Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout108-88v �► v I'OWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 December 16, 1988 File No. 108_88 To: Parties in interest and others Re: Decision in the Application of: ANDREW J. LEDDY, JR., TRUSTEE OF MCR REALTY TRUST Enclosed is the decision of the Board of Appeals which has this clay been filed witil the Nantucket Town Clerk. An appeal from this decision may be taken pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 40A, Massachusetts General Laws. Any action appealing the decision must be brought by filing a complaint in court within twenty (20) days after this date. Notice of the action with a copy of the complaint and certified copy of the decision must be given to the Town Clerk so as to be received within such twenty (20) gays. William R. Sherman, Chairman cc: Building Commissioner Planning Board Town Clerk BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 At a public hearing on Friday, December 9, 1988, at 1:00 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, on the Application (108 -88) of ANDREW J. LEDDY, JR., TRUSTEE of MCR REALTY TRUST having an address c/o Reade & Alger, P.C., P.O. Box 2669, Nantucket, MA 02554, the Nantucket zoning Board of Appeals made the following DECISION: 1. Applicant seeks a Special Permit under Section 139 -33A, or alternatively a modification of the Special Permit effectively granted by Order and Agreement for Judgment 11/13/86 in Land Court No. 119681 to conclude proceedings in our Case No. 015 -86, to allow kitchen facilities consisting of stove and oven (now barred by that Order) for food preparation and baking (but not frying) within the existing food preparation area. 2. The premises are at 49Pleasant Street, Assessor's Parcel 55- 019.1, Plan File 16 -A, Lot 2, zoned Residential -1. 3. Our findings are based upon the Application papers, viewings, the record in our prior cases 040 -85, 070 -85, 116 -85 and 015 -86 (including the Land court proceedings) correspondence, and testimony and representations received at our hearing on November 18, 1988. 4. Since filing of the Land Court Order, Applicant has included in their Five Corners Grocery Store operations the retail marketing of foods prepared off - premises and sold after final heating on premises. That heating is accomplished with hot plate or by microwave. Thus, the prior takeout food business has been continued but without 'eat -in' service and no catering service from the premises. The change now sought is to allow food preparation on premises of a character that normally does not result in release of noxious fumes or cooking odors. Examples offered included: poaching chicken, boiling pasta, and bak]* ng bread. (1) , j S ✓I� 71rc� �`�''� '� -�4 � C, rcv (,i �� 3 , �r o 5. Neighbors exp ei� ssed continued concern for impact of unpleasant fumes and odors upon their enjoyment of surrounding residential uses. Assuming that on- premises food preparation might attract more customers, they recalled the very severe traffic congestion resulting with any parking along Pleasant Street near the store. The driveway alongside the store accommodates deliveries and store personnel but not customers. We have noted previously that customers increasingly rely on their automobiles to visit the store. Concern was also expressed File No. 108 -88 that early morning trash pick -up from the dumpster at the rear of the store disturbed sleep. The Planning Board's recommendation was unfavorble, apparently recalling these concerns in the prior proceedings. 6. Answering these concerns, enhancements in the store's operation were noted and willingness expressed to accept reasonable conditions to minimize fumes, odors and early morning noise. While traffic congestion might be relieved by limiting traffic to one -way north, Pleasant Street now carries arterial traffic, neither direction of which might readily be re- routed. The Board generally saw the operation as a neighborhood convenience store without the very adverse impact of typical drive -in convenience stores nor with ready means for accommodating large numbers of patrons coming by car. 7. To balance the proper interests of residential neighbors with a reasonable evolution of the nonconforming business, we impose the following conditions upon the relief granted: (1) on -site food preparation may include a commercial stove with cook top and oven, also a convection baking oven but no frying (e.g., fryolator) or grill and no exhaust fan or other forced eduction of fumes or cooking odors to the exterior of the store. (2) trash shall be picked up from the premises only during the period between 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. With, but only with such conditions are we able to make the requisite finding that the relief granted is not substantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. On that basis, we further find that the relief is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the zoning Bylaw. 8. Accordingly, by unanimous vote this Board grants to Applicant the relief, specified above, by Special Permit under Section 139 -33A, subject to the conditions stated in Paragraph 7. Date December C19, 1988 Pe er Dooley` William R. Sherman Dale W.Waine David J. Leggett Ann Balas - 2 - a NOTICE A Public Hearing of the BOARD OF APPEALS will be held on FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1988, at. 1:00 P.M., in the TOWN AND COUNTRY BUILDING, FEDERAL and BROAD STREET, NANTUCKET, on the application of ANDREW J. LEDDY, JR., Trustee of MCR REALTY TRUST (/09-86), seeking a SPECIAL PERMIT under By -Law Section 139 -33.A, to permit addition of kitchen facilities (but not frying) to the food preparation area of the existing food store, a nonconforming use said to pre -exist the 1972 adoption of the Nantucket zoning by -law. (See prior cases 040 -85, 070 -85, 116 -85, and Land Court Case No. 119681). The premises are located at 49 PLEASANT STREET (Assessor's Parcel 55- 19.1), Plan File 16 -A, Lot 2, and are zoned as RESIDENTIAL -1.. William R. Sherman, Chairman NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS BOA Form 1 -87 APPLICATION NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ( "BOA ") WERE Owner's name(s): Andrew J. Leddy, Jr., Trustee of MCR Realty Trust Mailing address: c/o Reade & Alger P.C., P.O. Box 2669, Nantucket, MA 02584 Applicant's name Mailing address: Location of lot(s): Assessor's map and parcel:55- 1.9.1. Street address 49 Pleasant Street Registry 1MX1XT X1XIXXl$IMXR(R� PL FL 16 -A Lot 2 Deed ref235 -241 Subdivision - - -- Endorsed 11/26/88 ANR? Yes Date Lot(s) acquired: 9/23/85 Zoning district Residential -1 Number of dwelling units on lot(s): None Rental guest rooms None Commercial use on lot(s): Food Store (off premises consumption)MCD? No Building date(s): all pre -'72 zoning? Yes or Building permit application Nos. and dates - -- C of 0? -- Case No(s). or dates all prior BOA applications: 040 -85; 070 -85; 1.16 -85* State fully all zoning relief sought together with all respective Code sections and subsections, spec r ifically, what you propose compared with present and what grounds you urge, for BOA to make each finding per Section 139 -32A if Variance, -30A if Special Permit, -33A if to alter or extend non - conforming use, or to reverse Building Inspector by;Appeal per -31A & B: _Applicant seeks a Special. Permit under By -Law Section 139 -33A, for the modifi- cation of a pre.- existing nonconforming use as a retail store (as affected by the special permit granted in Land Court Case No. 119681), dealing in food for off premiss -�s consumption, to allow kitchen facilities for food preparation and _baking (but not frying) within the existing food preparation area. * (See also Land Court Casc: No. 119681) Enclosures forming part of this Application: Supplement bo above Site /Blot plan(s) X with present /proposed structures Locus map X Floor plans present /proposed X Appeal.record Needed: areas frontage setbacks GCR% parking data Assessor's certified addressee list (4 sets) ,X Mailing labels, (2-.sets)X Fee check for $150.00 payable to Town of Nantucket "Cap" covenant I certify that the requested information submitted is substantially complete and tru© to tl best of my, knowledge, under pains and penalties'of perjury., Signature: _7 L Applicant Attorney /agent X (If not owner, show basis for authority, to - apply:),. FOR OFFICE USE Application copies received: 41'1'(or only ) for 130A /0/�&J—by YA43 One copy given Town Clerk &L/ by �—Ct) Complete? (/ One copy sent to Planning Board and to Building Dept. by $150.00 check given Town Treasurer %�/L /,y Notices of hearing posted JL/� mailed _&/3r&rpublished D/ L1/`6/ Ilearing(s) held on _ /_ /_ continued to _ /_ / _ /_ /_ withdrawn? Decision made _ /_ /_ filed with Town Clerk _ /_ /_ mailed See related files: application - litigation - other TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Rebecca Lohman Town Clerk Town and County Building 16 Broad Street Nantucket, MA 02554 March %9 1997 -'RE:- CffARRON RANNEY, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF MCR REALTY- TRUST, BOARD OF APPEALS FILE NO. 108 -88 Dear Ms. Lohman; Please find attached a CLARIFICATION regarding the above referenced Board of Appeals Decision. At a regularly scheduled public hearing of the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals held at 1:00 P.M., Friday, February 14, 1997 the Board voted to grant the clarification. According to the Zoning By -Law and MGL c. 40A, there is no twenty (20) day appeal period associated with clarifications. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. encl. Sincer}e�l -yam Linda F. Williams Asst. Zoning Administrator RECEIVED TOWN CLERK'.S OFFICE NANTII!�t{CT AAA 02554 MAR 19 1997 TIME: CLERK:__.___ 6_67ue MELISSA D. PHILBRICK, P.C. Post Office Box 148 Zero Main Street, Second Floor Nantucket, Massachusetts 02554 Melissa D. Philbrick Emily Avery Tel: (508) 228 -5151 Fax: (508) 228 -5155 March 6,1997 I:'/:ME -Paul S: Jet" r4,Administrator - =- Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals 37 Washington Street Nantucket, MA 02554 Re: 49 Pleasant Street Dear Paul: This letter will confirm our conversations prior to the February 14th meeting of the Board in connection with the above - referenced property. I represent the contract purchasers of the property and was concerned that the 1988 decision of the Board made reference to the 1986 Board decision and the Order and Agreement for Judgment filed in the Land Court which overturns the 1986 decision, neither of which had ever been recorded. I requested that the Board clarify for the record that the present structure, which only has the two non - conforming parking spaces in the driveway beside the building, complies with the Order and that the Order establishes that twelve parking spaces are validly grandfathered. Enclosed a proposed clarification that reflects the vote of the Board for your review. Please call me with any comments you may have. erely, cc: Ms. Rachel Hobart Rhoda H. Weinman, Esq. Keith M. Yankow, Esq. Map 55, Parcel 019.1 49 Pleasant Street Residential -1 Plan File 16 -A, Lot 2 Deed Book , Page NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CLARIFICATION At a public meeting on Friday, February 14, 1997, at 1:00 p.m., in the Town and County Building, Nantucket, Massachusetts, at- the request of Charron. Ranney, Successor Trustee of MCR Realty_ Trust u /d /t dated September 23,1985, the Nantucket Zoning Board of Appeals issued the following CLARIFICATION: 1. On December 16, 1988, the Board issued a Decision (ZBA File No. 108 -88) which granted a Special Permit to MCR Realty Trust in connection with the property situated at 49 Pleasant Street for certain uses with certain conditions. The Decision is recorded in Book 315, Page 160 at the Nantucket Registry of Deeds. The Decision makes reference to and supplements a prior Special Permit granted by Order and Agreement for Judgment dated November 13, 1986 in Land Court Case No. 119681 (the "Order "), which Order concludes the proceedings in ZBA Case No. 015 -86 by superseding the April 7, 1986 Decision by the Board in that case. Neither that Order or the April 7, 1986 Decision have heretofore appeared of record. 2. Attached hereto are true copies of the Order and Agreement for Judgment and the April 7, 1986 Decision superseded by that Order. In order to clarify that the existing nonconforming parking in the driveway complies with the Order, the Board, by UNANIMOUS vote, finds that the words ", all of which are grandfat- leered" should be inserted in the sixth line of Paragraph 6 of the Order at the end of the sentence. As clarified, Paragraph 6 reads: That grandfathering is available to the premises based on its operation prior to the enactment of the Nantucket Zoning By -Laws and therefore the seeking of a variance from off street parking is rendered moot as with the removal of 900 square feet of warehouse space [which removal has been completed] there will be the twelve spaces required by the applicable Zoning By -Laws, all of which are grandfathered. (See decision of Board of Appeals dated May 29, 1985 acknowledging grandfathering.) Dated: March `?, 1997 RECEIVED TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE NANTi rr� A.flA 02554 MAR 19 1997 T,mE: c�_ERK� a TOWN OF NANTUCKET ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 37 WASHINGTON STREET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 Ms. Rebecca Lohman Town Clerk Town and County Building 16 Broad Street Nantucket, MA 02554 July 2, 1997 RE: CHARRON RANNEY, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF MCR REALTY TRUST, BOARD OF APPEALS FILE NO. 108 -88 Dear Ms. Lohman; Please add the attached documents to the CLARIFICATION dated March 19, 1997. They were inadvertently omitted from that submission. The original filing specifically states that the attached documents were to be included. According to the Zoning By -Law and MGL c. 40A, there is no twenty (20) day appeal period associated with Clarifications. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. encl. Si 7 cere2y, Linda F. Williams Asst. Zoning Administrator RECEIVED TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE NANTUCKFT. M � 02554 JUL 0 3 1997 CLERK: _ ___ C� TOWN OF NANTUCKET BOARD OF APPEALS NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 April 7, 1986 Re: MCR REALTY TRUST, ANDREW J. LEDDY, JR. TRUSTEE CIT-g� Enclosed, please find notice of a decision of the BOARD OF APPEALS which has this day been filed with the Town Clerk. Any appeal from this action shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of Chapter 40A of the General Laws, and shall be filed within twenty (20) days after this date. L, t ve- e- �" William R. Sherman, Chairman BOARD OF APPEALS BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF NANTUCKET NANTUCKET, MASSACHUSETTS 02554 DECISION: The BOARD OF APPEALS, at a Public Hearing held on FRIDAY, APRIL 4, 1986, at 1:30 p.m. in the Town and County Building, Nantucket,rendered the following Decision in the Application of MCR REALTY TRUST, ANDREW J. LEDDY, JR., TRUSTEE: 1. Applicant seeks a SPECIAL PERMIT under Nantucket Zoning By -Law Code SECTION 139 -33A and a VARIANCE from the off - street parking require- ments of SECTION 139 -18. If granted, Applicant would be permitted to extend a prior non - conforming use as a food store by selling prepared foods for off - premises consumption while providing fewer then the required parking spaces. The premises are located at 49 PLEASANT STREET, Assessor's Parcel 55 -19.1 (Lot 2, Plan File 16 -A), zoned RESIDENTIAL -1. 2. Based upon the Application papers, viewings., testimony, repre- sentations, and papers made of record including memoranda of counsel, pro and con, we find that Applicant trust has as its principal benefici- aries Margaret C. Curley, Jane B. Miller and Charron P. Ranney. The pro- perty was acquired September 23, 1985 after delay by the predecessor Sykes' bankruptcy proceedings. 3. During that delay, a first application (070 -85) was filed by Applicants' beneficiaries. They sought installation of an "anciliary kitchen" and employer dormitory (no longer sought) and parking relief. At a well- attended hearing August 2, 1985, we allowed withdrawal without prejudice. The only relevant change then sought consisted of "conversion of existing space within the building for use as a kitchen, to be used in baking and cooking of foods to be sold for consumption away from the premises." We were refered to the prior application (040 -85) of the Sykes wherein we granted variance relief under the intensity regulations to render the premises marketable following ANR subdivision effective Nov. 23, 1984, from the Sykes' adjacent residential lot. (015 -86) -2- 4. A second application (116 -85) was filed "for installing cook- ing facilities for the preparation of food ", again withdrawn without prejudice by action at our well- attended hearing on Dec.13, 1985. As before, the Planning Board's recommendation was unfavorable upon considera- tions of traffic congestion, inter alia. 5. The present third Application similarly drew a large attendance at our hearing of February 28, 1986. Issues of history and prospective impact were strongly contested. With such evidence as we have in this and the prior records, the following is our understanding of use of the property pre- dating zoning (i.e. -) prior to mid - 1972). The store building (as well as the Sykes residence on the now separated lot) was built by 1958 in an open land area by then owner - manager Frank Rebimbas. He opera- ted it from 1951 to 1981, thus setting the basis for Applicant's claim of a pre- existing, non - conforming use. He states that "no food preparation or processing or manufacturing was ever done on the premises." Merchan- dise sold pre- zoning is listed in Madelyne Perry letter of March 22, 1986. See also Applicant's statement of history, not as clear as to pre- zoning scope. The business was continued by Mr. Sykes until closed 11/1/84 - 9/27/85 (or actually to Applicant's opening 10/9/85) occassioned by bankruptcy proceedings. 6. We find, therefore, that the sale of locally - prepared foods was not grandfathered, so that, whether prepared off - premises or on, a special permit under Section 139 -33A would be required. In favor of such permit is the well- attested responsibility and quality of operations undertaken by Applicant, and the very extensive support for Applicant beyond the immediate neighbors. Applicant also urges that the proposed use is "evolu- tionary." Although inappropriately citing supermarket evolution (where non - conforming use and inadequate parking are not involved), they see a local neighborhood convenience store, historically reached on foot, as giving way to specialty (prepared) food shops catering to a wider market= coming by automobile. Contrarily, some (but not all) immediate neighbors would prefer that the prior declining store cease to operate as a non- conforming business in their residential zone, other convenience stores and supermarkets being only a few blocks away. They strongly oppose (015 -86) -3- installation of a kitchen even with a modern commercial store (no grilling or frying) as Applicant proposes. Fumes, odors, safety, and exacerbated traffic and parking problems are their concerns. 7. We are advised that on- street parking is not now permissible on either side of Applicant's store along Pleasant Street from Warren to Williams Street. This is by action of the Board of Selectment on recom- mendation of the Traffic Safety Committee and out of deep Fire Department concern for passage of emergency vehicles otherwise bottlenecked by park- ing at the store. Off- street parking is now limited to a driveway ending in a garage, perhaps 5 car lengths. Applicant claims grandfathering but, arguably, that is lost by the ANR subdivision in 1984 where Applicant's predecessor reduced the lot size (and alternative parking area, if any) by some 4307 SF, leaving the present lot substandard. If grandfathering were applicable, the spaces would be 7 for 1312 SF retail operation plus 1 for 1188 SF warehousing of stock, or 8 total. (See also Assessor's 1/1/85 card.) Applicant would have 660 SF active retail area (3 spaces), a take -out food station (5 spaces), no more than 4 employees (1 space) and the balance warehouse use (2 spaces) for total 11. On -site parking would be increased one space by eliminating 900 SF of ground cover to make room. 8. Opponents argue that Applicant's present notice, contrasted with those of the first two applications, does not embrace installation of a kitchen but contemplates off - premises preparation of prepared foods, the very use Applicant undertook last fall and ceased upon direction of the Health Inspector or Officer. We elect to decide on the merits, not on a question of notice and case law interpretation. 9. Opponents argue under Section 139 -33D that the store use, having changed to a conforming use from 11/1/84 to 10/9/85 when store operations ceased, should not be permitted to revert to a non - conforming use. From 11/1 to 11/23/84, the unused store was properly accessory to the Sykes' residential use on the same lot; hence, conforming under Section 139 -17. After ANR subdivision, the unused store was no longer accessory, therefore non - conforming. Again, we elect to decide on the merits, the question of extending the current non - Conforming use. (015 -86) -4- 10. Considering the 3- pronged test commended in Applicant's memo- randum, the "nature and purpose" of the proposed use differs from pre - zoning by the spread and mobility of customers. Differences in quality or character (as well as degree) are found in the proposed vending of home- made bread, soup, entrees, etc. (still food, of course). Third, the pro- posed use is clearly "different in kind in its effect on the neighborhood'.,' notably, in impact on parking and traffic (per Town officials) and in new kitchen (see opponents' memorandum). We conclude that the proposed uses (even barring, by Applicant's proposal, catering, grilling and frying, change of display stands, operation of other than a specified store for hO on- premises food sales and Aon- premises eating facilities) would be sub- stantially more detrimental to the neighborhood. We note, however, that the Planning Board's recommendation was favorable, conditional upon keep- ing all cooking off the premises. 11. The requisites for a parking variance were not found, neither hardship nor uniqueness. Applicant's predecessors had limited off - street parking to one space absent structural changes, and ceased operations prior to Applicant's recent purchase. Applicant's proposed removal of 900 SF of ground cover to allow a second space does not answer the problem of no on- street parking in the vicinity. One is permitted to increase a pre- existing, non - conforming business operation in a residential zone in degree and not, as we find here, in a manner substantially detrimental to the public good and contrary to the intent and purpose of the zoning chapter. 12. Accordingly, on motion to grant the requested variance, the vote in the NEGATIVE was UNANIMOUS. On motion to grant a Special Permit to extend the retail store use to include foods prepared off - premises (i.e., no kitchen installed) for off - premises consumption, without grill- ing, frying, catering, warehouse distribution services, or on- premises eating facilities, with one take -out station, one additional parking space replacing 900 SF of ground cover, and such permit personal to the present trust beneficiaries, the vote was NOT UNANIMOUS, member Vollans voting in the negative. Hence, all relief is DENIED. (015 -86) -5- Dated: April 7, 1986 Nantucket, MA 02554 William R. Sherman 4Ma hal l Be le Dorothy D. Vollans SEAL NANTU=' SS. 6� f` ti ca,V0NNEALTH CF MASSACHUSEITS ANDREW J. LEDDY, JR, ) TRUSTEE OF M.C.R. REALTY TRUST ) and JANE B. MILLER, MARGARET C.) CURLEY and CHARRON P. RANNEY ) as they are BENEFICIARIES OF ) M.C.R. REALTY MUST ) Plaintiffs ) VS. ) WILLIAM R. MERMAN, DO20►M ) VOLLINS and MARSHALL BEALE ) as they colorise the ) ZONING BOARD CF APPEALS OF T ) TCJWN CF NUM)MET, ) Defendants ) C-.-) LAND COURT DEPART NJ. 119681 1 ci• cz VM Plaintiffs are the Trustee and Beneficiaries of the M.C.R. Realty Trust which owns the premises located at 49 Pleasant Street, Nantucket, Massachusetts, Assessors Parcel 55 -19.1 (Lot 2, Plan File 16 -A), Zoned Residential -1. The premises are known as the Five Corners Grocery Store and has been operated as a commercial Market since apprcvimately 1948. The Plaintiffs acquired the premises on September 23, 1985. In February of 1986, the Plaintiffs filed an Application with the Defendant Board under Sections 139 -18 and 139 -33 of the Nantucket Zoning By -Laws of the Town of Nantucket for extension of a prior, non- conforntii.ng use as a food store by selling homemade foods for off - premises consuaption and to the extent necessary, for waiver of parking space requirement (no additional parking spaces being required in excess of those required for present use as a food store). Plaintiffs' application was denied on April 7, 1986 and the present appeal was then filed pursuant to M.G.L.A., Chapter 40A, Section 17 on April 16, 1986 It is AGREED and CRDERED: 1. Zhe Five Corner's Market, in addition to what they are currently permitted to sell, will be entitled to expand to include the selling of hcmemade fresh foods (provided their preparation occurs off premises and their final heating, dividing and package occurs on premises) and the making and selling of fresh made sandwiches on the premises; and that this new use is substantially in keeping with the present harmony of the neighborhood and applicable Zoning By -Laws and therefore, this application for Special Permit is granted. 2. A microwave and hot plate are a permitted use, but no stove, grill, oven or fryolater will be installed on the premises. 1 3. 1hat no catering services will be available on the premises nor any eating facilities, i.e. tables, chairs, stools or counterspaces. 4. Zhat the display area of the premises be limited to 660 square feet, and 900 square feet of warehouse building space will be removed by June 15, 1987 and an off - street parking sign errected and at least two (2) parking spaces off -street installed. (A plan defining the removed building space and the addition of two (2) parking spaces is incorporated with this Agreement for Judgment.) 5. That there will be no change in the display stands presently located in the premises. 6. That grandfathering is available to the premises based on its operation prior to the enactment of the Nantucket Zoning By -laws and therefore the seeking of a variance from off street parking is rendered moot as with the removal of 900 square feet of warehouse space there will be the twelve spaces required by the applicable Zoning By -laws. (See decision of Board of Appeals dated May 29, 1985 acknowledging grandfathering.) 7. All wholesale deliveries to the store will be limited to 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., Monday thru Saturday. 8. Zhere will be once a week refuse pick up and in addition, a dumpster maintained on the property andZitminy _daily policing during business hours for removal of any inadvertent debris caused by the operation of the Five Corner's Grocery Store in an area fran Back Steet to Atlantic Avenue. 9. Nothing herein will prohibit the Applicant fram seeking other Special Permits consistent with this stores operation. 10. That this Application will now be allowed consistent with the orders contained herein and the Board of Appeals Vb iiif/ approves such operation by their acknowledgement of this Judgment. By the Court POBMT CAUCHON WILLTAM R. VOLL�l�S $FAT F GEORGIA Arr MADELYNE PERK Attest: Charles W. Trombly, Jr. Recorder A TRU E COPY ` JATTEST: W"V / / /Y/. ��AM 406W��f�s )nOa, I MI (Y NN I = CCCI i I coo N N N b-3 CN tONC M --- --_. --- -- N AN C: t '..' I_ _ •11' - -�:�I. �a a' -i - _I - ._ 0 MCI'^ 00 -H 41 ON '0 w IN 3 z O a: I!:I rl tT enCN i m; Ln 'n O 3 Q' W. I s 1 I Q) N n @NM = r- a N33 iUI I w . w 0 m 0 c aCE- I ( O O m 1¢ D, O (� 9 i> C;t/;G f 6�IQ G w 14 . Q.-aC 10 0) e• .e; x�0 01 a L. _ r`M0 x c lard (s� o u 0 w � i V- v; N L O ' q[lipyl N .a 114 O A I= 3 M Z O cc I $4w b0 -(x �= rNr _ F to o , a.r O cn a .+ = c Z .0 w 0 u 211 -01 =c Q oci 3 N m +� I MQ.•M - .r z N Z I O u ar 1 +r I 30. zw =c -4 " m m 1 U 11 v.NN C� CI ca -H 41 41 fMOC - =C mOw"n tU G ? O .O t)N Ir. M C. z;wl C r C� 1 >! .J rl CT C% Lr- 4. i Y I I I r 1 + r•H ►+ + .-� ►r •r ►-..•• .-1.. ►.+ b•t r + 1, _ - I a 1 r t en 2i, �=1C M CS p r-�►- +•ter►,►- t► -��-1+ C Q 1 —_ --- _ -- -- - LC '� �., ci r✓ �S V .-. to 1 N C m :all ! a I •� > i\ + r-+ r.. ►- •--I ►• + -- '-- - - -- - - - - - -- r . 1-� l its Q' - - - - -- --. L �_�: -. - -- - 2 u 1� �L N Cam:' _ i 0 I C Ia. ax I - N co co U') N - -- IC rv� i �: 3 I .] S • p r Lai l I. _ C . r •. " N Lr C :W G U F I U ¢ C i9 S CL. O Z I [i (a. —1 -- - -- - - -. _ 2 C. to G S rl' \ to U: T O N G � ^ a tr_ :. V) - U S Ot.-.� z [a. I'_¢F U 1r W0 tT C c/) .a.-3 O ta.!al z O U-G -]O - wT..0 G ti " OtiQcc N S 0::J C .]2Z w cw Cla..ta:«]WtYcrGF O CG.>- z JOZ _ O Z"Z CWT — -� n' C O Qtns H -30 0r- 0WO'F>i OoU0)n = Ciao-. -a__.OGI,Z• 3QLUZOtodC(Z - - T%cm0N = - _ Coc—o v cfOMMtn V 0NN.- -N .47NOC4 O \ i . _••+000,0 CG.O.OG_O C_.___"'_CO.— N � .3 F F �oM.arnr �O - .JJQIX UrZ . U 00 ZC7 \C \ \JO c CG XMX-<U