David Waldman sent “06880” the particulars of his recent zoning change request:
On Thursday October 20th, the partners of Bedford Square submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission a request to change the zoning on 35 Church Lane from RORD to BCD.
Our partnership purchased the property in late 2010 with the hopes of combining it with our redevelopment of the old YMCA and Fire House. The re-zoning is just the first of several steps required to achieve our ultimate goal; a sustainable development with the proper density, scale, character and diversity of uses (commercial and residential) which would help to create a more vibrant downtown, day and night.
35 Church Lane
Although we made a clear presentation to the commission, it is evident from the public comments that there is a still some confusion as to what we are requesting. Below are the key points of our request:
1) Whether the property is zoned RORD or BCD, the same amount of commercial space would be allowed – the key difference is that we would be able to provide more residential in the BCD.
2) The zone change would allow us to build no more than 19,859 s/f in 2 separate buildings and each building could not be larger than 10,000 sf nor higher than 3 stories or 35 feet.
3) The zone change would allow us to create a single underground parking lot with over 100 parking spaces.
4) The zone changes allows for a natural and compatible infill to activities on both ends of Church Lane.
In summary, the benefits of our proposal and ultimately a zone change are:
• More on-site parking
• More downtown housing
• More downtown activity
• More tax revenue
• Compatibility with Town Plan objectives
We care deeply about the character of our town, the quality of our development and its overall success. It is our goal to create something that enhances downtown Westport and stimulates activity at all times of the day. This project on Church Lane and Elm Street will be something all residents and visitors to Westport will be proud to have in the Downtown area.
Sincerely,
David A. Waldman
On behalf of Bedford Square Associates LLC
I think I got it. I’m still not in favor of the size, height, and parking. Sorry.
I like 35 Church Lane just the way it is,,,where it is!
I am not in favor of the request
Welp, it is certainly nice to see Senor Waldman has found the blog as his venue for debate and discussion. Very gutsy of him considering this crowd. If his proposal is anything like the good job he is doing on the construction on Church Street now, I say all systems go. I have been looking at the same ugly drab dark dingy downtown for close to 60 years. Time for a change.
I agree, but it appears that many prefer drab dark and dingy.
There is no confusion. This is a mall proposal.
I never realized downtown Westport was Ugly Dark Drab and Dingy, knowing that now I think I should move to a nicer town, one full of the arts, one full of marquis shopping experiences, one of top notch eateries, one that looks over a beautiful river and seashore full of nature, a town known for its summer festivals and theater, a town that people still wish you a good morning when you pass them, I want to move to a town where people are proud of how their historic town looks and actually would hate to live in a dark dingy drab ugly town Wow any ideas where I should look Mr Swanson?
I guess you didn’t notice the roof caving in on 28 Church Lane. I’d hate to see your house if you don’t call the drab dark or dingy….
Demolition by Neglect….a favorite tool of developers. Let a building deteriorate and then use the deteriorated state of the building as a reason why zoning laws should be changed and/or why the building should be taken down. A pretty sleazy tactic.
A tactic that seems to be working well here.
That certainly was the approach with the Micheels House.
Remove the roof before demolition has been approved and then claim that the destruction/decay makes the saving of the noteworthy building impossible.
AMEN! When my (now) husband and I moved to CT in 1998, Westport was the town that reminded us most of our home, Vermont. We noticed that there were still actual neighborhoods, friendly neighbors, charming children, natural beauty and open spaces being celebrated and preserved, unmatched recreation resources such as Compo, town services were a focus of improvements, amenities and shopping resources – large and small, on top of a fantastic school system and a mil rate lower than most of the state; all of these contribute (past and present,) to sustained property values.
When we had the opportunity to move here in 2001, it was exactly the attributes I listed that caused me to tell the realtor I wouldn’t consider any other town – quite a challenge on our budget.
If you want to see “a dark, dingy, drab, ugly” area, I might suggest readers look to other towns that allowed developers to have their desired changes, all in the name of progress and revitalization. There are plenty that come to mind, all of which could be located in any generic place. Westport is not generic and we shouldn’t allow it to become so.
All changes aren’t bad, but when someone isn’t up front and transparent about what they’re looking to do, and instead introduce items piecemeal, it really appears that they’re looking to hide details that would not fit into the character of the area. This is what leaves a really bad taste in my mouth about this entire development, it’s shady – from putting elected officials (Corwin) in their pocket, to fighting efforts to work in the existing P&Z regulations, to opposing efforts retain the overall look and feel of the development area. Other projects used as examples of the developer group’s positive impacts have evidently been requirements that were made in response to concerns. Doing the right thing because you’re forced to doesn’t carry the same weight or provide confidence in one’s integrity. The developer doesn’t want to play ball by the rules, and is instead trying to change the rules. It’s our ball and our game, and it’s incumbent upon us to enforce this. They can’t take our ball home with them!
This is not just about 35 Church Lane, (not even just Elm St/Church Lane,) but also Main Street, Myrtle Ave, Evergreen Terrace, etc. All charming and historic areas – some of which have been negatively changed in the past. Tearing down 35 Church wouldn’t contribute to revitalization, but it would make the developers desired project cheaper and easier. How about a balanced approach here, instead?
Carmel, Chestertown, Vineyard Haven, Madison . . . to name a few.
Marguis shopping experiences? Corporate women’s stores. Top notch eateries? Try Fairfield. Beautiful river. Granted. Seashore full of nature? Not downtown. Summer festivals? 3 months of the year. Theater? Not downtown. People wish you a good morning? You are confused. Historic town? Where do you see any evidence of that downtown?? Try Chatham on the Cape.
Don’t trust him….
David Waldman makes a convincing argument for his position, but, with my 53 years in Westport which could qualify me as a curmudgeon – I still vote no.
Jeez, why is everyone waiting for the Remarkable Book store to come back?? Change is good. Most of the structures are very much the same as they were in the 50’s and that is one reason many of us don’t go downtown anymore.
The unfortunate transformation of Westport from the burb of everyones fantasy to whatever it is today started with indoor plumbing. The P&Z should require that all new houses have no indoor plumbing so that the march backwards may begin.
Sorry, the demise of that particular store predates my arrival to town. Obviously it’s not what I’m desiring. I’m thinking of small cafes such as the Wild Pear, at the corner of Elm and Church. Perfectly nice and adorable gem, which seems to be doing quite nicely with the volume of patrons who DO go downtown currently.
How many small cafes do you think the town can sustain? 2? 3? Small cafes do not feed the bulldog.
Really, you mean this literally? (Trust me, from what I know my mommy-group friends patronize alone, the town could actually sustain MANY more than even 5.) *eyes rolling* Even if there were several of them lined up in a row, as long as they’re stroller accessible, there’s plenty of opportunity. Methinks you underestimate the purchasing power of the populace. It’s not everyone, but it’s certainly enough to help the rest of us.
It is not I who underestimate the purchasing power of the populace; it is manifest by the traffic in the stores vilified by those who would “save Westport.” Save Westport from what? An outcome they do not prefer? If the town can support 5 cafes, there will be 5 cafes; unless of course the preferences of the do nothing change nothing elements prevail.
I thought the Remarkable Book Store building is still there. If you are so sick of downtown maybe you shouldn’t go there. Or better yet, move to someplace you are not so sick and tired of.
Like it or leave it? Jeez, grow up. That mindset went out with the Vietnam war. Now even the hard hats are protesting with OWS.
Little kids knock down things they don’t like. No need for lectures on growing up.
Are you serious? You don’t like that someone doesn’t like something. This country was founded on dissent. Westport has a long history of debate as well. Your philosophy is that if anyone disagrees with you, move out. A childish moronic GOP philosophy.
The philosophy is not unique to any one political party. Look around Westport.
If you are bored living somewhere, move. People do it all the time. Demanding the world change to fit your demands is childish.
There is a little of that on both sides of the debate. Change is just as much part of the “world” as is “preservation.” There are” take it or leave it” aspects to arguments made both those who favor one condition or the other. I have lived in Westport for 33 years, and change seems to be the dominant condition . Those who oppose change do so with no real alternative because preservation is not sustainable in the face of economic realities. The Westport of 30 years agao does not exist, not because of some nefarious plot, but because the market has driven change willy-nilly. You can’t go home any more.
Economic realities are fungible… just like zoning codes.
Actually economic realities are not fungible, the rewards that accrue to one economic activity may not accrue to all.
I thought mall developers and real estate speculators were more GOP than OWS.
Anon: You embellish your counter-points with assumptions. No one said they were bored with Westport or after half a century of being associated with this town, holds it in disfavor. The point was made that it is time for change downtown. Whether you like it or not, the Waldman’s of this world will bring that change. I am startled by your statement to “move out” because we disagree and further condescending comments. Perhaps you are the same “Anon” who was worried about attracting more homeless to the town by the generousity at a recent Gillispie function. “Child Please.”
David Waldman is being unfairly portrayed as some kind of demand barber of Westport. He and his associates want to develop an area of town that is awkward at best and off the beaten track to a certain extent. Other than dropping off your child at the Y, utilizing it as a pass through, or maybe looping around main street in search of a nonexistent parking space… They want to make it an attraction for people to come to town. They seem to keep with the scheme of the flavor of the architecture and only want to make it better. I have faith in David and that he will keep the soul of Westport intact.
Rich I a surprised at your stance having been around so long but I guess not living in the Port any longer changes one’s view. Dude you have always been the voice of twisted reason, not sure why you see bigger as better but c’est la vie.
Many of us do not expect the days of the Remarkable, the great race. food and convenience stores downtown to return. BUT we do strive to maintain the character and space of the town to survive. 35 Church, Barons South, Geigers, Okeefe Cadillac, The Peppermill, the Post Office all gone in a very short time replaced by glass and steel. That’s Change ? That’s what we all desire the town of the 21 st century to be ? REALLY I would rather live in Westport today than White Plains 06880 tomorrow
Okeefe, which is glass and steel, has not be replaced by anything yet. Barons South is a $10,000,000 dog toilet. The demise of the post office was inevitable in an era of electronic communications. What exactly has been transformed into glass and steel? What is the character of the town? As a resident since the late 1970’s, it appears to me that the character includes a willingness to change. Clinging to a desire for a mid-twentieth century ambience seems foolish and out of
charcacter. The changes that have been wrought are more a function of economic pressures than they are the result of some plot to exploit the uniformed passive resisidents of Westport.
Your assumption, Keep the Change, is that downtown will be “replaced by glass and steel.” I am not sure that is the case. I would also like to see a master plan as requested by Mr. Thibault but that is apparently being offered and has met resistance. Further, developer Waldman’s renovation on Church Street is an improvement to the creepy antique that preceded his changes. Michael Greenberg’s renovation of the GAP facility is also a far cry from the hardware store that originally sat there. More prevalent is my friend’s JPT comment above: the market will determine downtown in the long run. For those who enjoy it now, start shopping and dining. Otherwise, it will change and I feel that is not only inevitable but for the better. Downtown has the potentiality, primarily because of its location on the river, to be fantastic. It is not that now.
Keep the Change I agree with Dude and his perspective…. I might not reside in town but my life heart and view is all about Westport… I still have stronger ties and feelings then most… But I also feel an equal balance can be met…. Let’s put this in perspective… The Y is going into a totally residential area that is not at all centrally located and to top it off will be at the on ramp for the Merritt parkway… That is pure genius…. Now that makes total sense I don’t think so… But some group wants to invest in the town and keep the ambiance to my understanding that is reasonable and should be applauded… If you have a better idea or plan then you put together a investment group and buy it
The funding of the new YMCA is in chaos with one prominent backer out. Apparently many of the mainstay members are not happy with their requests being ignored. Further, the Olympic pool that was promised is now being compromised. At the core of its funding issues is the alienation caused over its move. Let’s not let happen with the any downtown renovations please.
The project seems way too big for the space. Besides making money for the developer, what purpose does this serve? Like I said before, there is no shortage of vacant commercial space in town.
The issue at hand is not about whether or not BSA will do a good job or Waldman’s commitment to this town as a resident developer but the process of P&Z ramming a map amendment which changes a zone without knowing the full impact of a proposed project…This sets an irreversible path for any developer to, significantly alter, the character of Westport forever. The main issue is for the developer to submit a full complete application prior to map amendments.
To all the naysayers whose mantra appears to be “Back to the Future,” I would say, “You Can’t Go Home Again.”
It’s a mall.
As I have I have said many times, before the P&Z should act on anything, everything should be on the table and up for negotiation. Regardless if its Mr. Waldman’s project, the up coming one on Geigers or the new text amendment submitted by Mr. Barr who has not informed the town who his client is or what property is the target, a firm outline and presentation must be on the table.
The question is, why won’t the P&Z step up and demand this and firmly advocate for the town’s interests is beyond me. The time has come stop business as usual.
Matthew Mandell
Chair RTM P&Z Committee
Seriously who are we kidding!!! Downtown Westport is a MALL!!!! Look at all the stores look at an actuall mall… Do you really see a difference… The big difference is A. Clintele B. No food court C. Cars driving on the main drag and D. A river. I truly believe if restraints, some smart controls, and an honest and open approach could make a charming useful area
Lets have David give us the whole proposal, not just one piece. After we see the plans we should not let the developer come before the board for any more zoning changes. Mark my word, we will be hearing about this property again. One piece at a time. Before you know it we’ll have a huge complex built on a postage stamp.
Remember to vote for the 4 republicans!
Where will the no change back to the future crowd stand when Joseloff tries to ram his senior citizen boondoggle through? Will they provide opposition or criticism? Does Joseloff get a pass because of his party affiliation?
Huh? The commercial property by Trader Joe’s, CVS on the Post Road are “strip malls” by my definition and have been here since the 50’s. Someone better come up with a definition of “malls” before they go spouting off their keyboards.
Look in your Funk & Wagnalls.
I prefer Webster’s, never funky.
I really have to take exception to Mr. Waldman’s disingenuousness here. The BCD zone change he refers to is only the FIRST STEP toward getting approval for his ACTUAL project which is a 5-story building at the old Y and a 4-story building on Chuch Lane and Elm St. He makes it sound like all he’ll be able to build is a relatively modest structure on Church & Elm. Without all the BCD text amendments he’s coming back to P&Z with, that would be true.
However, his agent, Mel Barr, has already filed a text amendment that would impact the BCD zones throughout town (and many other commercial zones) to allow for greater size, height, etc. Whether or not this text amendment has been filed for Mr. Waldman’s project is unclear, but Mr. Barr is bent on ramming it through before the new P&Z Commission is seated in December. The public hearing for Mr. Barr’s text amendment is scheduled for November 10th, only two days after the election.
Our current lame duck P&Z Commission has NO BUSINESS even hearing Mr. Waldman’s zone change request or Mr. Barr’s text amendments, since three of its members are on their way out, and a whole new chairmanship and leadership may take the reins. We can only hope! They won’t have such a developer-friendly P&Z as of December, so they’re trying to green light all these zone changes and text amendments as fast as they can, and Mr. Corwin has been more than eager to give them his blessing.
Truthfully, I think Mr. Waldman does lovely work, and his Centerbrook architects are some of the best in the business. I wouldn’t have such a problem with many aspects of his new development if he and Mr. Barr had brought their proposal forth with honesty, integrity and a complete application instead of playing this sneaky game of cat and mouse. The process has been so subverted by this P&Z and their pet developers, it’s criminal.
Let’s get out the vote to change all this, people! You’ve got the power.
Occupy Church Street!!!
How fitting: just reported today, Westport has received the honor of being the #1 town in its population range. (oops, aside from crime rate and cost of living) We must take a step back before any major zones changes are granted and listen to a public that seems to have come to the same conclusion, one that awards Westport such high grades. Why not first make changes that are important but non controversial – amenities and upgrades like the ones discussed this past May at a meeting in Town Hall. Better sidewalks, uniform attractive lighting, plantings that beautify, nice benches along the river and decent trash storage rather than the mess we have now. We want the river to be an attraction? Who wants to walk past over flowing dumpsters and chain link fencing that looks like an astroturf reject facility. And why not let the recent relaxing of P&Z 1500 ft. rule work some of its magic. Or allow one or two outdoor dining style bump-outs as an experiment, see how that fares and make an assessment. Or continue on the track to find a home for a theater and see what that brings. This huge push to demolish history, infringe on neighborhoods, increase density which will further strain our infrastructure makes sense to one group – developers who want to ram through as much as possible, overwhelm the citizens and sharpen their knives to carve up more of our town. Say No to Map Amendment 639. Say yes to an upfront process which enables us to see exactly what will happen as a result of granting zone changes. Zoning is what we rely upon for stability. We expect those we elect to the P&Z to follow the rules fairly. The group serving now has gone astray. We need new P&Z leadership and that means voting for all four candidates you see on signage endorsed by two parties — you decide what line to vote on. But let’s vote for ALL4.
I am not sure why all these polilticians find the need to blow their own horn on this blog after being non-effectual for decades. P&Z was bought and paid for by the developers decades ago. It is interesting that we hear from them all when an election is forthcoming. At least Waldman is honest: it is about money.
As others have said above…create a transparent process at P&Z and vote for the 4 exceptional Save Westport Now candidates who will, intelligently and evenhandedly weigh what is fair for all of us in Westport. It takes courage not to vote the party line when it comes to maintaining the integrity of our zoning rules and regulations.
Helen Martin Block ROCKS and to say otherwise (if you are, Princeton ’82) is wrong! She was a clear voice of reason and process during the Y debacle….
We MUST see all that David Waldman (or any developer) has in mind before we pave, piece by piece, the way….AGREE Sherwood House, etc looks terrific and its an exciting project. But lets not confuse that with what is being planned (or discussed, in broad terms) for 35 Church Lane, even though its the same developer. If the P&Z would stop with the text amendments and the developers would actually come forward with the actual plans (real ones!)…we could see what’s in store and move forward accordingly.
VOTE for the 4 on November 8th. We need to get a handle on all of this and we need process and reason again. i DON’T want the Westport of yore. As I said before, Bill’s Smoke Shop isn’t coming back, but we do need to say to the current leadership (and membership) of the P & Z we DO NOT want to do business like this anymore with developers. YES, we need to all work together…BUT we want to know what we are getting in to before we say “yes” to deep changes in the basics of our zoning…basics that were put in place to stop another Wright Street building, etc. They weren’t put there to keep us a one-horse town people……You need to understand these kinds of distinctions. Developers who want to do business here need to come to the P&Z with their plans. Its that simple…We need a P & Z that gets that and also has a desire to be smart about their work. Forward-thinking and smart. They are NOT mutually exclusive.
Blah, blah, blah. P&Z to the rescue. Heard that too many times. Same behavior. Same results. Money talks in this town. It has since the 70’s. Get the politicians and their self-serving b.s out of the way and maybe we shall see some progress in the “ugly,drab, dingy downtown.”
Does this remind anyone else of the Wright Street Building? Maybe Dan has a before and after picture in his archives.
For all those interested, Bedford Square Associates will be hosting a Q&A this Wednesday night, November 2nd from 7-9 in the Bedford Room of the current YMCA. Also attending will be our architects. We invite anyone who is interested to come and discuss your thoughts and concerns about our proposed development.
We look forward to answering all your questions.
David, will you be discussing your full plans for all the Church Lane properties? And are you willing to delay the proposed zone change until those plans can be packaged together with any required zone changes for full approval by the P&Z. If you were to do this, I think many people, myself included, would be very happy to see what you have to propose. I hope that you understand that most of the people that are opposing the proposed zone change are doing so because they don’t know what you are trying to do and fear a piecemeal approach to zoning downtown.
Bring a full plan to P&Z (required zone changes and site plan) that can be considered in its entirety. You just might be surprised by a positive reaction from those who are now criticizing you and the P&Z for a piecemeal approach.
John
Come to the meeting and we can discuss this and much more.
Can the man give his presentation without you first, qualifying what he is going to speak about?? What did Hunter say? When the going gets weird, the weird go pro.
Hunter; “Better than Sex” a great insight into politics. To bad he is not here when we need him.
Hey David I think Mr McCarthy has a great point and I can’t agree with him more.My guess is you won’t respond to him because you are indeed trying to piecemeal your development. I know you can’t but try and be honest. We have rules and even you have to follow them. But then again with Ron Corwin in your back pocket maybe the rules dint apply to you.
What is Mr.McCathry’s great point? That he wants to control the development as does Mr. Corwin? Considering the economy, I would guess that Mr. Waldman might have to “piecemeal” his renovations because of the uncertainity in the market. At least he is doing something and putting his money where is mouth is. Rules? We have rules? Like stopping at stop signs? Or talking on cell phones? Or using public lands for dogs instead of the public betterment? Just saying: you are drinking too much of the Kool Aid.
Well Aurthur I can’t speak for Mr. McCarthy But my interpertation is that it would be nice if Waldman put all his cards on the table and showed what his plans are, just feels like he is living up to his reputation as shady. As far as rules yes there are rules, I have commercial property went for a zoning change and was rejected. Do you know what I had to do? follow the rules and not do my project.I guess I am crazy because I stop at stop signs, and don’t use my cell phone while driving. I must say that I agree with you about public lands for dogs, and I am not to happy about the town trying to go into the nursing home business. As far as the Kool Aid, I like to think it was served to me but I declined. (i would prefer a nice cold beer) just saying.
How about identifying all of the mall project financial backers and speculators?
That would be an ad hominem argument.
No offense, Just Saying, but I think the rules are made up depending on who is the making the request(s) as your example points out.
Come to our Q&A and we will answer all your questions and show you everything we have to offer. Wednesday November 2nd, Bedford room of the YMCA from 7-9 pm.
My partners and I are looking forward to meeting you all and having an open and honest conversation
For real, from an anonymous account? Shocking?
These partners, bankers and speculators need to be identified!
Where is the environmental impact statement?
Whether or not someone feels negatively or positively about an individual is irrelevant. This is about submitting a full complete application prior to any consideration regarding a zone change. A lot of people are feeling that this process is less than transparent…however…it is straight forward. BSA is working the system like any smart developer would…maximize profits for your your investors and do it in the most cost effective manner. It is P&Z responsibility to weigh the developers “complete” application including all necrssary studies eg: traffic ect. and public concern and comment. Mr. McCarthy’s request is fair and reasonable. It reflects what most people who have stated…all who are residents of Westport…over 350 individuals who have some concerns about the project and more importantly the process. I have only heard 3 individuals who have publicly supported this proposal…Howard Bass, brother in law of Mr. Waldman, CEO of Greenfield Partners…a fellow developer and Sharie Korn… changing a map amendment is just plan stupid with out mapping out…in full…the change and locking in something that works and benefits all Westporters… including Mr.Waldman…like it or not. The process is busted at P&Z and we the public need to dmand it be fixed…fixing it starts by changing the leadership and that can happen on November 8 by voting in The Save Westport Now candidates.
P&Z has been busted for 40 years.
Then let’s not make it 41 years!
The entire system is part of the problem.
It looks like two of Waldman’s partners are Paul S. Brandes and Daniel M. Zelson of Charter Realty. They own or operate more than 70 shopping centers. Big Kmart for downtown Westport? Here is their website for more information:
http://www.chartweb.com/AboutUs.html
KMART compared with Talbots, The Gap and/or Brooks Brothers?? Same Corporate America to me. Westporters would never shop at KMART anyway. Maybe a Cosco though. “Cosco on Church.” Rather catchy.
To be fair, Bedford Square Associates is hardly suggesting a KMart or Cosco for downtown Westport, so let’s try to not get carried away. The fact is that the Bedford Building and Weeks Pavilion (the entire Y property) is in a designated historic zone, so there are a lot of restrictions that would preclude any of the big box stores you’re talking about. I, for one, am going to Mr. Waldman’s Q&A meeting on Wednesday, because I want to see more plans, talk with the architects and learn more about the roject before I rush to judgement. My biggest beef has been with this P&Z because I think their pre-application process is insufficiently transparent and because there can never be too much information in my book.
I appreciate what Mr. Waldman did to restore and renovate what is now the Patagonia building. He retained the original windows and exterior, and even kept the old bank vault and original murals on the walls. If you haven’t seen it, you should. It’s terrific stuff, and won an historic preservation award. That was GOOD for Westport. I also think what he’s doing down on Church Lane next to Patagonia is an improvement over what was there. (A crappy back alley.) Likewise for the renovation of the Sherwood House on Church Lane.
So not all change is bad or means the end of life as we know it. I don’t know enough about the Bedford Square development to intelligently comment on its specifics. Of what I’ve seen, I do have some serious design concerns – such as height, coverage and intensity of use – and will certainly raise those with Mr. Waldman, if he cares to listen. But I look forward to learning more and having an open dialogue on Wednesday night.
One final comment. SOMETHING new is going to be built in the Bedford Building and where Weeks Pavilion is located. It’s not like the YMCA is going to move out, and there’s still going to be a bunch of empty rooms, a gym and two swimming pools inside. That ain’t gonna happen. And it’s not going to sit empty either.
So I appreciate the developers opening the new design and new usage discussions to the community and hearing our ideas and concerns. That’s a first in this town that I know of, and I think a positive step in the right direction. I encourage the public to attend and participate.
Charter Realty is involved with the Storss Center:
http://www.storrscenter.com/
You already have a mall. It is just outside. Westport is the poster child for what happens when the big box stores come in and destroy what was a charming main street. Compair Main St Nantucket to Main St Westport for charm. Westport’s is a disaster…..two words – Nike Town. Build the condos…why not
Developer David Waldman Still has not settled with the Jewelry Store he broke into in September 2008. Also what about what he did to the Zest restaurant.
He Claims to own 125 Main Street
but the owners are Acadia Realty. Anything David Waldman does be care full he is dishonest & a criminal. The people who donated there property to the YMCA if they were alive to see what David Waldman is doing would be sick.