Homeowners complain of tripod camera filming cul‑de‑sac; city to meet with property owner and review fencing rules

Residents of the Cashel Marra subdivision asked the Lynn Haven City Commission on Monday to intervene after a neighboring property owner placed a tripod camera on a lot adjacent to the cul‑de‑sac and, residents said, used it to film the neighborhood.

“He told us that his watch is watching her walking the dog,” said a homeowner who spoke at the podium, describing a camera that was tracking activity in front of their house; the couple said the tripod camera was later moved after they began building an eight‑foot fence. The homeowners told staff they were told by code enforcement they could not continue the fence in the exact location they wanted without a formal variance and that the variance process cost $600.

Commissioner Tender pressed for immediate action to protect families and children in the cul‑de‑sac. City Attorney Amy (last name given in meeting transcript) said there are two legal strands to consider: Florida criminal statutes on voyeurism, which are enforced by police, and the city’s code on fence heights and yard classifications, which the city may be able to amend or enforce. “If it is focused on their house or in a bedroom window, that's a different set of facts,” the city attorney said; she recommended coordinating attempts to inquire of the owner and suggested arranging a meeting between staff and the property owner to clarify camera placement and fence questions.

City Manager Gaynor and staff committed to follow up. The transcript records an agreement that city staff and the city attorney will contact the property owner to arrange a meeting and clarify whether the camera setup violates any city code and whether fence height variances or other code changes are appropriate to address residents’ privacy concerns. Amanda Richards (city staff) said she had not yet spoken in depth with the property owners and will follow up; code enforcement reportedly had earlier contact.

What was said in the meeting was largely procedural direction to staff and not a formal regulatory action. The city attorney cautioned that alleged criminal conduct under State law is a matter for law enforcement and that civil remedies may also be available to the property owners.

Next steps noted on the record: staff will contact the owner to request a meeting with the affected homeowners; code enforcement and legal staff will review the fence height and variance rules; and police will be the appropriate channel for criminal allegations if facts support that investigation.

The matter remains an open follow‑up item for staff; no ordinance change or formal variance decision was made at the meeting.