What is wrong with the agreement between the Town of Windham and Mr. Bauchman?
- The date. The reason the March 31st date is part of the agreement is because on October 20th Attorney Cronin on behalf of Mr. Bauchman indicated that the purchase and sales agreement Mr. Bauchman had entered into for 2 Enterprise Drive in Londonderry must close by that date. The reason for the lead time for the closing date was to allow Mr. Bauchman to “move forward with the necessary engineering and site planning to secure the necessary approvals”. Laura Scott (acting code enforcement officer) subsequently allowed this extension stating that she didn’t believe there was any reason for the Town of Windham to enforce if he was in the process of moving to Londonderry.
Since that time we have found that Mr. Bauchman has made very little effort to secure the necessary approvals. We have also found that there is no way he can get through the planning board process in Londonderry by March 31st. On November 30th Laura Scott contacted the Londonderry Planning Department and found that 1) no plan had been filed for that address to date and 2) it would take a minimum of 6 months and more likely 9 months to a year to get through the planning board process in Londonderry. As of December 7th still no plan had been filed.
- The word “portion”. The agreement written by Laura Scott was the first time the word “portion” had been used to describe how much of his business Mr. Bauchman was planning on moving. Both Laura Scott and the public correspondence had indicated repeatedly that Mr. Bauchman’s intent was to “relocate his business”.
Mr. Bauchman is not allowed to run any portion of his business on that property. He is allowed to store 3 tow trucks. Running a portion of a towing business on that property would be in violation of the 1997 court order and the 2008 court order.
- The definitions of what he can and can’t do on that property (Sections 2 and 3). If Mr. Bauchman complies with these sections he may still be in violation of the court orders. What he can and can’t do should never have been spelled out in this agreement – reference to the court cases and/or the zoning ordinance would be the correct way to define compliance. This agreement allows Mr. Bauchman to have employees on the site as long as they live there and allows him to maintain family and friends recreational vehicles.
Mr. Bauchman is not allowed to run a business on that property regardless of where the employees live. Mr. Bauchman should be maintaining family and friends recreational vehicles at his new business site; not in a rural neighborhood.
- The use of the word “may” instead of “shall”. The neighbors have lived with this situation for 14 years. The only reason to use the word may instead of shall is to allow for the case where the Town of Windham once again decides not to enforce both the 1997 NH Superior Court Order and the 2008 NH Superior Court Order. Laura Scott indicated several times that enforcement action would take place if Bauchman Towing is in violation of these court orders as of April 1, 2010.
- No milestones. A stipulation written by Attorney Campbell (Counsel for the Town of Windham) to Attorney Cronin (Counsel for Mr. Bauchman) had several milestones that needed to be met in order for compliance. This stipulation was never responded to by Attorney Cronin. As the current agreement doesn’t have any milestones we are left with the situation where we are waiting for March 31st knowing that Mr. Bauchman won’t be able to relocate by that date. This agreement should have had milestones for Londonderry Planning Department approval and closing on the property in Londonderry at earlier dates that made certain that Mr. Bauchman was moving toward the desired goal.
- The history. Both Mr. Bauchman and the Town of Windham have repeatedly failed to remedy the situation at 120 Haverhill Road. Given these mistakes of the past it didn’t make any sense for the Town of Windham to allow Mr. Bauchman 8 months to move with no benefit to themselves or the neighbors.