No it’s exactly true. Land not owned by Druh was submitted for approval with slight changes due to it being 50 years later. By the owners. Of a DQ that burnt http://down.To have their same business, And druh thinks the land not owned by her could have better mixed use.
The quoted thread literally says that the building can maintain the drive/thru, it was the significant modifications to the design that prompted the bylaws.
-
-
Which is what “like for like” means.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
No the councillors brought up the significant changes. Which weren’t really significant at all. I looked at that. Simply a dq franchise as upgraded for current use... I mean a building 50 years later would be changed. Still on their land. still the same business.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What would be a significant change is the councillors idea for a mixed use building to fit in with the green line... and turning DQ franchise owners into developers.. which is what they were attempting to do.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.