From:	Michael Behrendt
Sent:	Tuesday, June 21, 2016 3:53 PM
Subject:	Pauly's Pocket - email from Beth Olshansky

To the Planning Board,
Please see Beth Olshansky’s email below.

Michael Behrendt
Durham Town Planner
Town of Durham
8 Newmarket Road
Durham, NH  03824
(603) 868-8064
www.ci.durham.nh.us


From: Beth Olshansky []  
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2016 1:55 PM 
To: Michael Behrendt 
Subject: Re: Pauly's Pocket

To the Durham Planning Board, 
As an interested citizen and a member of the Pauly’s Pocket Design Committee, I 
have paid close attention to the entire design and construction process of Paul’s 
new building. Since there are several relatively new members of the Planning 
Board, I am writing to correct the record on several statements made by a member 
of the public, Cathy Leach, in her recent letter that do not accurately reflect the 
long history of Pauly’s Pockets’ Renovation Project. 
Over the course of this project, Paul has experienced many challenges which began 
when he hired someone to design and construct his building who was not up to 
either of those tasks. Because this building is situated in such a prominent location 
in our downtown, and will indeed become a landmark building for our downtown, 
many citizens realized early on the importance of having a quality design for the 
building. Among them was our Town Administrator, who offered to hire a well 
respected architect to refine several design elements. Paul, the Design Committee 
(established by the PB to oversee such details), and ultimately the PB approved 
Shannon Alther’s much improved architectural design. Shannon’s design was the 
approved plan.
However, because the construction project remained in the hands of a builder of 
questionable skill and motives, many aspects of the building never complied with 
the approved plan. The dimensions of the first and second floors were off; Paul 
ended up with inferior quality bricks because they had to be ordered at the last 
minute; the wrong lights were ordered; hardboard panels for the storefronts were 
ordered in a color which had been only conditionally approved by the committee 
with the promise of seeing a larger color sample at the site before ordering (which 
never happened). I could go on regarding the many ways the building veered off 
from the approved plans…including the corner stairs, originally designed to 
welcome the public into the building, not being built, and the lunette which was 
ordered by the builder purposely (he later admitted) to NOT meet the specs. 
Whether Ms. Leach thinks the differences between the two lunette is “negligible” 
is a matter of opinion, to which she is entitled. The discerning eye would notice 
that the shape and size of the lunette was originally designed by Shannon to create 
a gentle arc whose lines connect to and flow into the lines of the column below. 
This is one architectural detail that sets apart a well designed building from one 
that is not. Any “apparent damage to the building” in replacing the lunette is a 
cosmetic matter of replacing some 1/2” thin bricks in the area of the lunette. A year 
ago we were told the cost of replacing the lunette would be $5,000. Now we are 
being told that it will cost $15,000.
Since the color of the building was raised in the letter you received from Ms. 
Leach, please allow me to clarify: As noted above, the Autumn Tan was only 
conditionally approved by the committee with the promise of making a different 
choice at the site. This option never happened and before we knew it, the Autumn 
Tan panels for the entire building had arrived. Paul was the first to say that he did 
not like the Autumn Tan color. “Two citizens,” both members of the Design 
Committee (myself and 80-year old Nancy Webb), did offer to purchase paint and 
paint Paul's building a color of Paul’s choosing. Paul graciously accepted. The 
current color is one that Paul chose from several samples before we purchased the 
paint and to this day says he likes. Many people in town have commented on how 
much better the building looks since it has been painted.
The current building still shows many signs of sloppy construction; the original 
builder left the building is a sad state of disrepair. Now Paul has hired someone 
else to complete the job. The lunette aside, there are many other details noted by 
Barbara Dill in her letter and photos sent on 6/20/16 that require completion. The 
lack of window jambs around the storefronts, made clear by the photo Barbara 
sent, show a troubling lack of finish work--work that I assume would be a standard 
requirement of any construction job.  I know of no other building in town that does 
not have window jambs to hide the butt ends of plywood or whatever else is part of 
the window frame/wall construction. 
The hoods, recently installed, appear to be of the wrong dimensions. They look 
funny and do not match Shannon’s renderings. We are currently waiting for Mike 
Sievert to measure them to determine if they were built according to spec. It does 
not appear that they were. If they are not built to spec, they should be replaced—at 
no additional expense to Paul. 
I know Paul is eager to have his building completed. We are all eager to put this 
unfortunate chapter aside, but I believe the PB should remain committed to at least 
requiring minimal standards of construction in completing the approved design. 
Should the Planning Board choose to ignore these elements, it would seem to set a 
troubling precedent for the next developer who comes to town, or the next local 
businessman who decides to renovate his building.
I would encourage members of the Planning Board to take a walk over to Pauly’s 
to see for yourself what perhaps a small image on a computer screen cannot 
adequately convey.  I know that in the end, Paul is someone who cares deeply 
about his building would like to take pride in the finished product.
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
Beth Olshansky