Magistrate orders pool screening repairs and payment of administrative costs in 2261 S. Flagler status hearing

The Flagler Beach special magistrate directed the owner of 2261 South Flagler to fix damaged pool screening, secure pool-area doors, remove pooled water from the pool cover and address a downed fence, saying the measures were needed for child safety and to reduce mosquito risk.

At the hearing the magistrate said the torn screening was a safety concern because “that’s the only barrier to access by a child,” and asked staff to arrange screening repair promptly. John Gifford, code enforcement officer, presented photographs showing torn screening, green water in the pool cover and puddling; he told the magistrate the condition “is an issue because the screen is torn, and there are puddles of water in the pool cover, and I’m sure they’re gonna be breeding grounds for mosquitoes.”

Why it matters: The magistrate emphasized the immediate safety risk from a child gaining access to the pool area through the missing screen panels and the public‑health risk from standing water. The magistrate ordered steps intended to reduce both risks and also addressed outstanding administrative fees tied to the enforcement case.

Details from the hearing: The respondent, identified in the record as Julie Guymon, told the magistrate she is arranging temporary pool electrical work and expects an electrician to pull a permit to restore power to pool equipment. Guymon said the house at 2261 S. Flagler cannot be rebuilt because of repeated flooding and elevation constraints and that the family is pursuing demolition; she said FEMA and a Mr. McFadden have indicated the structure is too low to rebuild. She described plans to have electricity restored to the pool so the pump can run and the pool can be maintained, saying she expects electric work to be permitted in March and that the pool could be operational around April.

Building-permit and fee status: Michelle Picciciello, clerk to the magistrate, reported the building-department database shows the last permit filed for the property was a reroof permit on 01/15/2021 and that no interior‑work permits appear. Drew Smith, the city attorney, confirmed an updated administrative cost figure in the agenda packet: $125.45, which the magistrate said must be paid; staff agreed they will prepare and provide the order/invoice and the respondent may pay by mail or telephone once it is received.

Magistrate directions and next steps: The magistrate directed staff and the respondent to do the following: replace missing or damaged pool‑screen panels, secure pool‑area doors, remove pooled water from the pool cover on a recurring basis (a leaf blower or temporarily removing covers were discussed as practical approaches), arrange for a screen contractor to repair the enclosure, repair or reinstall the fence on the property side where it blew down, remove small debris left at the side of the house, and provide proof of payment of administrative costs once billed. The magistrate also asked staff to provide pictures documenting compliance during follow-up.

What was not decided: No fine or new imposition of administrative penalties was entered at the hearing. The magistrate described the proceeding as a status update and set no further formal sanctions in the record at that time; the parties left with instructions and staff follow-up tasks.

Context and timeline: Staff said they had proof of service by mail sent on the 13th of the month and had attempted email contact; the respondent acknowledged receiving notice. The owner said insurance disputes and judicial delays have slowed demolition and structural work, and that the house has flooded repeatedly in recent hurricanes. The magistrate noted an elevation certificate placed the structure at 3 feet, which the respondent cited to explain why the house cannot be rebuilt.

Ending: Staff will prepare the formal order and an invoice showing the $125.45 administrative cost; the respondent agreed to pay once she receives the order. The magistrate closed the status portion of the hearing and the meeting moved to a workshop portion on code-enforcement processes.