In Leichter v. UDC (154 AD2d 258, 546 N.Y.S.2d 351 [1989]), the amendments involved an expansion of the proposed use of a site originally designated as a wholesale facility mart in the original plan to encompass a commercial office tower and a provision for the sequential acquisition of sites as they became available for development, rather than the simultaneous acquisition originally contemplated. In rejecting petitioners' contention that a de novo review was necessary, the court held that: "The only question before this court is whether respondent's determination to proceed with its redevelopment plan was made in compliance with statutory procedures (EDPL 207[C][3]). As noted, the statute does not bar changes in a public project subsequent to the publication of the findings and determination of the condemning authority pursuant to EDPL 204. However, in view of the omission of specific procedures to be followed upon modification, it is the responsibility of the courts to fill the interstices in the statutory scheme. In this regard, we agree with Supreme Court that it is sufficient that the agency hold a hearing, limited to consideration of the amendments in the plan, during which the factors enumerated in EDPL 204(B) are open to discussion. This procedure is sufficient to promote the statutory purpose to establish opportunity for public participation in the planning of public projects necessitating the exercise of eminent domain' (EDPL 101). . . . "Our holding is further supported by a consideration of the practicalities surrounding a project of this scale. As appellants point out in their brief, during the time that this project has been delayed due, in no small part, to attendant litigation, the real estate market in Midtown Manhattan dramatically changed.' In addition, several developers withdrew from the project for financial and other reasons. It is clear to this court that if respondent is required to start the hearing process anew, conditions will very likely have changed again by the time the amended plan emerges from the approval process with the attendant legal challenges, thereby extending the review procedure ad infinitum. The hearing requirements set forth in the Eminent Domain Procedure Law and the Urban Development Corporation Act are designed to solicit community involvement in the planning process, not to serve as a vehicle by which public development can be effectively foreclosed." (Leichter, 154 AD2d at 259-260).