Monday, February 2, 2015

Steve Walker/ The Longmeadow Shops Responds....

We’ve been very clear and transparent as to what our intentions are with the proposed expansion at the Longmeadow Shops--21,000 square feet of new retail space including a CVS drive-thru as well as parking and pedestrian safety improvements.

I wanted to provide you some background to educate you and followers of your site in regards to our parking lot.

In 1982, the former owner of The Longmeadow Shops agreed to construct a parking lot on land owned by the shops. The lot would be used by the shops and available to the public for parking. We remain grandfathered into this commitment that the former owner made to the town.

This isn’t a municipal parking lot, but rather a lot that we own and pay taxes on that is also shared with the community for parking. What this means is that parking isn’t restricted to only patrons of the shops.  A good example would be to come to the shops on any Friday night during the football season or even weekdays during the spring or fall during athletic practices or games, and you’ll notice that a significant amount of the public utilizes the lot.  This arrangement has been discussed publically and is fairly well known in town. We welcome this traffic to our shops. 

In the past, we’ve had parking attendants during heavy parking periods in an effort to prioritize parking closest to our retailers for patron parking and closest to the fields for event parking.

The parking spaces created by this agreement have always been included in the parking calculations for the shops by the planning and zoning boards over our 20 years of ownership.

We appreciate your sites attention to tomorrow night’s important vote, and also appreciate the opportunity to clarify the facts to your readers.

Steve Walker/ The Longmeadow Shops

1 comment:

Unknown said...

Mr. Walker,

Assuming the document from land court asserting that Grove Properties is required to permit unrestricted parking on the property is real and legitimate, how is the action of restricting parking not a violation of your existing agreement with the Town? I'm not a lawyer, but I am a Realtor, and I was instructed as part of my licensure that if a person or entity attempts to take or use property that is not theirs it should be judged as an act of "adverse possession."

It seems that the actions of Grove Properties are directly in conflict with the Court filed use agreement. I'm not a lawyer and nothing here should be taken as a legal opinion. It would be helpful if one chimed in... But if these actions are in conflict of what was agreed to, I find it hard to trust the Foreign Corporation you represent as it has shown it is willing to act in conflict to it's agreement with the Town.

A response would be appreciated as the lack there of will taint my opinion as to the trustworthiness of any assertion from your Foreign Corporation.

The lack of a reasoned explanation will result in me voting against your request, as your request is based on us trusting that the Foreign Corporation you represent will do what it you assert it will do. With evidence that you have to date not respected your existing agreement with the Town, I do not see how any reasonable person can expect you to do so going forward.


Jeffrey Klotz, CPA, Realtor
487 Converse Street