Magistrate gives homeowner 90 days to fix front-yard fence after city drops permit allegation

A special magistrate in Flagler Beach ordered the owners of 1724 South Flagler Avenue to bring a front-yard fence into compliance with the city's front-yard height rule within 90 days, after the city withdrew the allegation that the installation lacked a permit.

The matter, listed as case EEN20445, was presented March 26 by City Attorney Drew Smith and Code Enforcement Officer John Gifford. Gifford said the enforcement focus was the fence's height in the front yard; by city ordinance, fences in the required front yard must not exceed 4 feet. Smith told the hearing the city was withdrawing the portion of the notice that alleged a lack of permit and would not press that issue.

Respondent Joy Massey McGrew, who said she has lived on the property for 43 years, described the property's long fence history: an original field fence when the parcel was bought in the late 1950s, a 4-foot chain-link fence installed in the mid-1980s, later lattice repairs that raised portions to about 5 feet, and most recently reed panels installed in late 2023 after storm damage. McGrew said the reed panels replaced damaged lattice and were put in quickly using the material available; she told the magistrate, "I understand I'm out of compliance. As much as it pains me, I will come into compliance."

Magistrate and enforcement staff discussed whether the current work was a repair (which could be treated as maintenance of an existing structure) or a replacement that would require full compliance with current code. Gifford said staff had no historical documentation that the fence was taller than 4 feet; the respondent provided a family history and photographs and said several panels were replaced but posts were not. Both sides agreed location of the fence had remained consistent with earlier configurations and that the city would limit its case to height rather than location after withdrawing the permit allegation.

After discussing precedent concerns and the difficulty of retroactively policing long-standing features, the magistrate suggested a near-term compliance remedy rather than a punitive approach. The city indicated it had no objection to a 90-day compliance period; Smith also said the city would not seek administrative costs in this matter. The magistrate said, "Let's just say 90 days," and indicated the hearing record would reflect that timeline and the city's withdrawal of the permit allegation.

The magistrate's remarks emphasized the difference between code application and discretionary relief: magistrates apply the ordinance as written and cannot make exceptions. The hearing record includes the city's decision to narrow the violation to the fence height and the respondent's commitment to bring the fence into compliance within the agreed period.

The magistrate closed the case after those commitments and administrative clarifications; the city will not pursue the previously cited permitting allegation and said it would not seek costs at this hearing.

What happens next: the respondent is expected to take steps to reduce the fence height to meet the 4-foot front-yard limit or otherwise demonstrate compliance to code enforcement within the 90-day period. If the respondent does not comply within that time, the record indicates the city may resume enforcement steps consistent with the original notice of violation.

Votes at a glance: No formal roll-call vote was recorded; the outcome was established on the record by the magistrate's order and the city prosecutor's statement that the permit allegation was withdrawn and that the city had no objection to the 90-day compliance timeline.