IMPOSE AN ORIGINAL FINE, JUST THE DAILY FINE OF OF $25 A DAY.
THAT $25 FINE FOR 20 DAYS WILL BE IMPOSED, AND THE COUNTY IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO ENTER UPON THE PREMISES OR HAVE THEIR CONTRACTOR ENTER UPON THE PREMISES AND ABATE THE VIOLATIONS THEN FOUND TO EXIST UPON SUCH ENTRY.
THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT, ALONG WITH THE FINE IMPOSED IN THIS MATTER, WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF A SEPARATE ORDER WHEN THE FINAL COSTS ARE DETERMINED, AND THEY WILL BE A LIEN ON THE LAND ON WHICH THE VIOLATIONS OCCURRED, AND ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE RESPONDENT HERE IN BAY COUNTY.
THE COMMISSION IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT THESE COSTS BY VIRTUE OF THE UNIFORM ASSESSMENT COLLECTION ACT IN CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE.
LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA TODAY IS ITEM J.
PROPERTY ADDRESS IS 4234 BASELINE AVENUE.
THIS IS A HEARING FOR COMPLIANCE.
AND INVESTIGATOR CLARKSON IS HERE TO TESTIFY.
ROBERT CLARKSON, BAY COUNTY CODE ENFORCEMENT.
THIS CASE DID GO BEFORE YOU ON AUGUST 13TH AND WAS FOUND IN VIOLATION OF BAY COUNTY CODE SECTION 1702, IN THE FORM OF JUNK.
THIS ORIGINALLY WAS AN UNFIT, UNSAFE STRUCTURE THAT HE OBTAINED A PERMIT FOR AND DEMOLISHED, BUT HE LEFT ALL THE BUILDING, BUILDING MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS ON THE SITE.
HE DID CALL IN FOR THAT HEARING.
PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE EXHIBITS ARE THERE ZBA? THOSE WERE THE HEARINGS. THOSE WERE THE PHOTOS PRESENTED TO YOU AT THE HEARING PRIOR TO THE 13TH INSPECTION ON THE 11TH? YOU DID GIVE THE RESPONDENT TEN DAYS TO BRING THE PROPERTY INTO COMPLIANCE OR INITIAL FINE OF $200 AND DAILY FINE OF $25 BEING IMPOSED FOR 20 DAYS, OR WHEN THE PROPERTY IS BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE, WHICHEVER COMES FIRST. ALL INCIDENTAL COSTS SHALL CONSTITUTE A LIEN TO THE REAL PROPERTY ON WHICH THE VIOLATIONS EXISTED UPON, AND ANY OTHER REAL OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE VIOLATORS.
THE ORDER IS INTRODUCED AS EXHIBIT B.
COPIES OF THE ORDER WAS EMAILED AT THE RESPONDENT'S REQUEST DURING THE HEARING AND MAILED CERTIFIED AND REGULAR MAIL TO THE RESPONDENT.
AS OF THIS DATE, THERE HAS BEEN NO RETURN RECEIPT AND OR ANY RETURN MAIL.
AUGUST 25TH. PROPERTY WAS INSPECTED AND IT REMAINED IN VIOLATION.
THERE'S PHOTOGRAPH NUMBER SEVEN.
STILL THE DEBRIS AND BUILDING SUPPLIES UNDERNEATH THE TARP.
COPY. THE HEARING WAS POSTED ON SEPTEMBER THE 2ND ON THE GOVERNMENT WEBSITE.
IT WAS RE INSPECTED PRIOR TO THIS HEARING.
AS YOU CAN SEE, IT REMAINS IN VIOLATION.
ALL RIGHT. BASED ON THE TESTIMONY I'VE HEARD AND THE PHOTOGRAPHS INTRODUCED INTO EVIDENCE, YOU WILL FIND THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS ON AUGUST THE 13TH WAS GIVEN ADEQUATE TIME TO CORRECT THE VIOLATIONS.
AND THE RESPONDENT HAS IN FACT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THAT ORDER.
THEREFORE, A INITIAL FINE OF $200 AND A DAILY FINE OF $25 WILL BE IMPOSED FOR A PERIOD OF
[01:10:08]
20 DAYS FOR SUCH FAILURE TO CORRECT IT.THE. COUNTY. OR A CONTRACTOR HIRED BY THE COUNTY IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED TO ENTER UPON THE PREMISES AND ABATE ANY AND ALL VIOLATIONS IDENTIFIED UPON SUCH ENTRY.
BOTH THE FINE AND THE COST OF THE ABATEMENT WILL BECOME THE SUBJECT OF A SEPARATE ORDER TO BE ENTERED AT A LATER DATE.
AND THE COUNTY COMMISSION IS ENTITLED TO COLLECT THOSE COSTS BY VIRTUE OF THE UNIFORM ASSESSMENT COLLECTION ACT IN CHAPTER 21 OF THE CODE.
THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT'S IT.
DID I MISS ANYTHING? JODY? OKAY. WELL BACK THERE.
GIVE ME A MINUTE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.