Ani Creation, Inc., dba Rasta, et al. v. City of Myrtle Beach Board of Zoning Appeals, et al.

The City of Myrtle Beach enacted a new zoning Ordinance in 2018 which outlawed the sale of legal consumer goods being sold by Petitioners for the past thirty years. The Ordinance gives the offending businesses a little more than four months to comply or be subject to criminal or civil penalties. South Carolina law requires all challenges to zoning Ordinances to appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Further, South Carolina law does not allow the Board of Zoning Appeals to hear constitutional arguments. The questions are as follows:

1. When a city adopts a new zoning Ordinance that prohibits an existing business from selling its legal products, is it a taking?

2. May a court deny an existing business the right to a hearing consistent with Penn Central Trans. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) and the Due Process Clause when South Carolina law (S.C. Code § 6-29-800) prohibits the Board of Zoning Appeals from considering constitutional claims?

3. Can the government, consistent with the Takings and Due Process Clauses, require a business to stop selling legal consumer goods which it has sold for over thirty years within a four-month amortization period?