The case against Stanley R. Stanford LLC, doing business as Champion Cycling Incorporated, was initiated in June 2024. The city’s code enforcement representative, Nikki Bie, presented evidence, including photographs, showing bicycles displayed outside the business premises. According to Bie, the city ordinance prohibits any outdoor display of merchandise in the C1 zoning district, referencing sections 34-342b, c, and d of the city code. The enforcement action began after multiple notices and discussions with the business owners failed to achieve compliance.

During the hearing, the property owner was sworn in and argued that Champion Cycling had been operating since 1985 with outdoor displays of bicycles for service work and rentals without prior issues. They asserted, “We’ve done it now for over 30 years and it hasn’t been a problem,” questioning the sudden enforcement of the ordinance. They emphasized that the bicycles outside were primarily for customer repairs due to the lack of indoor storage space.

However, the code enforcement representative countered that the city’s code does not differentiate between bicycles for service and those for sale, asserting that any outdoor display constitutes a violation. The city had begun enforcing the ordinance more stringently following complaints about other businesses displaying merchandise outside. This prompted a review of similar practices city-wide, leading to multiple businesses, including Champion Cycling, being found in violation.

The representatives from Champion Cycling expressed frustration over the perceived inconsistency in enforcement. They highlighted their long-standing operation without complaints and raised concerns about the sudden enforcement. One representative stated, “It just seems that for 30 years no one complained and now it’s an issue.”

A point of contention was the classification of bicycles under Florida law. Champion Cycling argued that bicycles should be treated similarly to motorized vehicles, which are allowed outdoor display according to the code. However, the code enforcement maintained that there was a clear distinction, with bicycles not qualifying for the same exceptions as motorized vehicles.

The representatives from Champion Cycling insisted that outdoor displays were essential for their business operations due to the high volume of repairs they handled. They claimed that over 100 repairs were completed in a single week, making outdoor storage a necessity. Despite these arguments, the code enforcement position remained firm that compliance with the Land Development Code was mandatory, regardless of the business’s historical practices or operational needs.

Further discussion focused on the storage issue, with a representative from the business expressing frustration over the limitation to “one rack” for customer bicycles. They questioned why only one rack was permitted when the business catered to customers arriving on bicycles, although most customers actually transported their bikes in vehicles. They explained the operational challenge of having 37 bikes queued for repair, asserting, “we do a tremendous amount of repair business.” The bicycles displayed outside were largely for repairs, not for immediate sale, making the issue one of storage rather than display.

The city’s Land Development Code places strict limits on outdoor storage and display of merchandise. It was noted that outdoor storage is a common issue for various commercial businesses, and only specific uses permitted in the zoning district are allowed outdoor display. The representative was informed of options such as applying for temporary outdoor display events up to six times a year for three days each.

The magistrate concluded that the situation constituted a violation of code due to the storage issue. The representative was advised to explore options for increasing storage capacity away from the storefront. A timeline was discussed for coming into compliance, with the city recommending 15 days to identify additional storage. The magistrate extended this timeframe to 30 days to allow more flexibility. Consequences of non-compliance were outlined, including a fine of $250 per day for each day the bicycles remained outside after the deadline.

Questions were raised about the storage of electric bicycles, with inquiries regarding their outdoor storage regulations. The magistrate reiterated that all bicycles, including electric ones, must be stored indoors after hours. The differentiation between electric bicycles and other electric vehicles was clarified.