Fantasy Castle Raises Questions

Update: See the Telegram article -HERE-
See the Fox25 News Report -HERE-
Update- Telegram: Zoning Variance Denied -HERE-
Update- NY Post on Christopher Mark -HERE-

Editor's note: After contact from the castle's owner, I have changed the title of the article out of deference to his family. The prior title was strictly satirical in nature.

Anyone who has driven up Brickyard Rd. North in the last couple of years has to have seen this and wondered what was going on- it is truly unique. I have wondered myself and heard a few rumors about a line of glass bottom hot tubs in front of a 50’ bar and underground parking for 35+ cars.

Then, somebody found the website and the story began to take shape. It is billed as an international ‘modeling’ agency. Well, I spent some time on the website (it seems to be down now) and perused the ‘models’…my opinion is that some poetic license was taken in describing these ladies as models. Take a look at some screen shots of the website and see what I mean... -HERE-

I have no doubt that this is going to create a little hub-bub here in our fair little town and probably raise more than a few questions. It is my understanding that this property is covered under PA 490. Isn’t this industry we can be proud of? Certainly more interesting than the fight over cell towers.

I am advised that there will be a feature story in the Telegram soon.  Stay tuned!



What did you think of this article?

  • Trackbacks are closed for this post.

  • 2/23/2008 9:53 PM Shocked & Awed wrote:
    Are you kidding me?

    This is unbelievable! This is in Woodstock? I've never seen this place before.

    Is that modeling agency supposed to be in Woodstock? Again, I had no idea. If anyone in their right mind thinks that those are models... They're obviously not in their right mind.
    This should be investigated by the authorities.
  • 2/25/2008 12:52 PM Gee Willikers wrote:
    Wow, Thanks for posting. I've been wondering about this. Very interesting.
  • 2/26/2008 2:59 PM Admin wrote:
    The following is a response from our First Selectman to an inquiry from a citizen regarding this situation:

    The Town of Woodstock is aware of this situation and Christopher Mark & Mary Galt were issued a Notice of Violation dated February 12, 2008, by Delia P. Fey (Zoning Enforcement Officer). This informed them that they did not have a permit to conduct a business. It went on to say that they did not have a Certificate of Zoning Compliance or a Certificate of Occupancy for the “castle” and could not be utilizing it for living quarters or for operating a business. The Notice of Violation asked them to remedy the violation by ceasing to operate the business within fifteen days of receiving this letter.

    On February 15, 2008 our Zoning Enforcement Officer received a response from Christopher Mark saying the website had been removed from the internet. The letter further stated that the website was a “beta” version and should not have been accessible. He stated that no business was ever conducted for this company nor had anyone lived in the castle at any time.

    If you wish to see the actual documents I have referred to in this message they are available at the Town Hall.

    I am not sure what you are talking about in reference to my lack of knowledge or care regarding cell towers. I as First Selectman and a life long citizen of Woodstock care very much about the cell tower issue and intend to look out for the best interests of the Town.


    Allan D. Walker Jr.
    First Selectman, Town of Woodstock
  • 3/3/2008 11:14 AM Anonymous wrote:
    I see your little secret has made it to Fox 25 News late night...Should be interesting where it goes from here...
  • 3/4/2008 7:36 PM Pam wrote:
    These models look more like call girls.
    If this castle turns into some type of business for an animal refuge or zoo, I'm interested in working there!
  • 4/23/2008 11:32 PM Anon E Mouse wrote:

    This ebay user fenmore2 seems to be running a business RIGHT NOW from this location. See the discription: "Our GLOBAL Mfg. LLC import, export and distribute building products and machinery. "Global Castle Concept" is a 35,000+ sq ft multi-million dollar year-round mega-showroom on our 450 acre research facility. This new unified building solution, integrating advanced technologies and exotic product..."

    Or do you have two mysterious castles in Woodstock?
    1. 1/7/2009 12:36 PM JC wrote:
      TYPICAL! Who believed this alarmist and damning statement on it's face? Who CHECKED THE FACTS? I checked on eBay and as of Jan 7, there are ONLY 2 Items for sale by fenmore2 and Putnam CT is listed as PLACE. PARANOID fears about...well about whatever you seem afraid of or angry about - these are best dealt with AFTER a thorough CHECK OF THE FACTS. There is TOO MUCH JUMPING TO NEGATIVE CONCLUSIONS based on all this conjecture, rumor and narrow-minded suspicion.

      Please - THINK FOR YOURSELF and CHECK THE FACTS FOR YOURSELF - ESPECIALLY when the lives and reputations of others are at stake.

      NOTE: There does seem to be a lot of Unfair animosity toward the Castle. CAN ANYONE EXPLAIN THIS?
      1. 1/7/2009 1:09 PM Admin wrote:
        I do not know who posted this comment, however, if you check your facts you will find that the eBay user did list Woodstock as its location prior to listing Putnam.

        Moreover, there was an article in the Woodstock Villager that stated that Woodstock had ordered a cease and desist with regard to the eBay business and the article also alluded to the fact that Putnam was investigating. Yet another self inflicted wound.

        Again, as I said in my previous post above, I certainly hold no "unfair animosity toward the Castle" or its owner, but it does appear he might have more money than sense.

  • 6/12/2008 2:01 AM anjelsallaroundu wrote:
    This concerns me to the fullest. My daughter is a nanny at this house. She just started the job. She has mentioned modeling agency,movie project and reality show...please if anyone knows facts in regards to the castle, or these girls one of which i'm afraid is my daughter. muchly appreciated
    1. 6/18/2008 2:12 PM Own Eyes wrote:
      You have good reason to be concerned. If your daughter is underage, go to the authorities. If the children she is 'watching' is exposed to these (deleted), go to the authorities. You should do whatever it takes to get your daughter out of there. It may be rough for you both at first, but in the long run, you'll be doing the right thing for her well-being. also- I saw (deleted) around Putnam with a young (17? 18? year-old) girl, blondish, hair in pig-tails, wearing skin tight clothes. Your daughter? Save her.
      1. 1/3/2009 10:50 AM Living Across the Street wrote:
        I have been in the castle and talked to Mr. Mark many times. Rumors are one thing but to lie about a subject you have little knowledge of is another. There is no business being run out of "the castle". There is no modeling agency and no escort service. I have been living across the street since the beginning of this project and have seen this place take shape firsthand. I to was wondering at first what it was, or was going to be used for. Unlike many of you I'm not a fan of spreading rumors about things I know nothing about. It seems to me everybody hopes to find something unlawful going on at the castle just so they have something to talk about for the next few months. I know the facts and the facts are that the future of the castle is much unknown, besides being Mr. Mark's personal residence and his residence only. He is not breaking the law, nor has the intentions to do so. It seems if we as a people see somebody doing something out of the ordinary just to be a little different, we all think he or she must have issues. Mr. Mark isn't a pervert nor the owner of a Castle call service, he's a guy who just wants to build his dream home in a bit of privacy. Do any of you invite Fox25 news to do a Cribs edition on your house? Enough said.
      2. 1/7/2009 11:54 AM JC wrote:
        What a SURPRISE! People jumping to shocking, negative conclusions based on 'suspicious' activity! Small-town comments about 'deviants' and implying illegal acts - ALL WITH ZERO EVIDENCE, NO SUPPORTING FACTS OR EVEN STRONG SUGGESTION BY APPEARANCES!

        This fulfills and supports the Characiture that US LOCALS are narrow-minded, hate outsiders and consider anybody who is different to be sexual deviant or worse - ALL WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION, NO 'BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT' - PURE MCCARTHYISM-TYPE BIGOTRY.

        I urge those of us with a working brain to keep an open mind and be suspicious and SKEPTICAL with EQUAL VIGOR when hearing about the Good and/or the Bad RUMORS about this house (and ALL Rumors! Is basic fairness that difficult to understand!?! I mean consider the following statement, seemingly made based on RUMOR ONLY: "Your daughter? Save her."

        There must be some Minority of these Small-Minded people who fall so easily into believing the WORST and Most Sensationally BAD -

        Most residents I know actually THINK FOR THEMSELVES and they make sure they know what they are talking about before spewing hate, animosity and false rumor. The rest seem to believe whatever they are told...
        1. 1/7/2009 12:07 PM Admin wrote:
          The castle-models site was hardly a rumor. It appears to me that this whole issue is a self inflicted wound. Perhaps the owner should have thought of that prior to putting up the site.

          When you build something like this in a small town coupled with the website, what exactly would you expect?

          I don't think anyone denies the owner his right to live in peace, but he clearly brought this on himself.

  • 1/8/2009 8:07 PM KC wrote:
    My comments were about the tenor of the previous message and of the use of the word "deviant" as well as the connotation that young girls are unsafe at 'The Castle'. Jumping to conclusions is one thing, but spreading harmful rumors about 'deviants' and young girls who need to be saved is totally out of line.

    Further, next in line in culpability to those who spread such rumors is those who, like Admin, 'blame the victim' of harmful rumors. I expect that most of commentators do understand the Freedoms that America guarantees it's citizens - so let's agree that the owner is FREE to do and act in any legal way.

    No behavior invites, asks for or justifies destructive rumors suggesting that the owner is a Child Molester or the like - "clearly brought this on himself"? Wrong. America did NOT bring attacks onto itself; rape victims do not bring it on themselves - the responsibility for destructive rumors falls 100% on those perpetuating them and those listening and passing them along.

    "Exactly what would you expect?" I expect that intelligent residents form their opinions based on good information, never on rumors and small-minded insinuations of "deviants" and "save your daughter". I expect that residents hold themselves to a high standard - just as they would have others do when judging them.
    1. 1/8/2009 8:54 PM Admin wrote:
      Well my friend, this is what makes America great. You are entitled to your opinion as is everyone else. You seem to continue to insist that there are some sort of "destructive rumors" here, when it is you that has jumped to these conclusions from the aforementioned comment. I disagree and I am judging no one, nor did I make the comment. As far as "good information", there is nothing in this article or that of the Telegram or Fox 25 News that I would consider to be bad information, therefore your argument doesn't hold water.

      As this article is now near a year old and receives very little traffic anymore, it is you who continues to fan these flames for whatever your purposes may be. Your little tirades here do nothing but escalate the scrutiny of your "friend".

      As far as the deviant/child molester comments, I believe no such thing and in fact sent my own daughter to this residence last weekend as Mr. Mark represented to me that because of the article he could not find a babysitter. The fact is that this turned out to be a misrepresentation of his needs and my daughter was subjected to verbal interrogation and coercion about me and the blog, not to mention that he didn't bother to pay her for her time. I consider that little fiasco to be out of line.

      Moreover, Mr. Mark has now threatend litigation over the article. So, let's agree that I am also "FREE to do and act in any legal way", which I have and will continue to do whether it suits him or not.

  • 1/9/2009 8:51 PM GPS wrote:
    It must be great to build and own your own castle. One prerequisite to owning your own castle is that you must live in fantasy land; Mr. Mark sure qualifies for the dude from fantasy land since not many of us drive around in a zebra striped limos in the Quiet Corner.
  • 1/12/2009 10:09 AM KC wrote:
    Admin - To be clear - I never thought that any Admin comments promoted the negative rumors. (I'm not sure what you 'disagree' with? - I quote directly from the older, negative comments above - do you disagree that this negative language is in black and white? or that they amount to 'rumors'?).

    My messages address the language/rumors in previous messages (not Admin messages) - it seems like Admin may have assumed (jumped to the conclusion) I was claiming that the Admin messages contained the 'deviant' and 'save her' (your daughter), when they are clear in previous messages in black and white. Sure, reading such strong language I reacted strongly - and self righteously. Blogs are like that, you see. I have no interest or opinion one way or another in the Castle rumors, level of scrutiny, etc. except as an object lesson in what I believe is a reasonable and socially appropriate basis for dealing with ANY negative comments about any of our neighbors. Who can disagree that such negative comments about any neighbor should, as a matter of fairness, respect and in the interest of the Truth, be fully vetted before they are made OR the commentator ought to be 'called out' to back up such statements? Further, who can blame one for being overly spirited in the face of such ugliness? I don't know the truth - the comments may have zero basis or not. It is merely the principle that I address. Is this objectionable? Or was my tone too much?

    Sure - my comments are spirited and a little righteous - given more time I probably would have toned them down. Blogs are that way by nature. However, what TRULY surprises me is that the Admin comment stoop straightaway to a calling any of them 'Tirades' and getting equally 'spirited' - when after all, your very mission statement claims that "Admin will treat you and your posts with respect, period. It will be our intent to have meaningful discussion without the 'mean'."

    I made no such claim and I definitely expected more moderate, even-tempered messages than Admin posts, even in the face of truly raving 'Tirades'. Certainly any opinions posted of any tenor is an Admin prerogative, but it just seems disingenuous- the tone does seem to deviate from that mission statement - and the comments are strikingly similar to those on the W.Cafe' website (which I gather is not your goal).

    PS - What matter how old these comments are?
    1. 1/12/2009 11:52 AM Admin wrote:
      After reading your comment I think I more fully understand what you were trying to say. Frankly, I hadn't given the article much thought until recently as it is a bit old now.

      As to the comment and commentor, I suppose it could be construed as rumor but the comment was also characterized as an eywitness account of someone who knows the person in question. After thinking it over, I have deleted the questionable characterizations. 

      I regret that you would find this blog like the Cafe in any way- you are correct in that it is in no way my goal.

      Thanks for pointing out the inconsistencies of the thread. As one who has suffered the "ugliness" you speak of at the Cafe on a regular basis, perhaps I have become a little insensitive to this sort of thing- a by-product of growing rhino hide I suppose.

  • 1/12/2009 1:21 PM KC wrote:
    There you go, being totally reasonable - now I'm inclined to backstroke even more. Thank you for the comment - once again it makes me realize I should probably type out my comments to myself, sleep on it and re-read the next day. Invariably, I would tone my comments down - including saying 'strikingly similar' to you know who. Part of that is simple 'defensiveness' or lashing out. Really not called for - your site IS different and refreshingly so.

    In fact, your inclination to be different than the usual is what drew me to visit and re-visit the site. Please feel free to also delete my comments on this subject, as they were primarily directed at Admin and NOT intended to provoke, etc. That is - if I could have sent the comments privately I would have done so.

    A site with such a reasonable Admin does go a long way toward disarming unnecessary righteousness and the personalized 'dueling' - or whatever we should call the untoward nature of the arguing that predominates other websites and often deteriorates or escalates to inappropriate bickering. (There's a good example on the other website, where comments were closed on comment Number 83 - many of which are inappropriately personal and hardly coherent except to the duelists themselves...) Respectfully, KC
    1. 1/12/2009 2:13 PM Admin wrote:
      Drop me a note anytime at-


  • 1/13/2009 5:58 PM Recent Visitor wrote:
    As a recent visitor to the castle on brickyard road and since being introduced to Mr. Mark, I can dismiss all of the rumors i have heard about "The Castle" It is too bad that people around here can think of nothing better to do with their time than badmouth and gossip about something they have absolutely no clue about. Mr Mark is simply a man fulfilling his lifelong dream to build, own, and live in a real castle. As he recently said to me "I still can't believe it is real". Isn't that nice? somebody is living their dream and making it a reality. Everyone has their own dream. Maybe those people badmouthing the castle could better spend their time by working towards their life dreams. Dont get me wrong, the castle and everything that goes with it is truly spectacular. So heres an idea, shut up and mind your own business! i certainly wouldn't want everyone in town to make up lies about me would you?
    1. 1/13/2009 6:14 PM Admin wrote:
      Huh? Just curious, but what "lies" are you referring to exactly?
      1. 1/17/2009 2:41 PM Recent Visitor wrote:
        By lies i am referring to all of the rumors and stories that people make up for no reason. As defined by Websters New World Dictionary a lie is a false statement or action, especially one made with intent to deceive, anything that that gives or is meant to give a false impression. So, from what i understand as an educated and literate individual, when i read these rumors you and others post and later find them all to be false, shouldn't that label them as lies? Please correct me if im wrong. Look at it this way, if i started a rumor that you cheated on your wife and it was not true that would be a lie correct? I have spent considerable time lately with Mr. Mark and have been through the castle numerous times as well as in his house. Guess what!? There is nothing suspicious, illegal, or underhanded happening there. As William Penn once said "The jealous are troublesome to others, but a torment to themselves" If i were you i would take a hint and just leave Mr. Mark alone before you get yourself into some serious trouble.
        1. 1/17/2009 3:07 PM Admin wrote:
          Well, I suppose I can appreciate your position, but as said throughout this thread these "rumors" are nothing more than self-inflicted wounds.

          Your veiled threat on behalf of your "friend" does not impress me. After the little go 'round with my daughter and his ridiculous phone calls and threats, it is my pleasure to have nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Mark. 

Leave a comment

Comments are closed.