Cash advance shop sues Metro | Legal

0

A cash advance shop says the metro’s distance restrictions shouldn’t apply and that the city has illegally issued a work stop.

In a lawsuit filed in Circuit Court last week, Speedy Cash said it obtained the necessary permits to run a retail store on Dickerson Road between September and November 2014. On November 18 of this year, the architect of the project learned that the Codes Department was recording the project. The architect was told that there had been a change to the code and that the business owner must comply with it before approval could be granted. The code change in question was a bill passed by the Metro Council that required cash advance shops and pawn shops to be at least a quarter of a mile apart.

However, the final vote on this change did not take place until later that day.

A week later, Speedy Cash was told that the approval had been mistakenly put on hold because the plans were submitted before the regulation was passed by the Council. The site is a former gas station, so among other things the fuel tanks have been removed. In total, the project cost more than $ 600,000.

Just a few days before completion, in April 2015, Codes issued a work hiatus stating that approval of the store had been mistakenly granted due to the quarter mile rule. The Speedy Cash is located about 400 m from the nearest cash advance shop.

Speedy Cash appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which upheld the cessation of work. This decision was challenged in the Chancery Court.

In the meantime, Speedy Cash is asking the Circuit Court to determine that Metro was involved in the illegal seizure of Speedy Cash’s property through its actions because the company acted in good faith under the direction of Metro employees and that it was out of compliance the quarter mile rule. Additionally, Speedy Cash says the property rights were acquired due to the significant investment made in preparing the Dickerson site.

Speedy Cash is demanding damages and, if the Chancery Court upholds the BOZA decision, damages for the improvements made to the property. The company is represented by Douglas Berry from Miller & Martin.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.