Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Code Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbor presses Flagler Beach for removal of alleged encroachments at 2201 North Ocean Shore Boulevard; magistrate says city relationship resolved but lacks cl
Summary
Adjoining property owner Brent Creo told the special magistrate that stairs, slabs and multiple AC units installed at 2201 North Ocean Shore Boulevard encroach on his 50x110 lot; city staff said a stipulated order closing code violations had been prepared and advised the neighbor to pursue a refreshed complaint or civil remedy.
Adjoining property owner Brent Creo told the Flagler Beach special magistrate on May 27, 2026 that multiple improvements at 2201 North Ocean Shore Boulevard — stair slabs, fences, garbage storage and four of five air‑conditioning compressors — encroach onto his 50‑by‑110‑foot lot.
Creo presented surveys and photos and argued the city had selectively enforced items listed in its notice of violation. He said fences were removed but that the AC compressors and a stair slab remain on his property line, and he asked the magistrate to require their removal or relocation so he could regain use of his lot. "All I'm asking for is this person... move or remove these AC units so they're not on his property line. Give his land back," Creo said.
City staff and the magistrate responded that the city had investigated, issued a notice of violation and — based on its determination — a stipulated order of compliance had been prepared because the city considered the listed violations cured. Staff noted some aspects of the dispute (encroachments that affect title) may be civil matters between property owners rather than ongoing code‑enforcement violations. Magistrate Pop said he lacked authority to force removal absent an open code violation and advised Creo to either file a new complaint expressly pointing to the specific code sections the alleged current conditions violate or to consult private counsel for civil remedies.
The transcript shows a sharp factual disagreement: the city says the violations listed in the notice were cured and the case closed; Creo presented surveys he says show continuing encroachments and described prior communications with staff (including a now‑retired building official who advised using a survey string to locate property lines). Magistrate Pop encouraged practical next steps: obtain counsel, file a refreshed complaint referencing specific code provisions, or bring the matter to the commission for policy review; he said he could hear a case if the city reopens code enforcement with an uncured NOV.
What happens next: the city noted a stipulated order of compliance had been prepared to resolve EN26‑0141; the adjoining owner said he will seek counsel and may file a follow‑up complaint. The magistrate closed the hearing for this matter but left open procedural avenues should the city issue a new notice of violation.
