From: Michael Behrendt Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 1:14 PM Subject: Pauly's Pockets details - email from Cathy Leach To the Planning Board, Please see the email below from Cathy Leach. Here is a clarification on two matters that Ms. Leach raises. The certificate of occupancy is not being held up. Rather, the temporary certificate of occupancy was issued last year and we are waiting to issue the permanent certificate of occupancy until the remaining issues are addressed. Regarding Ms. Leach’s first question below regarding conformance with the approval, these two conditions are standard conditions and were part of the Pauly’s Pockets approval: Execution. The project must be built and executed exactly as specified in the approved application package unless changes are approved by the Town as provided in this document (See Minor Changes provision herein). Approval. All of the documentation submitted in the application package by the applicant and any requirements imposed by other agencies are part of this approval unless otherwise updated, revised, clarified in some manner, or superseded in full or in part. In the case of conflicting information between documents, the most recent documentation and this notice herein shall be determining. Michael Behrendt Durham Town Planner Town of Durham 8 Newmarket Road Durham, NH 03824 (603) 868-8064 www.ci.durham.nh.us From: Cathy Leach [] Sent: Sunday, June 19, 2016 10:40 PM To: Michael Behrendt Cc: Todd Selig; pauleja49@gmail.com; michaelsievert@mjsengineering.com Subject: Pauly's Pocket To Michael and Planning Board Members: I am writing with input regarding the agenda item at Wednesday’s meeting about the Pauly’s Pocket “lunette,” window hoods, and additional items. I certainly hope the Planning Board will allow for the current configurations on the building to remain as is, and will not force Mr. Eja to make changes that apparently the Planner and/or the appointed ‘design committee’ recommend. Comparing the design drawings with the actual look of the lunette shows a negligible difference, if any at all. The end product is fine – it is an appropriate size, it is centered correctly, and it is of the same material as designed with an etched number. As for the window hoods – again, they are fine as is and look like the original design. The other items mentioned in the Planner’s report as concerns from the design committee are equally miniscule and unimportant within the totality of the project. It is absolutely unreasonable to force Mr. Eja to make potentially costly and time- consuming changes -- and in the case of the “lunette” -- could apparently cause damage to the building. From a global perspective, the Town needs to stop micro-managing Mr. Eja’s project. He is a good community partner, and has already suffered through unnecessary scrutiny with this project. He has been willing to conform to whatever is asked, including – a low point in Durham developer-community relations – when two citizens were allowed to choose and change the color of the lower building. It is unfathomable that Mr. Eja’s Certificate of Occupancy is being withheld due to these miniscule “issues” that cause no threat to the health and safety of tenants or townspeople. Two questions come to mind: 1. Does our Town ordinance explicitly state that every building must be completed in exactly the same way it’s depicted in the initial design phase? I don’t believe that to be the case. 2. Does the current look of the “lunette” and the other items really cause that much consternation among the citizenry? I wouldn’t expect this to be the case – in fact, I doubt 99% of the Durham population would even notice or care. I urge the Planner and the Board not to revert backward to former practice of conforming to the opinions of a very, very few. In other words – this is making something from nothing. I strongly encourage the Planner to provide leadership and expertise for the Board to approve Mr. Eja’s request expeditiously. Thank you. Cathy Leach