Flagler Beach commission denies Cajun Beach outdoor entertainment permit after months of complaints

The Flagler Beach City Commission voted unanimously on Jan. 9 to deny an annual outdoor entertainment permit for Cajun Beach Grill, citing potential adverse effects on nearby property owners and neighbors.

The permit application, listed as Application 250101, sought authorization for outdoor amplified entertainment at the restaurant on South 12th Street. Commissioners heard roughly three hours of testimony during the meeting from the applicant, the applicant’s attorney, neighbors, hoteliers and other residents before taking the vote.

Commissioners and residents focused their objections on three recurring concerns: acoustic impacts from live amplified music in an area that is commercially zoned but surrounded by residences; inadequate or uncertain parking for outdoor events; and the lack of verified sound‑mitigation measures in the permit packet. Several neighbors and hotel owners said earlier events at the restaurant had sent sound into their rooms and yards and had disrupted weddings and hotel guests.

Hunter Bedard, attorney for applicant Patrick McKinney, told the commission the business previously held a permit and that parking and music operations had not changed. "Cajun Beach deserves a fair shot as a beachside restaurant in this beautiful town," Bedard said, arguing denial would be arbitrary without evidence the 14 issuance criteria were unmet.

Multiple residents disputed that account. Tom Wotherspoon and Brenda Wotherspoon, neighbors who spoke during public comment, said a professional sound engineer had concluded the property was essentially unable to meet the city’s noise limits with live amplified music. "It is scientifically impossible to play music at the Cajun location without an adverse effect," Brenda Wotherspoon told the commission.

Commissioners questioned the applicant about specific mitigation measures. The applicant offered several concessions during the hearing: to end live music by 10 p.m., to avoid drums and full bands (saying he would limit acts to two‑piece groups or similar small ensembles), and to move speakers deeper into the stage enclosure so sound would be directed into the structure’s soundproofed area rather than out toward neighboring buildings. The applicant did not provide a signed, engineered sound‑mitigation plan or a written, binding agreement with the adjacent hotel for off‑site parking.

Commission debate centered on whether the record contained "competent, substantial evidence" that the city could find the issuance criteria were met. Commissioners repeatedly referenced prior permits granted at the same location with tighter restrictions, and noted the Planning & Architectural Review (PAR) Board recommended denial on a 5–1 vote; PAR cited multiple criteria (items 5, 7, 10 and 12, and amended to include item 9). Several commissioners told the applicant that the commission would be open to a return if a thorough, engineer‑certified sound abatement plan and documented parking agreements were submitted.

A motion to deny the permit was made on the basis that the proposal would "have an adverse effect and would unreasonably infringe upon the rights of property owners within 200 feet" (criterion 7 as cited in the hearing). The motion passed on a unanimous roll call vote.

Outcome and next steps: The permit application was denied. Commissioners and staff described the path for the applicant to seek reconsideration: submit a packet with clear, engineer‑certified sound‑mitigation designs; a fixed equipment/speaker plan and limitations on instruments and performers; and documented parking agreements or revised site plans showing how curbside and off‑site parking will meet demand. Several commissioners noted that the city's code allows revocation of a permit if the holder accumulates violations (a three‑strike process that includes magistrate review), and that the commission had previously imposed time and content restrictions on outdoor entertainment at this same location.

Votes at the hearing were recorded by roll call and reflected a unanimous denial.