The contention arose from the city’s citation against T Gregory Imports for the outdoor display of merchandise, which the business owner argued has been a historical practice for over two decades. During the meeting, the property owner expressed that compliance with the city’s demands would have a detrimental impact on their business and insisted on the need for a meeting with city officials to reach an understanding. The Special Magistrate questioned the timing of the property owner’s awareness of the code enforcement action and sought clarification on the business’s relation to the property owner.

Further intensifying the debate, the business owner challenged the city’s enforcement process. The owner argued, using pictures of other businesses with similar outdoor displays, that the enforcement seemed to lack consistency. “I am making the argument that the process described by Miss Beavers leads to arbitrary enforcement because it’s complaint-based,” the owner stated. In contrast, the city’s representative maintained that the code enforcement officer responds to complaints and observes violations while in the field. The Planning and Development Director reinforced the city’s stance, presenting a memo clarifying that outdoor display of retail merchandise is generally not permitted in commercial zoning districts. The director was quoted saying, “In our zoning districts, if it is not listed, you cannot do it,” emphasizing the importance of a strict interpretation of the zoning code.

The business owner sought either dismissal of the citation, a continuation of the matter for consultation with the staff, or an opportunity for discovery if no settlement could be reached. The city’s representative pointed out the limited capacity of the code enforcement officer to address every potential violation without complaints being filed.

The issue of selective enforcement was also raised during the meeting, with a conversation about the issuance of permits for tents and special events, like Florida Georgia weekend and Jaguar games. The city later requested permission to amend the notice of the violation to correctly cite the applicable code, which the Special Magistrate granted, citing the city’s right to accurate citations and the possibility of a continued hearing to address the matter fully.

In a related discussion, the property manager brought up concerns regarding notice requirements for property owners and tenants, specifically mentioning the need for the business name and property owner to be listed on the notice. The city planner provided clarification on the notice requirements and the property owner’s responsibility for any fines. Additionally, the Special Magistrate referenced a city policy that permits businesses to move merchandise outside for up to six events annually, offering further discussion on the permit required for such events.

Other cases discussed at the meeting included a matter of a building permit for an outdoor shed, with the involved party granted additional time to complete final inspections and obtain a certificate of completion. A separate case concerning a shed erected without a permit was closed after the shed had been dismantled.