The Bay County Board of County Commissioners on April 1 approved revisions to Chapter 3 of the county code that spell out circumstances under which the county may withdraw zoning verification for alcohol beverage licensing and add an administrative appeal to a special magistrate before the county notifies the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR).

County Attorney Brian (last name not specified in the record) told the board the countydoes not issue or revoke liquor licenses and that its only role with DBPR is to confirm whether a property is properly zoned for the proposed alcoholic‑beverage use. "Our only role is to let the agency know that the property is properly zoned for the proposed license," the county attorney said, adding the ordinance is designed to provide a transparent process and an opportunity to contest staff decisions.

The revised ordinance narrows the circumstances under which the county will withdraw a prior zoning verification and limits building‑official review primarily to on‑premise consumption licenses, staff said. County staff removed proposed language that previously would have prevented reapplication for a license for a fixed period and said the 12‑month revocation language had been taken out following earlier board feedback.

Commissioners debated the change. Some raised concerns that the county would be duplicating state enforcement and could impose additional burdens on licensees; others said the measure provides a needed tool to address cases where a business represents one use (for example, a restaurant) but operates as another (for example, a nightclub) that carries different zoning and public‑safety impacts. "...if they want to operate a nightclub there, we would have to reevaluate whether zoning approval is appropriate or not," the county attorney said, describing past instances where the county concluded a property was operating outside its approved zoning.

Several commissioners praised edits that removed the most punitive language. Commissioner Carroll and Commissioner Raffield said the updated ordinance was preferable after board changes; Commissioner Peace opposed it in the final vote, citing concern about regulatory overreach and duplication of state authority. The final vote was 4–1 in favor: Commissioners Carroll, Raffield, Crosby and Chairman Moore voted yes; Commissioner Peace voted no.

Under the ordinance, if county staff conclude zoning approval should be withdrawn, the applicant will be notified and will have an opportunity to appeal to a special magistrate before the county transmits a notice to DBPR. County staff said the remedy available to the county remains limited to notifying the state about zoning—county staff do not have authority to suspend state liquor licenses.

The ordinance change was framed by staff as a clarification and an added procedural safeguard for applicants rather than an expansion of the countys enforcement authority.