Mr. Wash and Jerry Chan’s Closed in Logan Circle Last Weekend, Some Neighbors Still Worried About Planned Condo Project

1300 block of 13th Street, NW

“Dear PoPville,

I’m not sure if you have caught up with the closing of Mr. Wash and Jerry’s this past weekend. It looks like construction on the new condo building will start soon. Needless to say, we who live next door are quite concerned about many things, including construction noise, debris, and the potential closing of parts of 13th St and the alley to bring in construction equipment. The builders will speak to the ANC about their project tomorrow, February 5, at 7 PM at the Washington Plaza Hotel.

In Dec. another neighbor voiced his concerns:

“Holladay’s plans will negatively impact the quality of life for Iowa residents as they include constructing a 60-foot high wall that’s 23 feet away from the back of Iowa Condo townhouses. This 60-foot high wall will block direct sunlight from the units on the south side of the Iowa as well as a large portion of the unique Iowa Condo courtyard / fountain area. When an Iowa condo owner spoke with a representative at Holladay about the wall height/closeness, loss of sunlight and privacy concerns, the response included “that’s part of living in the city”. Finally, the proposed 67 condo units will bring more cars and fewer parking options to a neighborhood where parking is already at a premium.”


90 Comment

  • Damn, I still have one of those cards where they convinced me I should buy two washes instead of one at a cheaper rate. Brilliant as I never got that second wash.

    • They have other locations (albeit in VA)

      • And Connecticut above Van Ness

        • saf

          That’s not a Mr Wash, is it?

        • And there’s a Mr. Wash in Downtown Silver Spring by East-West Hwy and Georgia Avenue…

          I hope them leaving DC doesn’t mean the city paper coupons will end.

          They closed the car wash on 9th by HU a few years ago too in lieu of new condo construction… I’m getting a bit worried about the lack of car washes in the city right now… They’re building residences, but not keeping gas stations and car washes, it doesn’t make sense.

          • Agree. The past few times I’ve gotten my car wash- including at Mr. Wash- the lines were crazy, even during weekdays. Granted, the recent weather was part of the issue but it seems to me the car wash demand is not currently being met. Though I understand it can’t bring in as much revenue as a condo project I hate seeing useful services close down.

          • Although many private downtown garages now offer car washes while you park. Its a helluva lot more expensive than Mr. Wash, but perhaps it’s part of the city growing up, so to speak? Are there downtown, stand-alone car washes in Boston, Manhattan, or Philly? I am also sad to see Mr. Wash go away, but resigned to the fact that the economics of that kind of business don’t work when the land values start getting higher.

          • quick yelp search turns up 27 car washes on the island of manhattan

  • Let’s get this straight. Residents of a 7-story apartment building are complaining about a 7-story apartment building being built not next door but 23 feet away.

    • No, residents of 3 story townhouses are complaining about potential construction problems from a 7 story building.

      • I think this person was referencing the people at the Iowa who are complaining.

        • The Iowa is a mixture of high rise and low rise townhouses. It’s the low rise townhouses that are concerned.

        • The 7 story tower and the surrounding 3-story townhouses are all part of the Iowa. It seems to be Iowa residents in the townhouse portion making the most stink… Should have been pretty obvious to anyone living in DC the last decade that a one-story car-wash in Logan Circle wasn’t going to last forever.

          • Although I believe that some of the residents of the Iowa moved in well before “the last decade” and well before Logan Circle was considered a spiffy area to live in.

          • @CT: but not before the 1950’s, which is when the current zoning code was enacted.

          • If they did move in prior to the past decade, they then have several hundred thousand dollars of equity in their homes. Many are probably approaching a half million or more.. I don’t really feel badly for them… They are benefiting from the cities growth, and they have to deal with one small thing… Tough.

    • Sorry, to repeat my previous post but you are so right. History has it that residents of The Iowa complain about everything and have been complaining for years and years and years. I lived their in the 1980’s and they were complaining back then, have friends who have lived there throughout the years and they’re still complaining.

  • These owners at the Iowa making a stink are the worst sort of NIMBYs and should be ashamed of themselves. You think that you should be entitled to veto power over neighboring parcels of land because of your courtyard/fountain area?

  • I disagree with the NIMBYism of the Iowa residents who protested, but I am saddened at Mr. Wash’s passing. (I live right nearby.) Mr. Wash hired many people who are not capable of getting employment virtually anywhere else. Where will they get work now?

    • What an odd comment. The employees of Mr Wash are literally incapable of any job except washing cars? That seems a bit offensive, and if true, speaks volumes about forces way bigger than hyperlocal development.

      • Gathering from the Yelp reviews, they were apparently incapable of even washing cars.

      • It’s not an odd comment if you actually spent any time talking to the individuals who worked there. There is one person in particular that comes to mind who may potentially have issues finding alternate employment. So many nice people that worked there, many for as long as I can remember – over 10 years – I do wish them the best in finding new jobs.

    • agree there was a very nice mentally handicapped man in my neighborhood that has worked there for the last ten years. i cant even imagine where he would look for a new job.

  • Changs is a real loss, those steak and cheese eggrolls were the jump

    • Those steak and cheese egg rolls were mentioned in the last thread about this topic, and allow me to say that I am deeply, deeply disappointed in each and every one of you for not mentioning them earlier. Preferably when I was single and could get away with eating stuff like that without having do to it on the sly.


    • Is that a new phrase saying something is “the jump”? like “the bomb”? Because I really like it.

  • We are dealing with similar issues in my building due to a new condo going up next door. It’s nearly impossible to stop the tide of this development. For the unfortunate loss of sunlight, the unit owners can look forward to higher property values. Nonetheless, If a representative from Holladay is reading this (unlikely, but possible), then I suggest for your sake that you be nice to the neighbors next door. Believe me, we can make your job a lot harder than it needs to be. A good developer will listen to the concerns of neighbors, will be empathetic to even the silliest concerns, and will do their best to leave a neighborhood better than they found it.

    • My eyes just rolled out of my head.

      • +1. Or if you’re Holladay you can make a jerk off hand signal to everyone and build your gigantic (yet likely aesthetically displeasing) box of condos, make your money, and get out of there.

        As Brenda from Scary Movie once said, YOU DON’T OWN THE THEATER. Get over it. You all had years to try to change the zoning around there to protect your non-existent sunlight rights. Tough luck.

      • +1 Seriously…

  • Let’s not pretend otherwise, this is all about parking like it always is. I know it’s frustrating to move to a part of the city and then have things change but it is part of living in the city. The constant change is what makes cities great.

    • I figured it was more about window views and natural light. But I agree that it’s not a leg to stand on.

    • Clearly nobody in this city is discouraged from talking about parking, so I think if the issue was actually parking then they would just say so. The issue could be, and probably is, centered around natural light and privacy. For some people, constant change makes a city great, but others may have purchased a unit in those townhomes specifically because of the great natural light or privacy. That’s not to say they are legally entitled to those amenities forever, but if you can put yourselves in their shoes you might be able why they want to have their voices heard. A lot of the time, if the project has not passed the historic preservation board or the zoning commission, then the plans can be adjusted or the neighbors’ concerns addressed directly by the developer.

      • I hear you, but it’s not just that the complainers don’t have a legal entitlement to those things you mention, it’s that they don’t even have a logical (or in my opinion moral) right to demand anything. The position they find themselves in sucks, but the zoning code hasn’t been overhauled in decades and decades. So just about anyone who lives in those townhouses bought (or rented, or whatever) with full knowledge that the property across the alley could be developed into a 7-story building at any time. Really, they had an unusual amount of natural light and privacy for people living in the middle of a city and that’s now going to change. And that change was telegraphed decades ago in the form of the zoning code. So they might deserve a little sympathy, but I don’t think that their demands to have a seat at the table are particularly reasonable.

        • True, but in order to secure a right to build, a developer must vet the plan with the ANC and must work within certain historic preservation and zoning regulations. The city enables individuals to become “interested parties” in zoning cases to give testimony in support or against a particular development. The zoning board can also put cases on hold if the developer has not sought the appropriate approval from the community. It is through these institutions that the government has made the rather emphatic point that everyone who wants a seat at the table can have one. There are always going to be some structures allowed in the zoning code by right, but the zoning commission and the historic preservation review board do not look kindly on developers who ignore the concerns of neighbors.

          • A truly matter-of-right development doesn’t have to be vetted by the ANC, nor does the Zoning Board have any role once DCRA certifies that the plans conform to current zoning. The Historic Preservation Review Board only has jurisdiction if the property either is in a historic district or is a historic building itself. In this case, I doubt very much that the car wash and takeout are historic buildings, and I’m pretty sure that these parcels are just outside the Logan Circle Historic District.

          • The buildings in question aren’t in the Logan or Shaw historic districts (interestingly neither is the Iowa complex), so as long as the developer follows the standard zoning requirements, he can build more-or-less whatever he wants as long as it meets the building code:

          • @Anon – that is true, however, the developers are speaking at the ANC anyway. They do this because they know having the community support is important, even if the plans are approved by right. Also, in a lot of cases these developments start out as not matter of right and then are whittled down over time to be in compliance with the zoning code. This sort of symbiosis most often happens in historic districts or where the developer needs something from the community or the ZB (e.g. a variance), but it can happen in other cases as well. And then you have a discussion for another day about the basic arbitrariness of historic districts and buildings.

          • Presumably they’re going to the ANC to present their plans and have a defense against a nuisance lawsuit if the Iowa folks were to file one. Since HPRB has no jurisdiction here (the buildings are clearly excluded from the surrounding historic districts) and there’s likely no particular zoning violation (there are taller buildings across the street and to the south), short of tying this up in courts or making trouble with DCRA during the actual construction, there will be little the Iowa people can do.

          • I haven’t met these particular developers, but I suspect that annonny is right. If they’re like most other developers, they’re meeting with the ANC because making it appear that they’re listening is more expedient than not — for now. If that changes, and if the ANC presses the Iowa residents’ case too hard, you can be sure that the developer will stop communicating.

      • The Iowa has one of the largest underground parking garages of any Condo building in the city that I know of and nearly all of the owners and tenants have a parking space- they’re just whining.

  • Perhaps, it’s time these people in the Iowa moved to Iowa.

  • Looking at the historic preservation district maps, it looks like the Iowa townhouses and the Jerry Chan’s/Mr Wash site are deliberately carved out so they are not covered. Does anyone how that happened? Did the developer specifically get them carved out when those additions were made? Here are the links to the historical preservation maps:

    Logan Circle:
    Logan Circle:

    Also, the condominium complex has a 100-space parking garage in it, so I find the parking complaints unfounded as there are 95 units total in the complex.

    • Correct on the parking. Everyone that lives at the Iowa has at minimum 1 parking spot in their parking garage.

  • If these developers were shrewd they would have lined up all of their permits, reviews, etc. BEFORE they announced their intent to build the new structure. If that’s the case, there’s very little the ANC will be able to do other than perhaps slow the project down by a month or two through some pesky bureaucratic wrangling. Nearly the exact same situation happened on Kalorama Road, with nearly the exact same neighbor opposition (noisy and messy construction, loss of light/views in neighboring apartment building, increased car traffic = worse parking problems in crowded neighborhood). The neighboring apartment with the units whose windows will be blocked is one of the wealthiest in DC (2101 CT Ave). They couldn’t stop the developer who already had permits in hand. As long as this project is a by-right development and has passed appropriate review by DCRA, I’d imagine the Iowa folks are going to be SOL.

    • Hi there, I live in the neighborhood where this development is going up and having attended the ANC meetings and followed the issue very closely, I can tell you that your account is not accurate. First the developer actually failed to notify the neighboring buildings about its intent to build the project before going in front of the Preservation Review board (this is not confidential information, it was published in the InTowner and brought up at the ANC1c meetings and appears on official Preservation documentation). As a result the project was put on hold for about 3 months (quite a long time for small building). Further due to negotiations with the neighbors the developer actually lost one unit (the building proposed to build 17 units – 8 on the east side, 9 on the west side – however there are now only 16 units, 8 on each side — this has also been published in the InTowner and is publicly available information). Other characteristics of the building have been altered, such as the exterior brick material, cladding, the project’s overall height, and the project’s overall depth and landscaping modifications. —————

      More info:

      • Okay, so I said maybe the Mr. Wash project would be delayed for a month or two…and Kalorama Rd. was delayed by 3 months. And there were minor aesthetic edits and 6% reduction in the size of the plan. Sorry for not being ultra precise, but in the scheme of things the changes made to the original plan are minor compared to the neighbor opposition as was reported in the Urban Turf article: “However, many on Wednesday night opposed the size of the additions, which exceed the size of the existing buildings. Neighbors worried that the project would set a precedent that would lead to condo-filled additions filling up all the empty lot space in the neighborhood. “What is going to stop all the neighbors from having their backyards filled with structures like this?” asked a neighbor. Still, as several people brought up, this project is a by-right plan that fits in with the specifications of the zoning code for that neighborhood. Thus, the problem is with zoning, rather than with the choices of the developers.” The Iowa folks, like the Kalorama Road neighbors, don’t want a building built. However, both are going to be constructed.

        • Hi, it’s me again, the project was actually delayed by longer than 3 months but whether it was delayed for 1 month, 3 months or 6 months is not really that important. The basic point is that in fact the developers of the Kalorama project did NOT have the proper reviews and permits before announcing their intent to build. So it’s almost the opposite situation as what’s happening near the Iowa. However you are correct in that the basic results are the same. I can’t speak for the people who opposed the development but if you were to attend the ANC meetings (instead of merely guessing what happened) what you would have seen is that a lot of people knew the project would be built, yet they vehemently opposed it in order to get concessions from the developer – in other words, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Of course there were some people who genuinely thought that hiring lawyers, landscape architects, traffic engineers etc would stop a condo development in DC — that’s just crazy talk, as the OP, DCRA and ZB will approve nearly anything with a pulse these days. The Kalorama development is also a bit unique in that it is converting the backyard of a single family rowhome into condos – the fear among neighboring residents being that it would set a precedent for other single family homes in the neighborhood.

  • If you mention cars or traffic for any development less then 100 units that is located in the middle of the city you are almost by definition a NIMBY. I know how we can make parking less of a problem, the residents of the Iowa and all other people could actually pay market rates for their residential parking permit.

  • I was upset about this because I wanted to get my car washed on Saturday and discovered Mr. Wash had just closed. I went to the Flagship car wash on Connecticut and Albemarle and it reminded me of the DC Inspection station back in the Barry days — the line snaked around the block and then at least for 2 more blocks before I threw in the towel and drove home. Oh well, I think the rain yesterday washed some of the salt off my car anyway…

    • Haha, exact same thing happened to me. I really couldn’t give a rat’s ass about the Iowa folks, I am depressed that Mr. Wash is gone. That place was fantastic and always a good deal with a City Paper coupon!

    • saf

      Same thing happened to me on Sunday.

    • That happened at almost every carwash in the city. It was a bad day to go get your car washed.

  • Planners don’t care about how it impacts those already living there. It’s all about money! Most developers have the ear of the DC Planning office, Mayor and Council. As a result neighbors fight an up hill battle to maintain a good quality of life even with some changes.

    • you are wrong on oh so many levels. DC will slow things down even if there is 100% neighborhood support.

      • No it won’t! There have been successful collaborations in projects around the city–too many to name. But from the responses I’ve read thus far, this project isn’t one of them which is typical.

  • Virtually every other building on that section of 13th between Mass Ave and Logan Circle is a high rise (by DC standards) or at least 4 stories. It’s foolish of the Iowans to think that that low rise, low density car wash and takeout buildings would survive given the heavy development activity in the Logan area. The gas station is probably not long for this world, either.

  • Given that only one out of 40 comments are squarely supportive of the nimby position on this thread, I think we can fairly conclude that the opposition amounts to one crazy cat lady with a clipboard. Let’s refrain from assuming all residents of the Iowa agree with this silliness! I’m sure some if not most of them are nice, sane people!

  • I’m VERY sorry to see Mr. Wash go. Getting my car washed will now be a 30-minute errand at least. And – because I’m a normal human being with empathy for fellow human beings – I sympathize with those who fear their sunlight & property values will be diminished. I’m doubtful they can do anything about it. But I’m surprised at the vitriol spewed in their direction here. “Ha Ha!! Too bad suckers!! Eat it!!” WTF?

    • saf

      Oh, they’re always like that.

      I’m well and truly pissed about the stupid Petworth Safeway development and the negative impact it will have on my house. You should see how these commenters have responded to that.

    • Seems entirely possible to empathize with people affected by this project while simultaneously being disgusted by said people’s presumed entitlement to tell other property owners what to do with their land. Everybody has had the annoyance of dealing with a neighborhood busybody. These Iowa people are coming off as the worst kind of busybody – asserting a right to change the rules (zoning rights) when it exclusively suits them.

      • +1. I do feel bad for these affected Iowa residents, and I think lots of the otherwise-outraged commenters here do as well.

        But feeling bad for someone, and acknowledging that you’d also be disappointed if the same thing happens to you, doesn’t mean you can’t simultaneously think they’re overreacting (even if you’d similarly overreact if you were in the same situation), and it doesn’t mean you think they should get their way.

        I live on Georgia Ave in Petworth. All the construction and the increase in traffic that have come about as the neighborhood gentrifies can be really annoying. So far, it hasn’t affected me too much, though. If a high-rise building were to go up across the street from me (highly improbable), I’d be pissed off. Maybe I’d try to fight it. But this doesn’t mean I should win, and it doesn’t mean I want to live under a set of laws that allows me to win.

  • The complainers here must be originally from San Francisco where I currently live. I’m shocked at the gull of the people here that think they have a right to dictate to other property owners what they can do with with their property when it is within the current zoning. I hear the same arguments here, my access to air and light etc etc. it is so bad in San Francisco that there is an actual ordinance passed where no new buildings can cast shadows on public parks . Hello people you live in a city!!!!! If you don’t want a seven story building going up against your home then you are free to purchase that lot from the owner!

  • driving in the rain is a great way to wash one’s car…..

  • I think, after living in a place for 30 years, any of you would be upset if suddenly a 7 story wall were going to cut off your sunlight. It sucks. The back of these row houses face south – they probably have enjoyed great light. Now they won’t. Would it make your home less enjoyable? It sure might. I wouldn’t be surprised if many of you would try to find loopholes to impact the design if you were in the same boat. This does not make them bad people, and I don’t think they deserve all of this outrage. Whether or not they should get their way is a different story. You can validate their concerns while at the same time acknowledging there is little that can, or maybe even should, be done about it.

    All of this posturing about the “gall’ of people exerting influence on private property is a strangely conservative notion for a blog with readers I admittedly, maybe wrongfully, assumed were very liberal. Like it or not we all surrender a degree of private property decision making in exchange for living in a community. Zoning laws that limit size, shape, lot occupancy, use, the number of occupants, green space – all of these things long ago have ate away at our ability to make unilateral decisions for ourselves. Ordinances banning animals, controlling trash collection and storage, noise – all of these things are based upon conditions that at one time in our history made urban living far from the romantic and sanitized place many of you think it once was. These things came into being to make things better. Sometimes they did – and sometimes they didn’t. But the point is individuals seemed incapable of dealing with these issues themselves. So they asked government to not only institute laws, but to ultimately give them a voice. Because like it or not, what you do to your place next door impacts all of us. And, really, I don’t think anybody wants to return to the days when citizens had absolutely no say and a fat rendering plant could be constructed next door because, you know, it’s the property owner’s “right” to do so.

    • these sort of complaints lead to restrictions on what can be developed which ultimately drive up property values to crazy levels. liberal cities are the absolute worst in this regard – just look at san francisco, the liberal poster child, where legions of NIMBYs have made it utterly unaffordable for anyone but the super wealthy in order to protect their low-density neighborhoods of victorian homes etc.

    • I hear San Francisco calling your name and you opinions and attitude are more inline with people there regarding property rights. I can emphasis with the owners of town houses but along the same vein the current zoning has been in place since the 50’s far predating their ownership. So this building mostly being built as matter of right within the current zoning is completely appropriate and the owners of the Iowa townhouses should either purchase the adjoining lot or air rights to protect their air, light and views if they so choose. I personally find the attitude of people who use this air, light and view argument repulsive as it reeks of the premiss of ‘I’ve got mine now screw everyone else’ mentality.

    • Here’s your problem: relying on the government. Don’t want a monstrosity next door? Buy the neighboring lot’s air rights.

    • Are you trying to give us a civics lesson? Your whole argument (aside from your illogical and presumptuous liberal/conservative thing) appears to be that we, collectively, have agreed that there won’t be a free-for-all in urban development and therefore developments that negatively impact others shouldn’t be allowed. That makes zero sense. Most, if not nearly all, developments negatively impact someone. And that’s why we have a zoning code in the first place — to add a little consistency and predictability to our use of land.

      In this case, we DO live under a comprehensive zoning code that does allow this development, so then what? Are you advocating that a case-by-case determination be made? If so, then you’ve destroyed the whole point of a zoning code and opened the door for that fat rendering plant next door. You can’t have it both ways.

  • People at The Iowa are ALWAYS complaining about something.

  • Nathan seemingly knows a lot of nothing about everything–giving an impression of false certainty about the Iowa and it’s residents. 1. Not EVERY resident of the Iowa has a parking space 2. The Iowa does not have carpet in it’s lobby. With that said and sticking to what is real, factual and relevant to this blog subject, the project is subject to scrutiny and petition as it directly affects both the health and quality of life of the neighbors surrounding it’s proposed development. I am sure you would feel differently if someone put a doublewide next to what may be your single wide.

    • And you dramatically misunderstand the legal rights and remedies available to you here. When you say that the project is subject to “scrutiny and petition,” exactly what does that mean? Can you look at something closely? Sure. Can you circulate and submit a petition that expresses your concerns? Youbetcha. But that amounts to zero legally. Again, not for the first time, this is a matter-of-right development. I’m sure that you could try a productive dialogue with the developer, but with hyperbolic statements like alleging that your health is on the line here, you and others in the Iowa come across as pearl-clutching, alarmist, entitled busybodies. If I were the developer I’d ignore you.

  • Anon, Your noticeable undeveloped use of language rules is dwarfed only by your unfamiliarity with/illiteracy of law. Firstly. I would like to acquaint you with the word allege as clearly this verb escapes you. For example, I did not declare that I was an Iowa resident however in your post you state that I am in point of fact a resident of the Iowa. Following your own guidance would suggest you be careful in making such claims or assertions without proof that supports your statement. So the true facts are known and recorded, I do not wear pearls for the reason that not unlike those that use the expression you betcha are rarely taken seriously. While I appreciate your use of the word hyperbolic, it use in your post may well more closely align with your own worn out cliches and epitaphs. To help you generate a moment of consciousness today, a property can be nonconforming with respect to both use and dimension or structure. A nonconforming use is a use of the property that was established at a time when it was permitted as a matter of right, but is no longer allowed as a matter of right because of a change in Zoning Regulations. To that end, appeal to change the zoning laws via petition as well as additional rigors and controls (aka scrutiny) applied to approval of what has recently been described as any stick drawing submitted is consistent with regulating what is now the overdevelopment of a neighborhood already struggling to sustain its existing infrastructure is the right thing–I am sure even you might remember what it’s like to do the right thing.

    • Wow. Just wow. You’re clearly angry, but being angry doesn’t equal being right. And your barely coherent rant about nonconforming use was entertaining, but irrelevant. That is, unless you’re saying that the building being proposed wouldn’t conform to the zoning code *as it is today*, which I’m pretty sure isn’t the case. Rather, what you’re describing is some bizarre anti-special exception or anti-variance, through which you seek not permission to build something that wouldn’t otherwise conform but instead to ban something that does. Best of luck with that approach. You will waste thousands of dollars and countless hours on something that the Board of Zoning Adjustment doesn’t have authority to do.

  • Anon, What a shame, this was your chance to evidence the use of the word allege correctly. I am neither clearly nor am I allegedly angry. Rather, I am simply helping you along. I am delighted you were able to connect the dots. Building has not commenced (at least not that we know of but the again, there has been a history of lines being blurred on work conducted at this site without knowledge). I appreciate your kind words of support as I know this has a tailwind behind it due to what may be a false start, but when you do the right thing you don’t have to lose something in return for gaining another. As an aside, it would be great to engage with the developer but I was a bit surprised that the only e-mail address the company offers is for Acquisitions. I am not sure how they fulfill against their promise they deliver against “concern for our residents and partners” when they not offer a public standard way to engage.

    • Are you drunk, or just that stupid? I’m betting on drunk — no one can be this dense. Go read the zoning code and report back on where this project violates it. (HINT: you can’t) In fact, you can look up the building permit’s progress online and it will show the zoning office’s notes that indicate a review for correct lot size and compliance with inclusionary zoning. Know that that means, genius? It means that the height of the building isn’t being reviewed. In other words, a 60-foot building in Zone R-5-C is totally OK. It also means — and this may upset your world order in which you think you have a say in this — that the developer is likely claiming a density bonus by including some amount of affordable housing. Hear that? More density. Sucks to be you.
      Let’s not forget: You’re the deluded fool who thinks that your health is somehow put in jeopardy by this project. If you’re not in fact drunk, put away the tinfoil hat and get some kind of help. First Nathan and now me. The world truly is out to get you, isn’t it?

      • Wow. Now THAT is what I call anger. Bless your heart. Evidently calling out your inaccuracies makes you cross. To be brief in order that you get back to one can only hope is becoming skilled in some sort of trade, I am familiar with zoning code (unlike you obviously). Might I suggest you read up on it yourself and take the time to visit the sites you so willingly reference before your recreation period. Review pending does not mean approved here on planet earth-it means incomplete. So, before you humiliate yourself any further with more name calling, gasping for air, and flailing your hands about–remember pending means incomplete. Think back to your grades for reference to incomplete.

Comments are closed.