More Highland Coffee ... it just gets worse

[Robin Garr]

This week's follow-up story in LEO just gets uglier: Urban Outfitters and the landlord had to go to the city Board of Zoning Adjustment (Leah, are you still on that?) to get the sign-change approved, and they (1) didn't inform Highland Coffee; and (2) they now maintain that this was legal and that Highland Coffee had no special right to be there.

Here's the lede and a link to the full story:

July 18, 2012
Zone press
Highland Coffee owners unaware of zoning hearing that resulted in Urban Outfitters usurping their signage rights
BY JOE SONKA

Natalie Hofer, who has owned Highland Coffee Company on Bardstown Road with her husband Greg for 13 years, appreciates the sudden outpouring of support from loyal customers.

Following LEO Weekly’s recent story about the loss of their sign to the new neighbors next door — global trendy retail giant Urban Outfitters — much of the Highlands community has rallied in support of the local coffee shop and criticized Urban Outfitters for what they view as bullying tactics against a small local business. In a little over a week, a Facebook page called “Give Highland Coffee their sign back!” gained more than 350 members.

And though Natalie Hofer is eager to move past this disagreement, she was surprised to learn the city approved Urban Outfitters’ request to supplant Highland Coffee’s signage during a zoning meeting two months ago — a meeting she knew nothing about.

LEO recently discovered that on May 7, the Board of Zoning Adjustment voted unanimously to approve an application by Urban Outfitters for a “Variance Modification/Condition of Approval Deletion.” The original variance was approved in 1990, giving signage rights to the two tenants in the back of the lot, which included Highland Coffee and the now-defunct Knit Nook. The new application, supported by landlord Stuart Flowers, deleted the condition of approval giving signage access to Highland Coffee, instead giving Urban Outfitters the full rights.

http://leoweekly.com/news/zone-press

It may have been legal but that doesn't mean they (UO and the landlord) weren't totally dickish about it.

[Robin Garr]

It may have been legal but that doesn't mean they (UO and the landlord) weren't totally dickish about it.

I'm really curious about the board declaring something "a business meeting" and not open to the public. That certainly was not the intent of the Kentucky "sunshine laws" passed back in the '70s and '80s, which I would assume to be still in effect.

My BOZA term expired several years ago. (during the brou-haha with JBS Swift.)

While the actions taken by all are technically correct, and I have great respect for Chris Brown as one of the better and more knowledgeable Urban Planners, this still doesn't pass the smell test. That no Board member asked if there were any other tenants in the center is curious.

BTW, the Business Session is public and held right before the Public Session. In the Business Session, there just isn't any testimony taken because all parties reportedly have already come to an agreement, and there is no opposition. Any opposition and the case gets thrown into Public Session.. Business Session is about the same thing as Metro Council's Consent Agenda.

Curtis Morrision was a posting a short video showing Urban Outfitters using Highland's recycling dumpster for the UO trash. Anybody see that? It just gets deeper and deeper.