Laserfiche WebLink
and voted to table that action until its next meeting. The <br />Defendant expressly denies that the sole reason for tabling the <br />matter was a traffic study and alleges that there were <br />additional reasons for tabling the matter. <br />vIII. <br />That as to Paragraph 9 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, this <br />answering Defendant admits that the Little Canada Planning <br />Commission recommended approval of SuperAmerica's COP but <br />further alleges that such approval was conditioned upon the <br />Plaintiff's compliance with fourteen conditions and Plaintiff <br />was unable or unwilling to comply with those conditions. <br />IX. <br />That as to Paragraph 10 of the Plaintiff's Complaint, the <br />Defendant admits that the City Council voted to deny <br />SuperAmerica's CUP application but denies the remainder of the <br />allegations of said Paragraph 10 of the Plaintiff's Complaint. <br />X. <br />That with regard to Paragraph 12 of the Plaintiff's <br />Complaint, this answering Defendant is without information as to <br />the reasons Plaintiff commences this action. <br />XI. <br />That it denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 13 <br />and 14. <br />-3- <br />Page 44 <br />90/90'd WIUNF33 3111I1 01 m0a1S0 8 ?MOH A3N33MS Woad 6S:ZT b66I- e0 -10f <br />