Given the history of this specific project, and the fact that one or more of the changes may affect the building's height, I can understand Landmarks' and UDC's feeling the need to take a look at it.
I remember the Union Transfer fiasco too. My recollection is that the developer got off with a slap on the wrist, and got to keep what amounted to an extra story in the height of the building.
I think he even got severely scolded by some city officials, by golly! Bet that taught him.
Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
Stu Levitan wrote:I'm afraid I don't know how significant these changes were, since Cover prevented staff from writing a report and bringing to us.
I'm confused. The changes were listed in that article. You can't comment on those?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 3 guests