Flagler Beach magistrate dismisses multiple parking citations, discusses filing fee and December hearing

A Flagler Beach special magistrate hearing resolved several parking-citation appeals and prompted city staff to consider a filing fee and a consolidated December hearing.

The magistrate granted appeals or otherwise dismissed multiple citations after reviewing testimony, photographs and the specific circumstances of each case. The panel also agreed to continue one case for additional service and set a tentative schedule change for future hearings.

The outcome matters because the rulings and staff discussion spotlight recurring problems with downtown parking signage and enforcement, possible administrative costs for processing appeals, and whether the city should consolidate appeals into a single December hearing to reduce repeated staff time.

Teresa Cordero (case no. 3135) appealed a ticket issued Aug. 31 for parking in a no-parking zone. Cordero testified she parked north of the pier near Surfside Shakes and believed she was outside the marked no-parking area; she returned after lunch to find the citation attached to the passenger side of her truck. After examining the photographs and lacking a rebutting deputy, the magistrate said the sign pattern in that block was confusing and granted the appeal. “In fairness to the appellant, I don’t think that she could be held accountable,” the magistrate said before granting dismissal.

James Teeter (citation no. 3133) appealed a wrong-direction parking citation dated Aug. 31. Teeter, who now lives in Cornelius, North Carolina, said he had assumed a nearby construction closure persisted and made a U-turn onto the parking row. The magistrate and city attorney offered an alternative remedy instead of a monetary fine: Teeter agreed to perform a supervised beach-cleanup of three hours while in Flagler Beach, then sign an affidavit and deliver the collected trash to the code-enforcement office for verification. The magistrate confirmed the arrangement would be reflected in the order and accepted the dismissal conditioned on Teeter’s sworn affidavit.

Jeffrey A. Garcia (citation P01796FB) said a Flagler Beach officer directed him to park in the location used during a July 4 parade; Garcia testified the officer told him “you’re good.” The city said it had no rebuttal to that testimony, and the magistrate granted the appeal.

David Eulen (citation P01921), a 91-year-old veteran who said he parked off the pavement near North Fifth Street, argued the spot was private property and that the cited ordinance (noted in his submittal as City ordinance 19-23) did not apply. The magistrate explained that the area along Ocean Shore Boulevard is part of the state right-of-way for A1A, that wrong-direction parking creates moving-violation hazards, and that state law and local practice prohibit wrong-way parking. Taking Eulen’s age, disability and willingness to educate other drivers into account, the city accepted dismissal in lieu of the fine after Eulen agreed to a concerted effort to inform other drivers about the hazards of wrong-direction parking.

The magistrate also addressed scheduling and process issues. A separate matter, listed as case P0179 (Foxborough FB), was continued because the city did not have confirmed service on the respondent. City staff and the magistrate discussed consolidating matters into a single early-December hearing; they tentatively selected Dec. 10 as the hearing date and set a hard cutoff of Nov. 7 for filing appeals that would require action in December. The magistrate and city staff also discussed administrative costs tied to appeals: possible options included adding a modest upfront filing fee (examples suggested in conversation included $10) or recouping costs for unsuccessful appellants at the back end. City attorney Drew Smith said he would present cost estimates to the commission for policy direction.

On enforcement policy, the magistrate reiterated the safety rationale for prohibiting wrong-direction parking, noting it can produce multiple moving violations and an elevated risk of collisions when drivers depart a wrong-facing spot.

Next administrative steps are: orders reflecting each dismissal or condition will be mailed; the city attorney will provide cost estimates to the commission for consideration of a filing fee or cost recoupment; and staff will proceed with notices to support a proposed Dec. 10 hearing if enough appeals are filed by the Nov. 7 cutoff.