Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 5 <br />Case Note: <br />Central Radio had also brought claims of selective enforcement of the sign code <br />restrictions in violation of equal protection rights under 14th Amendment to the <br />United States Constitution. The court found dismissal of those claims was ap- <br />propriate because "there was insufficient evidence that the City was motivated by a <br />discriminatory intent." <br />Standing—City passes ordinance <br />that limits location of adult <br />entertainment establishments, <br />business owner challenges <br />ordinance <br />City argues owner Tacks standing to make <br />challenge because it failed to file a complete <br />business license application <br />Citation: Hotboxxx, LLC v. City of Gulfport, 2015 WL 110614 (Miss. <br />2015) <br />MISSISSIPPI (01/08/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />lessor of a commercial building had standing to challenge the validity of a <br />zoning ordinance. <br />The Background/Facts: On September 17, 2009, Barry Artz ("Artz"), <br />co-owner of The Hotboxxx, LLC (the "Hotboxxx"), filed a business privi- <br />lege license application with the City of Gulfport (the "City"). The <br />Hotboxxx sought to operate an adult entertainment retail establishment. At <br />the time of submission of the business privilege license application, Artz <br />had signed a lease for related commercial office space in the City. <br />Not long after Artz submitted his application, a six-month moratorium <br />was placed on privilege licenses due to expected new zoning regulations <br />regarding adult businesses. In June 2010, the City passed an ordinance (the <br />"Ordinance"), which contained zoning regulations restricting the areas of <br />town in which adult businesses could be located. Under the new zoning <br />regulations, Hotboxxx could not open an adult business at the location that <br />Artz had leased. <br />Hotboxxx soon filed a lawsuit, challenging the constitutionality of the <br />Ordinance. The City moved the case to federal district court, and asked the <br />court to dismiss the case. The City argued that because Hotboxxx had failed <br />to sign the application in front of a notary, the application was incomplete, <br />©2015 Thomson Reuters 5 <br />