Submitted by Alan D. Sugarman, Sep 20, 2007 20:00

You state: "That's why the approval of the Landmarks Preservation Commission is as disturbing as any potential granting of a zoning variance."

I agree with you on the architectural points - I think in part the design ("undistinguished architecture by distinguished architects" - as I noted to the LPC) - and think the design was in part dictated by the needs to have large picture windows for the condominium apartments. Many also thought the design could have been "informed" by the arches both in the Synagogue and the apartment building to the West of the proposed building.

But, the zoning variances requested by the Congregation would vitiate mid-block zoning height restrictions - under the Congregation's reasoning, nearly any non-profit would be able to obtain a height variance. Indeed, any developer could find a non-profit to be a stalking horse to front for the developer.

This is happening on the East Side in where the same lawyers and forces are proposing on East 85th a 28 story mid-block tower for the Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun and the Ramaz School, using the same theories as being propagated by Congregation Shearith Israel.

See www.protectwest70.org which has relevant documents for both situations.

So, long term, the zoning variances would be more disturbing even in non-landmark and non-historic districts. In Landmark districts, the prize of a height zoning variances would provide an incentive to developers and non-profits who could manage to "get through landmarks."

Alan D. Sugarman West 70th St. NYC

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.