, ,

Mall developer seeks to ‘clarify’ position as Council readies make-or-break vote

GGP's Doug Adams
GGP’s Doug Adams

NORWALK, Conn. – The Common Council meets at 7:30 tonight (Tuesday, Oct. 13) to discuss and, potentially, vote on changes to the Land Disposition Agreement that could either allow the mall proposed by General Growth Properties (GGP) to go forward or spell and end to the project.

The proposed mall would be at the 95/7 site formally known as the Reed Putnam Urban Renewal Plan.

The major issue remaining, according to GGP’s Doug Adams, has to do with parking above North Water Street.

Adams said in an afternoon email to NancyOnNorwalk that GGP has agreed to 24 of the 25 proposed conditions to the plan, and attached a diagram to illustrate his point. That is attached here:

North Water Street Site Section

According to the email, “If the Council does not remove the proposed condition that no parking can be above North Water Street then the project cannot proceed.

The following email was sent to Council members Monday, Adams said:

“I have fielded a few questions that lead me to believe there may be some confusion over what GGP has agreed to relative to our building and parking over North Water Street.  I thought it would be helpful to clarify our position.

“Attached are three diagrams included in the Consolidated CMSP that cover the reduction in the area over North Water Street. In August, GGP agreed to remove a minimum of 30’ x 60’ of parking over N. Water Street.  Moving from west to east the CMSP now shows 260’ feet of building and parking, then 31’ of open area, then 43’ of drive aisle and parking.  The total area covered is 303’. This is down significantly from where we started, and a 10% reduction from the 335’ we had most recently before this change.

“The package referred to the full Council by the Planning Committee includes the condition that requires removal of all parking over North Water Street.  This would require further reduction in this area, and we cannot agree to this condition.  We have agreed to the other 24 of 25 conditions proposed by the City.

“We have sought to be open and transparent in our dealings with the City and the Agency, and for this reason feel it necessary to restate that if the LDA is approved with this condition, we cannot move forward with the project and provide the high quality anchors specified in the document.”


Leave a Reply




Recent Comments