Laserfiche WebLink
III. <br />The Defendant admits Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 8 and 11. <br />IV. <br />That as to Paragraph 1 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, the <br />Defendant is without information as to the Plaintiff being a <br />division of Ashland Oil, Inc., a Kentucky corporation and, <br />therefore, requires the Plaintiff to so prove. <br />V. <br />That as to Paragraph 5 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, the <br />Defendant admits that a "convenience gas, grocery, and /or food <br />operations" use is a "conditional, use" under Section 901.040(C) <br />but denies that the gasoline station /convenience store is a <br />"conditionally permitted use" since there is no such designation <br />in the Little Canada Zoning Code. <br />VI. <br />That as to Paragraph 6 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, the <br />Defendant denies that the Planning Report to the Little Canada <br />Planning Commission recommended approval of the permit since <br />that recommendation was subject to numerous conditions and it <br />has not been affirmatively established that Plaintiff satisfied <br />or was able to satisfy those conditions. <br />VII. <br />That as to Paragraph 7 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, the <br />Defendant admits that on March 10, 1994, the Little Canada <br />Planning commission considered SuperAmerica's CUP application <br />-2- <br />Page 43 <br />90 /SO'd HQUNHO 311111 01 MON1S0 8 2132108 A3N33MS W021d 8S:Zt 466T- 80 -102 <br />