Claremont Municipal Airport Hangar

or "the hassle of a lifetime"

MAY, 2006 - This page details the excruciating agony of trying to build a hangar at the City of Claremont, New Hampshire Claremont Municipal Airport (CNH), and the hassles of dealing with the Claremont bureaucracy.    I began this process filled with enthusiasm and optimism, very much looking forward to working with the Claremont officials to get a hangar built.   A year later, I am exhausted from dealing with Claremont's imperious and uncooperative obstructionists and their bad attitudes, and I no longer wish to have anything to do with them.  

I apologize for this being such a long read.  It had started off as a simple page describing the building of my hangar, and grew with each new hurdle to overcome.  It was originally intended to just be a few words and some pictures of the hangar construction process.  In the beginning, I did not keep detailed notes of every contact with the Claremont bureaucrats, because I did not realize then that those contacts would end up being the whole story.

OCTOBER, 2006 update - the level of treachery by the Claremont bureaucrats has been raised considerably by their dishonest handling of leases for the new FAA-funded municipal hangars.  Jump to HERE for details.

DECEMBER, 2006 update - Filed FAA complaint  and followup complaint

JULY, 2007 update - FAA concurs that CNH leases are discriminatory, and orders them corrected within 60 days.

May 28, 2005 - I've begun work on building my own hangar.   I had looked into it back in December, 2004 at Claremont, NH Municipal Airport (CNH).  At that time, Peter Chase, Airport Manager, thought funding would be approved for the city to build at least 6 T-hangars, so I didn't bother proceeding with the expense and headaches of trying to build my own.  I just found out that the lowest bid the City received for the project was more than $100K over budget, so the plan for City hangars is off at least until next year.  I've asked Peter several times to get on the waiting list for the City hangars, whenever they are built, but all I've gotten so far is vague squirming. For some inexplicable reason, he says the city will start its own hangar waiting list, rather than simply picking up the existing waiting list for the existing hangars and continuing to use that. 

So, I've been very busy every day with dozens of phone calls, getting all the processes going to build my own hangar.  I'm told Claremont has a better attitude toward pilots & building hangars than many of the local airports.  I don't think any new hangars have been built anywhere in New Hampshire for about 30+ years.   I've been on a waiting list at CNH for 3 years for one of their rusty old existing hangars.  About the only way to get into a hangar in NH is to inherit it.  I will be spending lots of time working on all the planning for this hangar. 

One benefit is that someone else just built the first new hangar at CNH, so I can follow in his footsteps.   He says he went through a lot of hassles to get it done, but it should be easier for me following right behind him.  I am committed to doing it, I've got the money set aside for it, and I hope to have it done by the end of the year.

  This is Dick Love's hangar, just being completed now.  Mine will go right beside it (behind it in this pic), and be the same color.  Depending on what I get back for estimates, it may be the same building, from the same supplier (Morton), or from a local garage builder.  Dick's is 48' wide and 45' deep, with a 41' door.  Mine probably won't be quite as deep, and maybe not quite as wide.  It's actually a wood building, with wood posts and rafter trusses, even though it looks like a metal building. 

June 22, 2005 - I've been very busy every day for the past month on this, getting everything lined up to go to the Claremont Planning Board with my building plan.  The Claremont bureaucrats, especially Nancy Merrill, Business Development Coordinator, apparently don't believe in returning phone calls.  Even though I had seen a letter from Nancy Merrill, expressing hope that there would be more hangars built, I seem to have encountered mostly resistance and haughtiness from these people.  Nancy is the key person in all this, and she is most unhelpful.   She doesn't return phone calls.  She's very vague and evasive about everything.  She offers no help or guidance. 

Just as I was ready to submit my plans to the Planning Department, I found out my hangar plans have been put on hold indefinitely while the local bureaucrats now decide how to come up with a "hangar policy".  This is something new they just thought up to add more red tape to the project.  I had thought in my first meeting a few weeks ago with Gerald Coogan, City Planner, that he seemed quite hostile to me and to the idea of me building a new hangar.   Jerry showed no interest at all in discussing my hangar plans (the purpose of the meeting).  Instead, his only interest seemed to be to challenge my qualifications to oversee the building of a hangar, my qualifications as a plane builder, my qualifications as a pilot, my plane's qualifications to fly, and my qualifications to afford a hangar.  Nancy Merrill was supposed to be in that meeting, and she didn't even bother showing up for it.  Peter Chase was in the meeting, but he just sat there passively throughout the meeting and offered no help or support while Jerry gave me the Third Degree.

Apparently, this new delay is the Planning Department's way of adding yet another layer of hassle to the process.  I guess all the layers of Claremont City Planning Department conditions, Claremont Planning Board approval, Claremont Airport Board approval, NH state DOT approval, FAA approval, concurrence with Airport Layout Plan, etc wasn't enough red tape for them.  Now, these Claremont planning bureaucrats say they won't accept my plans until they finish fumbling through formulating a hangar building policy, whatever that means or could entail.  That can take a couple months (or more).

I got an estimate from Morton, who built Dick Love's hangar, but I decided to go with LaValley's, a local building supply chain and inexpensive garage builder.  People think of a hangar as something special, but it's really nothing more than a big garage for a plane.  The LaValley's price was less than Morton's.

June 23, 2005 - Set up meeting for the 29th with PSNH (local power company) to see where I should plan to run conduit, so I can show it on my site plan.  Called City Attorney about leases & left message

June 24, 2005 - Called City Attorney again & left message.  Like Nancy Merrill, apparently the City Attorney does not believe in returning calls.

June 27, 2005 -    Called Peter Chase and told him about meeting with PSNH to determine conduit path.  He will be there.

June 28, 2005 - got a voice mail from Peter Chase.  He said he won't be at tomorrow's meeting with PSNH because Ken Walsh, the Claremont Building Inspector, has taken it upon himself to CANCEL my appointment with Russell Wiles, the PSNH rep.  Incredible audacity!

June 29, 2005 - Confirmed with Russell Wiles that Ken Walsh told him to cancel his meeting with me.  I also talked to Peter Chase.  He says the Planning Department is now taking over the hangar building process, and he claims he has little say in it any more.  He also said that Ken Walsh had told him I have no lease and no permit, so Peter should not attend the meeting with PSNH that I set up.  Apparently Peter is so meek, he just went along with what Ken told him to do.  After leaving several voice mail messages for Ken Walsh to find out why he cancelled my meeting, I got a voice mail message from him.    First, he gave me a big lecture about "don't leave him more than one voice mail message".  Then he went on to claim that I was "jumping the gun" by "trying to get electricity put in when I don't have a lease".  That's absurd; I had only called PSNH to find out where the conduit should be shown on my plans, and to find out the specs I'd need to follow for the conduit trench.  The hostile, imperious attitudes of these people are unbelievable!  I also called some people affiliated with the Parlin Airport in Newport.  Even though it's twice as far from home as CNH, it may be a better option.  Unfortunately, the only individual hangars they have room for at Newport are really big ones.  In talking with the people at Parlin, it sounds like the attitudes there are MUCH better than in Claremont.

June 30, 2005 - talked to Ken Walsh and explained why I had set up the meeting with PSNH.  I still can't believe his audacity in cancelling MY meeting!

July 1, 2005 - talked to Peter Chase.  He was very evasive and gave me lots of lame excuses.   He says the Planning office has now taken over all handling of all new development at the airport.  He claims he is powerless to do anything about it.  He claims the Planning Dept now has to develop an extensive plan and policy on the details of how private hangars are to be built.  He says the City will not accept any new proposals until the City's new plan and policies are in place. 

July 5, 2005 - Talked to Jerry Coogan about the "hangar policy" they are doing now.  He says it will take "a few months", and that I just have to wait and be patient.  He is quite aloof and imperious every time I talk to him.

July 15, 2005 - reiterated yet again to Peter Chase, Airport Manager, my interest in getting on the waiting list for the city hangars.  I've been on the list for the existing hangars for 3 years, and I have been #1 there for at least a year.  The fair and honest way to handle it would be to simply use the existing waiting list, but Peter is very evasive on the subject of the waiting list.  I emailed them with several suggestions for the policy they are creating, including several suggested hangar spec guidelines and having a public meeting to get input on the subject from pilots and potential builders.  I also again suggested they treat it like any subdivision; just have one site plan review and abutter notification process for the whole thing - not make each hangar go through the same process over and over.  2006 update - of course, ALL these suggestions were complete ignored.  THIS is what it took them EIGHT MONTHS to produce.

Aug 4, 2005 - finally got an email reply from Peter Chase regarding my many queries about the hangar waiting list, saying "This whole process is getting complicated and I do not know who will be making the decisions on awarding the new hangar leases but I will do my best to forward your request. Dufresne-Henry is developing a site plan for private/municipal hangars and it should be available soon, the policies are being coordinated by Nancy Merrill."   This is after I've been telling him over and over since I first met him last December that I want to be on the waiting list for the City hangars.  I sent him this reply:  Thank you for your reply, Peter. Please do what you can to ensure that whoever is maintaining the list knows that I asked to be placed on the new hangar list as far back as Dec ’04, and that I have been on the waiting list for the existing hangars for about 3 years. I hope this will ensure that my name is somewhere in the top 6 for the new hangars. If you find out who is going to be managing this list, please do let me know as soon as possible.   Called Nancy Merrill and left message to call me. 

Aug 5, 2005 - I finally caught Nancy Merrill in her office, after leaving her many voice mails over the last several days.  She almost never returns any phone calls.  All I got from her was more evasiveness and lots of BS and double-talk.  She claims the hangar waiting list is "an internal thing not yet sorted out" and that they are in a "transition of functions".  How can these people be so obtuse that they can't even figure out how to do a waiting list?  It's standard procedure at every airport in the country.  She claims she'll check with Peter on the waiting list.  She said it'll take another month or so to finish updating the ALP.  She claims she'll call me next week about it.  Yeah, and I'll be holding my breath on that, Nancy.

Aug 11, 2005 - Of course no call from Nancy Merrill, as she promised.   Called her & left message.

Aug 12, 2005 - Called Nancy Merrill again.  She says it will take another 30-40 days to redo the ALP.  She said she talked to Peter Chase about the hangar waiting list, and after construction begins they will do pre-lease agreements.  She claims she's "not on the list end of things".  Even though it's been two months so far, she has accomplished absolutely NOTHING on their hangar building policy, and she claims they are "working on it".  Of course, they have ignored all my suggestions about such a policy, including the suggestion to open the process to public/pilot/builders input.  That's part of the arrogance and ignorance of these bureaucrats.  Not only are they so incompetent they can't even do a simple waiting list without screwing it up, they're also so arrogant and imperious they refuse to accept any intelligent outside input. 

Aug 17, 2005 - The City now does plan to go ahead with its own 6 unit hangar.  Nancy Merrill, Business Development Coordinator, and Peter Chase, Airport Manager, continue to point fingers at each other regarding the waiting list for the City hangars.  I have made it very clear to Peter since December, 2004 that I want to be placed on the waiting list for hangars the City is building.  Peter claims Nancy is handling it.   Nancy claims Peter is.  Peter is fairly responsive, but Nancy rarely returns any phone calls.  Apparently, neither of them is clever enough or has enough ambition to start making a waiting list.  They claim they can't start a list because the hangars don't exist yet, and each claims the other is in charge of it.  They claim they can't start a list until they "develop" the hangar leases.  What a crock!  They claim they are "looking into" how to do it.    That seems to be the main thing these useless bureaucrats do; "look into" the simplest of things while they accomplish nothing.   My God - how much simpler can anything be than making up a waiting list?   Whether it’s a table at a restaurant or a hangar at any airport, the procedure is very simple; as someone comes in and says “I want a hangar/table/whatever”, the person managing the list takes the person’s name and puts it on the bottom of the list. As tables/hangars/etc become available, the person at the top of the list is asked “your table/hangar/etc is available now – do you want it?”. The fact that the hangars and/or leases do not now exist is irrelevant to the maintaining of a hangar waiting list. Things don’t get much more simple than that. Yet, these 2 are struggling with this concept.  I've been asking about the waiting list for months, and all I get is their lame excuses and finger-pointing.  After 3 months of waiting, still no news at all on when they will let me submit my hangar plan. 

I sent an email to Nancy and Peter about the municipal hangar waiting list situation, including:  I strongly urge the city to make the establishment of a fair, honest, and open city hangar waiting list part of the policy formulation process. People who request a hangar should go onto the list in the order in which they asked to be placed on the list. In my case, that would be December, 2004. I can get you the exact date, if you wish. There does not need to be a lease or other policies in place in order to establish and maintain a waiting list. The hangars don’t have to yet exist in order to establish and maintain a waiting list. After the hangars are built and become available, if a person’s name comes to the top of the list and they don’t like the terms existing at that time, then they can simply decline it, and the offer will move to the next person in line. The key is to establish and maintain, in a fair and honest manner, a list that indicates the order in which people requested to be on the list for a hangar.  The email was ignored, of course.

Sep 12, 2005 - Called Nancy Merrill again to check on status of ALP, policy, waiting list, etc.  Left message.  No callback, of course.

Sep 14, 2005 - Called Nancy Merrill yet again.  She claims they should have something from Dufresne-Henry on the ALP by the end of the week, and she and Peter Chase will discuss it after that.  They have done NOTHING so far on lease details, charges, locations, etc.  She says it will take "a few weeks" to formulate their plan.  As usual, she was quite evasive on any details.  This is after they have squandered about 4 months so far doing nothing.  She says she doesn't know anything about getting public input on their plan.   She claims they will be ready to accept my building plan within 2-4 weeks.  I asked her about the waiting list again, and she claims they are "waiting for the construction schedule" to do anything with that, and she said Peter Chase is handling the list.

Oct 4, 2005 - called Nancy Merrill to check on status of things, and left a message to call me.  No callback, of course.

Oct 5, 2005 - called Nancy Merrill again and left another message.  Also called Peter Chase to get his version of the BS tap-dance.  He said the municipal hangar needs to go to site plan review.  He claims the City Attorney is working on the pre-lease agreements and he had some vague convoluted tap dance about how the hangar waiting list is somehow waiting for these pre-lease agreements.  He says D-H has finished redoing the ALP, and they are waiting for the Planning Board to sign off on their new plan at a Planning Board meeting on the 24th.  Then he has to get FAA and DOT approval of their revised plan.  So, it's taken them over 5 months just to make some minor changes in the ALP, and they are apparently still fumbling with the "hangar building policy" and have thus far done nothing with the hangar policy, or the private or public hangar leases, or the municipal hangar waiting list.  2006 update - of course, they never did produce any pre-lease agreements or any other opportunity to view the lease terms in advance of the "race for the leases"

Oct 6, 2005 - called Nancy Merrill yet again and left yet another message to call me.  She didn't call back, of course, so I called again and told the receptionist it was "Ray Burton" (NH Governor's Council member) calling.  Like magic, Nancy was suddenly in and available for my call.  She says the Site Plan Review on Oct 24 is only for their municipal hangars, not for the redone ALP or for any private hangars.  I asked again why each person has to take the same site plan to Site Plan Review over and over for each proposed new hangar.  She had no answer to that.  She says Peter has to get the municipal hangar approved, then send it all out to FAA and NHDOT before they will consider my plans.  She says the municipal hangar will have the site work done in the fall, and will be complete by March, 2006. 

Oct 24, 2005 - Went to Site Plan Review before the Claremont Planning Board.  As an example of their secretive and imperious way of doing everything, these arrogant bureaucrats refused to divulge or seek any input on any of this from local pilots and hangar builders (even though I had asked them to do so back in July), before taking the plan to the Planning Board.  Jerry Coogan was particularly hostile, acting like I had incredible audacity for showing up and asking any questions.  I had several questions about it, during the public hearing portion of the meeting.  I questioned why no provisions were shown for getting power, water, sewer, etc to the municipal hangar or to the private hangars.  I also had questions about the way they are showing vehicle access and parking.  They claimed they'd "look into" the issues I'd raised.  They claim they can start construction within two weeks.  The "Daniels Building" referred to in the minutes is this (the relic of the Great Lakes Aircraft Company that the City of Claremont drove out of business). 

Oct 25, 2005 - sent email to Nancy Merrill with the following suggestions regarding their site plan (all were subsequently ignored):

    1. Proposed auto parking for hangars 11-18 should go all the way from Hangar 11 to Hangar 18. It is presently shown only in front of hangars 13, 14, 15.

    2. The road along the private hangars should go all the way to the proposed fence

    3. At the south end of both rows of city and private hangars, there is a proposed fence. Both fences show a 20’ double swing gate, but the plan does not show a road through those gates.

    4. The plan should show how the city plans to get power and phone conduit to the row of private hangars.

Oct 30, 2005 - Met with Warren Stevens, M&W Soils Engineering, at the airport to get soil samples at my proposed building site.  The Building Inspector, Ken Walsh, says I have to get a certified soil survey in order to use a common Alaskan Slab for my building, so I have to hire Warren to do that.

Nov 8, 2005 - talked to several people who were involved in getting hangars built in Newport.  It sounds like it was a simple matter to build a hangar in Newport, with cooperation from local officials, not the "Claremont attitudes".

Nov 18, 2005 - Called Peter Chase.  He says they are now waiting for a verbal FAA approval of their redone ALP.  He claims the City Attorney is is now forwarding the lease agreements to Nancy.

Nov 30, 2005 - The Claremont bureaucrats have been jerking me around for 7 months so far.   After taking 7 months to make some minor changes in the ALP, they are now finally getting ready to offer me a lease, so I can proceed with this. 

They've screwed me on being able to start any construction this year, because the ground is now frozen, so it'll be about next April before I can start the prepping the site for concrete.  The City is also building 6 of their own T-hangars, but they are so grossly incompetent that they squandered their time, and they have done absolutely nothing toward starting their building.  Their site plan was approved and they told the Claremont Planning Board over a month ago that they'd start construction within two weeks, but they've accomplished nothing since then.  So now the ground is frozen, and they'll have to wait for the spring thaw along with me. 

I had a meeting with Peter Chase and Nancy Merrill today, and they are finally done with the "rethink the airport layout plan" issue.  They've gotten a verbal approval from the FAA on the revised Airport Layout Plan, so they are now finally ready to produce a lease for me to sign.  Apparently they are incapable of doing tasks in parallel, like getting the leases ready WHILE they "work" on the other issues, instead of AFTERWARD.  They also have spent 7 months claiming they were coming up with a "formal development policy" for building hangars at the airport.  After 7 months, they have produced NOTHING formal, and have only a couple verbal "suggestions" regarding design features, like color, door styles, etc; all of which I already suggested to them, and we all agreed upon, months ago.  Now, they say they are ready to produce a lease I can sign.  Even though Peter told me a couple weeks ago that the leases were FINALLY ready, they now claim it'll take a couple more weeks to get the City Attorney to print out a lease I can sign.  TWO WEEKS to print out a lease??  They also said someone else has already signed a lease.  How can that be, when they claim leases just now became available to sign?  What can be so difficult about inserting my name and hangar space number into the same lease, and printing it out?  These people are unbelievable!  They also still claim they haven't figured out how to create and maintain a waiting list for the hangars the City is building.

Dec 6, 2005 - Called Warren Stevens on my soil and hangar door engineering projects.  He says it will be done this week or next.

Dec 14, 2005 - Two more weeks wasted, and I am still trying to get the city to print out a lease I can sign.  I had thought two weeks was an absurdly long time to print out a lease, and they couldn't even meet that deadline.  It's been promised "very soon", as they work out the simplest of details.

Dec 21, 2005 - So far, it's taken the Claremont bureaucrats 3 weeks to make a very minor change in the wording of the lease, so I can sign it.  The incompetence and indifference of these people is staggering.  Dealing with the Claremont Planning Department is EXTREMELY frustrating.  It's hard to comprehend how bureaucrats can get so little done each day.  My theory is that they know how grossly incompetent they really are, and thus they move with extreme deliberation and caution on the simplest of things, in a feeble attempt to avoid their propensity for screwing up everything they touch.  Plus they just don't give a damn whether anything gets done or not.

Last winter, I spent several months working as a contractor for a county government in Georgia.  It amazed me that they would spend weeks and months agonizing over simple decisions that would be decided in an hour in private business.  Even though I was well paid, I ended up quitting that job, because I was bored to death as they paid me to just sit there week after week, doing nothing (like them), while they held meeting after meeting, and tried to make the most elementary decisions on how they wanted me to configure their software. 

How can these people live with themselves?  It must take some special rationalizations only they are capable of; to not see what utter losers they are, and to remain oblivious to the fact that they are incapable of functioning in the real world, where people provide goods and services that other people are actually willing to pay for.  There isn't an ounce of ambition in the whole lot of them.  They are masters of rationalizing their value to society.

Dec 22, 2005 - finally signed the lease for the hangar.  After daily calls & emails to Nancy Merrill, Business Development Coordinator, she finally said it was ready.   They are taking 2.5 days off for Christmas, and she actually wanted to MAIL it to me, wasting yet another week, but I told her I'd come over immediately and sign it.  They squandered an entire month just getting a lease to me to sign.

Dec 27, 2005 - talked to Peter Chase, Airport Manager & Fire Chief, about where the conduit for my electric power should be shown  on my site plan.  He said he plans to have the City dig the trench and lay the conduit.  I told him I would much rather pay for it myself than wait while they screw around wasting months doing something I could get done in a day.  Of course, he can't decide anything on his own, and has to check with their engineers & says he'll call back.   Of all of them, Peter appears to be the most sincere and responsive, and he seems to want to actually get something done.  But that isn't saying a lot.   I called the PSNH electric company & opened a work order to get power and to find out where they want the electric conduit laid.

Dec 28, 2005 - Met Peter Chase and a PSNH rep at the airport, and we discussed how we're going to get power over to the other side of the old runway, where my hangar will be built.   I'll need this info for my Site Plan for the Planning Board.  I had raised this issue with Peter many months ago, and I had specifically asked him, Nancy Merrill, and Jerry Coogan to be sure to indicate that info on the new ALP they spent 7 months revising.  Of course, they did absolutely nothing on it, so now I am working on making it happen.

Dec 29, 2005 - Nancy Merrill STILL has not taken my signed lease to the City Manager for his signature.   She says she will do it this afternoon, and mail it to me.  I realize it's holiday time, but it's been a &^%$#@! WEEK since I signed it!

Jan 3, 2006 - met with Peter Chase & PSNH rep at the airport, to discuss AC power delivery.  Because of the more extensive power delivery plan now proposed by PSNH (rather than just me getting my own power to my own hangar), I am now dependent upon Peter and the City to get it done.  I tried to stress to Peter to start working on it and planning now, so it can be started as soon as the ground thaws.  Hopefully, he will do something on it.  He claims he will, but I don't have any confidence that in a month or two, any planning at all will have been accomplished.

Jan 4, 2006 - met with Wayne McCutcheon, surveyor, to get started on my site plan.  It quickly fell apart, due to his unmitigated greed.  I had gone to him, even though my parents had previous bad dealings with him concerning outrageous overcharging, because he has already done previous airport and hangar site plans.   So, the idea of the advantage of going to Wayne was that he already had the survey done and all the pertinent info at his fingertips.  Plus, he's all computerized, so my site plan would be nothing more than adding my site to his existing plan and printing it out.  I had visited him back in May to do my plan then, and he had seemed OK at that time.  After a couple minutes of chat, he blurted out that the charge for a site plan would be $2,000.   He said someone else is doing the same thing as me at the same time, and he'd gotten that person to agree to pay him $2,000.  So my charge would be $2,000.  He was quite rude about it, and said I could "take it or leave it".   I tried to reason with him and asked why he was overcharging so much for no more than an hour or two of work.  He threw down my papers and yelled "I'll take that as a 'leave it'".  

He's quite a hothead, and he's well known locally as a collector of numerous $100K+  muscle cars from the 60s.  I guess he expects me to pay for his expensive cars.  I don't know yet who is the other hangar builder who agreed to pay him $2K for an hour or two of work, but I'd guess that person must be a non-local.  I had already expected Wayne would probably overcharge me a LOT for his work, but nowhere near $2K.  $500 would have been quite high, and $1K outrageous.  $2K is insane.  Even more unacceptable than his overcharging was his attitude and rudeness.  I wouldn't hire him, even if someone gave me the money to overpay him.  His greed and attitude ensure that I will NEVER do any business with him again. 

I called Tom Dombroski, the only other local surveyor, and set up an appointment for tomorrow night at his house.  Tom is the opposite of Wayne; a very laid back and plain country guy, and very honest.  The only reason I didn't go with Tom in the first place is his inexperience with plans at the airport and he doesn't already have a survey there.  So, I'll have to pay Tom to do a survey from scratch.  Tom is a nice guy, and I've had him do work for me before.  I stressed over and over on the phone with him that he must get the site plan to me by Jan 17 so I can submit it for a Jan 24 TRC (Technical Review Committee - a precursor to Planning Board). 

Also, it's been yet another entire WEEK, and I still have not received the signed lease that Nancy Merrill promised a week ago to mail me.  I called Nancy and left a message for her to call me about it.

Jan 5, 2006 - called Planning Department and got on their TRC agenda for Jan 24 at 0900.  Still no signed lease in the mail.  Called Planning Dept again & left another message for Nancy Merrill about "where is my signed lease?".  No callback from Nancy, as usual.  Met with Tom Dombroski.  I think I impressed upon him the critical nature of getting the site plan done by Jan 17.  He promised me he'd get it done by then.

Jan 6, 2006 - Still no callback from Nancy Merrill, as usual.  Stopped by Planning Dept to get a copy of Dick Love's site plan for Tom to use as a guide, and Nancy was there.  Nancy now claims they are withholding the City Manager signature on the leases until they get a verbal approval on the ALP from the FAA.  This is total BS; that's what I spent all fall waiting for, and Nancy & Peter claimed in the Nov 30 meeting that they'd gotten the approval to proceed.  Now, they are back-pedaling and claiming they are still waiting for approval.  Never mind her promise a week ago to get the lease signed and mailed to me.  I am thinking seriously of filing a formal complaint against her with the City Manager.  Her job is "Business Development Coordinator".   She's supposed to be working to promote a business development environment.  Her words say the right things, but her actions are just the opposite.  She drags her feet as much as possible at every step, and does as little as possible.  She's secretive and evasive.  She rarely returns phone calls.  She does claim that the lease issue will not affect me being able to go to the TRC, though, so I guess it isn't critical.   The Claremont Planning Board process is so long and tedious it'll be at least March before I can get a building permit, even with no other delays. 

I also asked her yet again about why they are insisting that each hangar builder go through the Site Plan Review process with a nearly identical site plan for each hangar.  They also had ignored my request last May to treat the ALP as a single development requiring just one site plan review - for the entire site, just like a subdivision.   If someone does a subdivision, they don't make every homeowner in that subdivision take the same plan through site plan review again and again.  Yet, that's what they're doing here.   They ignored that suggestion, as well as every other suggestion I'd made regarding the revised ALP they wasted 7 months redoing with nothing more than minor changes.  The incompetence and intransigence of these people is stunning.

Jan 10, 2006 - I am still trying to get my building plans from Warren Stevens, the engineer who's been working on them.  He needs to engineer and certify a mounting for the bifold door to go on the LaValley's building, and he's supposed to produce the concrete drawings after having done the soil survey.   Ken Walsh, the new Building Inspector, won't allow any more slab buildings in town unless the builder has a certification from a soils engineer that the ground is not susceptible to frost.  Warren has been promising to have it "this week" for over a month.  Also left messages for PSNH and Peter Chase to let me know status on what they've done so far (most likely nothing) regarding the plans for getting power to the site.

Jan 11, 2006 - Talked to PSNH and Peter Chase - PSNH has billed Claremont $5K or $6K for a deposit to go ahead with the planned power installation.   Peter says no problem in getting the city to pay the deposit in the next few weeks.  So that's looking good.  I also found out who the other builder is.  The Planning office had been quite evasive about identifying the other builder, even though it should be a matter of public record.  Nancy claimed she "wasn't sure" of the person's name, and gave me a last name only.  She's very secretive and evasive about everything I try to talk to her about.  I asked around at the airport, and found someone who knew the name.  I called him in CT and talked to him some about his hangar.   He has some local builder I never heard of handling all the details of dealing with the City, so he is rather detached from the details of the process, and he isn't in any hurry to get it done.   I am SURE the City prefers people like him to people like me who want to get something done.

Jan 13, 2006 - got an email from Nancy Merrill.   She now says they have decided to have the City just do one site plan, for the entire layout, rather than making each builder go through a separate, but nearly duplicate, site plan review process.   Duh!   This is how they should have done it, and it's how I asked them several times since last May to do it.   Of course, Nancy made it sound like it was something they had just thought up, ignoring the fact that I have been repeatedly requesting since May '05 that they do it this way.  So, now I am out $500 for what I owe the surveyor for what he's done on my site plan so far.  I guess that's better than JD Dunn, the other builder, who may be out $2K for nothing to Wayne McCutcheon for his site plan.  They've also (coincidentally-?) managed to delay this decision as long as possible, yet still get it in just before I was set to go ahead with my own TRC and Planning Board process.

Jan 17, 2006 - I talked to Jerry Coogan about my scheduled TRC.  He the Claremont Planning Manager or some such title.  At least Nancy is cordial and pleasant.  From the first time I met Jerry, his hostility and arrogance are palpable.  He acts like doing his job is SUCH a bother, and his resentment of me trying to get something done is quite apparent.  He confirmed that the City will be doing its own site plan "at its own pace", and that they "may" have the site plan ready for the Feb 28 Planning Board meeting.  He said there was no point in me going to my scheduled TRC, and that I would no longer need a site plan.  He was very vague in his answers and seemed quite annoyed that I had the audacity to ask him questions about when they might get their site plan to the Planning Board.  Over the weekend, I called Tom Dombroski and told him to hold off on further work on my site plan.  Still no word on when the city will sign the leases that JD Dunn and I signed nearly a month ago.

Jan 19, 2006 - calls to Peter Chase, to check on status of their site plan, and to Warren Stevens, the structural and soils engineer who is doing my concrete plan and the engineering drawing to mate my bifold door to my hangar structure.   As Warren has told me each week since the first week of December, he expects to get it done "this week".  Warren is really beginning to annoy me, a la Randy Dierks.  Nancy Merrill consistently making lame excuses and not returning my calls is bad enough, but someone to whom I am paying good money doing the same things is quite another matter.  No callback from Peter Chase.

Jan 23, 2006 - Still no callback from Peter Chase.  Called him yet again.  He is handling the city's site plan for the whole airport development plan.  He says he has the NHDOT approval and is still waiting for the FAA approval, so they can take it to the City Planning Board.  He says it is on the schedule for Feb 27, which is the same date I'd have had if I'd taken my own plan through the Planning Board process, so no delay there.  I also talked with Jerry Coogan again.  Jerry says that if the Planning Board approves the city site plan, and my hangar is on that site plan, then I am OK with him and the Planning Board.  Then, I need to submit my building plans to Ken Walsh as part of the process of applying for a building permit.

Jan 25, 2006 - talked to Ken Walsh, Building Inspector, and Nancy Merrill.  The city's site plan is supposed to go to the Planning Board Feb 27.  That is beginning to seem definite.  Ken says I will still need FAA approval for my building after that, before he will approve issuing a building permit .  Nancy and Peter are seeing if I can submit my building plan to the FAA prior to the Planning Board approval.  Otherwise, that'll waste yet another month after the Planning Board hearing, before I can get my building permit.  2007 update - this whole hassle and delay with requiring additional FAA construction approval was not necessary at VSF, Springfield, VT, because the VSF management had done their ALP (Airport Layout Plan) properly, in contrast with the incompetent fumbling of Peter Chase and the Claremont bureaucrats.

Warren Stevens still has done nothing on my building plans, and still does not ever return my calls.  I will fire him very soon if I don't get something from him immediately.  Looked into alternate engineering companies.

Jan 26, 2006 - Talked to Stevens Engineering in New London about doing my building structural plan.  The first thing I did was make  sure that Ross Stevens, the engineer, is not related to or affiliated with Warren Stevens in any way, as it's the same last name, different town.  Ross says he is not related to Warren or affiliated with him.  Ross says he can get it done in a couple weeks.  Called Warren's office & left message "return my call today or I'll hire someone else".  

Got a call from Nancy Merrill.  She & Peter talked, and I can go ahead and submit my plans to FAA now (Form 7460-1 construction application), rather than waiting for Planning Board results.  That alone will save about a month in this insane process.  She also mentioned that I will need to submit a site plan to FAA, as well as the building plan, so now I am back in emergency mode to get Tom to finish that site plan.   I knew I shoulda just paid the extra bucks and had him finish that in the first place.  So much for Jerry Coogan telling me I no longer needed a site plan.  Called & left message for Tom to call me ASAP.  Still no word on the City signing the leases, but it isn't holding anything else up, so at this point, I don't care. 

By 4:30, didn't have a callback from Warren, so I called Stevens Engineering and made an appointment for Monday.   As soon as I did that, Warren called & said he'd completed a preliminary drawing and was mailing it to me.  So then I had to call Stevens Engineering again & cancel the appointment. 

I talked to Tom Dombroski later in the evening, and he said he will crank the site plan out for me, and should have it done by Tuesday, Jan 31.  I appreciate his effort on it.  Peter Chase is going to mail me a copy of Dick Love's FAA application, so I can see what answers the FAA wants for some of the more arcane entries on the form.   I went to the USGS web site & ordered a 7.5 minute topo map of the area, as the FAA application says it wants that included, too.  I also emailed the Schweiss Door people & told them to go ahead and process my hangar door order.

Jan 27, 2006 - Received preliminary plan from Warren Stevens for hanging the Schweiss bifold door onto the hangar frame.   Warren says he will run the proposed design by Mike McNeil, the LaValley's designer.   I also asked him, again, to also run it by a Schweiss engineer, to make sure nothing is overlooked.  Called Schweiss to get the info, then sent Warren an email with the name and phone number of the Schweiss engineer, to help prompt him along.  Also received from Peter Chase a copy of Dick Love's FAA application, so I can use that as a basis for my application.

Jan 31, 2006 - Finally got my signed hangar site lease from the City of Claremont.  Mailed order and check to Schweiss Bifold Door people.  Talked to Mike McNeil at LaValley's.  He still hasn't gotten the preliminary door hanging plan from Warren.  He will follow up with Warren.

Feb 1, 2006 - Called Tom Dombroski in the evening about status of site plan, supposed to be done by yesterday.   He said he is waiting for Dufresne-Henry, City Engineers, to send him some document that he needs in order to proceed.  He said he hasn't gotten it yet.  I asked him to call them if he doesn't get it tomorrow.  He said he was sure it would come in, so no need to call & follow up.  He's so lackadaisical!  He says he's going on vacation next Wednesday, so he has to get it done by next Tue.  I also got a pleasant surprise in the form of a rare proactive email from the City Planning Dept.  The said the site plan review is on the calendar for Feb 13; two  weeks earlier than anticipated.

Feb 2, 2006 - I am not about to wait around passively hoping for something to come in, so I called the Dufresne-Henry engineer, Rick Yarnold, and asked him what was going on with what Tom needed.  He said Tom had only contacted him a day or 2 earlier, and he (Rick)  had not yet sent anything out.  I explained to him the urgency of this, and he will mail and email the requested info immediately, and he will copy me on everything.  Rick is always very responsive, and I'm not even his client.  Talked to Mike McNeil again - he STILL has not gotten any response from Warren Stevens.  Since Mike was the person who referred me to Warren, I gave Mike quite an earful of how ticked off I am at Warren and his lack of work and lack of responsiveness.  Mike says he will call Warren again immediately.  Mailed a deposit check to Schweiss for the door.

Feb 3, 2006 - Got email from Rick Yarnold, showing what Tom had needed; the reference point D-H was using in their ALP.  It also included a doc showing exactly what the measurements are from the reference point to my hangar.  This info really should have been included on the ALP, as I had asked Peter and Nancy to do many months ago, and none of this delay would be necessary.  Tried all day & evening to contact Tom, but his phone is continuously busy.  

Feb 4, 2006 - Finally reached Tom Dombroski in the evening.  He says he got the D-H info Friday, and he'll have to go back out to the site Monday.  There is no snow on the ground right now, so I asked him if he could work on it over the weekend, but he wasn't interested.  He's still claiming he'll get it done by Tuesday.  That's a week after it was promised, but at least I'll have it.

Feb 6, 2006 - I'd spent the weekend thinking about Warren Stevens, and planning to fire him for sure this morning if he hasn't responded to Mike and/or done something on the plan.  I talked to Mike McNeil first, and he said he had reached Warren and talked with him.  He still hasn't gotten the proposed plan from Warren.  He said he'd call me if it doesn't come in today, and I will take him my copy.  I called Warren and actually reached him, and it sounds like he's back on track.  He had talked to Mike, and even said he'd called the Schweiss engineer, as I'd requested, and run the plan by him.  So, things are picking up there.  Warren had seemed fine at first, then he went unresponsive.  Mike says that's uncharacteristic of him, so hopefully he's back into this now and we can wrap this up soon.  Later in the day, Mike said he'd gotten the drawing from Warren, so he will start incorporating Warren's drawing into his.  It snowed a bit overnight and it's spitting a little snow now, so that'll make it harder for Tom to find Dufresne-Henry's reference point at the airport.  If he'd gone over the weekend, as I'd asked him, the ground was bare, and he could have found it easily.  I talked to Tom in the evening, and he says he was out at the airport early in the morning, and got done all he needed to.   He confidently said I could stop by his house and pick up the plan tomorrow at 3.  So, that was great news!  Since we're now so close to the date of the Planning Board hearing, I will wait until after that to submit my FAA application, so I can state on the application that the Planning Board has also approved the plan.  In the afternoon, I went out to the airport myself, and easily found the reference point.  The snow dusting we'd gotten in the morning was all gone by then.  I talked to Peter Chase, and he says they want to send my site plan & FAA application to Dufresne-Henry, for their review, before sending it to the FAA.  FAA approval is expected to take about a month.

Feb 7, 2006 - Went out to the airport with a couple 100' tapes & some stakes, and my Mom helped me lay out the site for the hangar. Decided to make the building a bit longer, so I had Tom change the site plan to 48' long.  Stopped by Tom Dombroski's house, and picked up the site plan.  Filled out the FAA construction request form, using a copy of Dick Love's application as a template.  Tom's work cost me $1000, because he had to do a survey from scratch, but that's still much better than paying $2000 to Wayne McCutcheon for an hour's work.  Tom also indicated that subsequent site plans at the airport would be less expensive, because he's already done the initial surveying.  That's an example of Tom's honesty and business ethics.  Unlike Wayne McCutcheon, he doesn't charge his customers over and over for the same work.  I HIGHLY recommend to anyone considering building or having other surveyor work done at Claremont Municipal Airport (or anywhere around here) that you use Tom Dombroski as the surveyor, not Wayne McCutcheon.

Feb 8, 2006 - My Mom took the FAA application to Peter Chase for me.  I left him a voice mail to call me, to discuss the application and to discuss the current status of the PSNH electric power work.  Talked to Mike McNeil.  He & Warren will work together and produce one set of drawings (as opposed to one from Mike & one from Warren), and then Warren will stamp & sign Mike's drawings.  Told Mike to go ahead and make the building 48' deep.  I've never seen a building yet that I couldn't fill and wish I had more space, so I might as well take care of that up front.  Asked Mike to have it complete within 2 weeks, and he agreed that was reasonable.  Called PSNH.  They got the deposit check from Claremont.  It's unclear as to what they are waiting for now.  Someone from PSNH will call me with more details.  I later found out that I have to have my concrete in place and a permanent meter location specified before they will start to put in all the components needed to get power to that point; backwards from how I'd assumed it worked.

Feb 9, 2006 - got a followup call from Russ Miles at PSNH.  He explained further that I need my meter location in place (after concrete is poured) and the City needs to have all the trenching done before they will provide anything or do any work on the equipment they need to provide.  Still no callback from Peter Chase.

Feb 10, 2006 - Still no callback from Peter Chase.  Called him yet again.  He got quite nasty when I asked him politely why he hadn't returned my calls for several days.  Apparently, the City is having a big decision quandary about whether to drill under the old runway for the electrical conduit, or to dig a trench.  They are concerned about things settling under the taxiway and leaving a dip if they dig a trench.   Apparently, none of them has ever heard of a compactor.  Bureaucrats and decisions.  You know how that goes.  He said nothing can be done until the ground thaws.  I explained to him that the ground is not frozen; I was just out there, driving in stakes.  It's all sand, so there's no water in the soil to freeze, so work could start any time.  He also said the City will be contracting out the trench work, after they decide how it's to be done.  The decision and contracting bid process alone will take months.  I asked if anyone was working on that process now.  He said NO ONE is working on it.  I tried a couple times to get him to see the value of starting work on that whole bureaucratic process now, rather than waiting until the ground thaws to begin a months-long process.  He either couldn't or wouldn't grasp the concept.  He said he's got my FAA application and will be showing it to the D-H people when they come here Monday for the Planning Board meeting.  I asked if I could attend that meeting with D-H regarding my application, but he said he'd "contact me if they have any questions".  Throughout the conversation, he made it clear that he didn't want to talk to me and that I was bothering him terribly by asking questions about MY hangar.  This arrogant, unhelpful, uncooperative attitude is typical of the Claremont bureaucrats.

Feb 13, 2006 - attended Planning Board meeting for the City's site plan for all the private hangars.  Peter was quite aloof & acted like I was annoying him by asking about the status of my application (which he's now had for nearly a week and has thus far done nothing with).  Jerry Coogan was his usual hostile, arrogant self and wouldn't even acknowledge my presence.  The City's site plan was approved unanimously.  The Board didn't even ask for public input on it.  I wasn't about to argue with THAT.  Peter and the folks from D-H said it will take a minimum of 30 days to get FAA approval on my site plan & construction application, and maybe as much as 60 days.  Now all I need to do is get Peter to actually SEND it to the FAA.  I

Feb 14, 2006 - called Peter Chase to inquire as to status of my FAA construction application.   He said Rick Yarnold & the other engineer from Dufresne-Henry looked at it & took it with them to double-check back in their office.  They will send it directly to the FAA, and they will copy Peter, NHDOT, and me on it.   Apparently, the person who handles these at FAA is out or no longer there, and D-H wants to make sure it goes to the right place at FAA for prompt action.  Again, Peter acted like I was bothering him terribly by asking about my application.  His childishness is something else.

Feb 20, 2006 - emailed Rick Yarnold as to status of FAA application.   He replied promptly and said "I repackaged the submission and sent copies to you, Peter Chase and the NHDOT Div. of Aeronautics. The FAA should receive its copy tomorrow, and we will follow up to try to expedite it as much as possible. The review process typically takes a minimum of 30 days."  So, it sounds like it just barely went out, but at least it's gone out.  Rick is always quite responsive and on top of things, quite unlike the Claremont bureaucrats.

Feb 22, 2006 - Got a call from Mike McNeil at LaValley's, 2 weeks to the day after he said the building plans would be ready in 2 weeks.  And HE called ME, as he said he would; I didn't have to call him.  I am very pleased with Mike's professionalism and responsiveness.  The plans are ready for me to pick up.  Got plans & called Mike with a couple minor changes.   I also want to increase the roof overhang to 2' all the way around.  He will adjust the plans & I can pick up new copy Friday.  Called Ken Walsh, Building Inspector, to see if he would look at the plans early, while I am waiting for the FAA application approval, so I 'd know what additional info he might need for issuing a building permit.  Ken said he was too busy to bother with something like that.  He also said he'd gotten a "hangar construction guidelines" document from Jerry Coogan, and he questioned if I need to have the city review my site plan, so I called Jerry and left a message.  The document may just be referring to what I've already submitted to Peter and D-H and the FAA through my FAA construction application, but I want to make sure.  I'd also like to get a copy of the document.

Feb 23, 2006 - got a callback from Jerry Coogan.   He was quite pleasant, for the first time.  He actually sounded a bit cooperative.  He reiterated that the Planning Board needs nothing from me.  He said "the city" wants a copy of my site plan, but it sounds like that means what I submitted to FAA, with copies to D-H, Peter, and NHDOT, covers all that.   He didn't know what "hangar construction guidelines" Ken Walsh was referring to.  He will talk with Ken to clear things up.   Apparently, one hand over there has no idea what the other one is doing.

Feb 24, 2006 - got a copy of my FAA construction application that D-H sent in, postmarked 2/21.  So, it took an extra week to go out, and 2 weeks from the time I gave it to Peter, but at least it has gone out to the FAA.   D-H seems to be on top of the procedure pretty well, and their cover letter to FAA asked them to expedite the process.  Cross my fingers & start waiting.  Picked up final set of plans from Mike McNeil and checked them OK.   Now, I need to get Warren Stevens to sign & stamp them.   Called Warren, but he's out until next week.

Feb 25, 2006 - took LaValley's floor plan and my electrical sketch to Chuck Peabody's house.   Chuck will make up an "official" electrical drawing, and he will submit it to the City with an application for electrical building permit.  Stopped by Planning Dept and got a copy of Dick Love's building permit application, so I can use it as a model for filling out mine.

Feb 27, 2006 - Called Warren Stevens, left message.

Feb 28, 2006 - Chuck Peabody faxed me the lighting layout.   He says PSNH has a program to help pay for them, as they are energy efficient lights.   Called PSNH and left a message for someone to call me about it.  No callback from Warren Stevens, of course, so I called him again.  He said he'd be going by LaValley's later in the week, and he'd sign the plans then.  I've gotten his bill, and I plan to be just as attentive and prompt in paying it as he has been in doing his work and responding to my calls.  I sure as hell would NOT hire him or his company, M&W Soils Engineering, ever again.

March 2, 2006 - Peabody Electric faxed me the estimate for the electrical.  Incredible!!  I knew he sure wasn't cheap, from the "shocking" bills I'd gotten for work he'd done at my house before, but this was truly stunning.  $15,000 to put in some overhead fluorescent lights and some outlets.   This is about 5 times what I had figured the worst possible case cost would be.  $10,000 in labor alone.   $2500 for the 25 light fixtures.  I can buy cheap shop lights at Home Depot for $10 each, not $100 each.  There is NO WAY I'm spending anywhere near that much on electrical.  I could do the wiring myself, but I am sure Ken Walsh, the Building Inspector, will be busting my chops every inch of the way if I try to do it myself.   I will have to find a cheaper electrician, and cut WAY back on the scope of the electrical; just a couple outlets and lights.

March 3, 2006 - Stopped by Chuck Peabody's to retrieve my plans and electrical layout sketch.  Chuck mentioned that part of the cost is the fact that, because it's not residential, it is therefore commercial, and higher standards apply for everything.   For example, he said no Romex can be used - all the wiring has to be in metal conduit.   This is ridiculous; Romex is good enough for people's homes, where they go to sleep and keep their FAMILY safe.  It's good enough for people's garages, where they keep their cars, no different from my plane, and someone's car is much more likely to be leaking fuel than my plane is.  I'd run into this problem before when talking to Ken Walsh about the foundation, when he said everything about the building has to meet commercial code.  My building is not for commercial purposes, and it's not open to the public.  Ken doesn't care - if I don't live there, then it's commercial.  This is going to be a BIG headache.  Oh well - the building won't even be done for months, so by then I will sort out what greatly scaled-back electrical plans I'll have.  Then I'll either buy a code book and put the wiring in myself or hire someone to just do the bare minimum; the grid hookup, the breaker box, and wire the door motor.  I also talked to Mike McNeil.  He said Warren has signed and stamped the building plans, and Mike is sending them out for copying, so I will have them next week. 

March 7, 2006 - Called Peter Chase to ask about status of their trench for electrical.  He had his "why are you bothering me and how dare you question me about what we're doing?" attitude going.  This is typical of the imperious and non-collaborative nature of the attitude of the Claremont bureaucrats.  Apparently, he is still in his childish little snit simply because I had asked him politely a month ago why he hadn't returned my calls about my FAA application.  Amazingly, he said they had actually come to a decision and that St. Pierre, Inc. would be doing the trench, beginning the first of April, when they start the site work for the City's hangar.  I'd been thinking of using St. Pierre anyway, so I may save some money if they are already onsite for the City.   Called St. Pierre & asked to get on their schedule.   Will mail them a copy of plans so they can send me a quote.  Worked on laying out an abbreviated bare-bones electrical plan.  Called Suzanne at the Claremont Planning Office (she's always friendly and helpful) and asked about charges for the various building permit applications.  She also mentioned that I cannot do any of my own electrical work on this building, regardless of code, because it's commercial.

March 8, 2006 - Picked up 6 signed and stamped plans from LaValley's.  The building permit application alone needs 3 copies.  Started making out the Claremont Building Permit application.  Also called Everett Cass, a local site work guy I've used before, to get a quote from him on the site work.   Also called 2 local electricians to get quotes from them on my revised electrical layout.  Mailed plans & site work info to St. Pierre.  Asked LaValley's to get me a final revised cost for the revised building, as I will need it for the Building Permit.

March 9, 2006 - Visited site with Everett Cass, to get an estimate on costs for the site work.  He had a couple questions I couldn't answer, like where all the removed fill will go, so I will follow up on that.  He also was concerned about whether the road to the airport might be posted (no heavy vehicles allowed on back roads here in spring), so that might be a factor on when he can get in.  I don't think that the airport road gets posted.  Also, a possibly more pertinent factor may be that Everett may have already fully committed himself for April, but he seemed to kind of dodge that issue.  We'll see.  Called LaValley's & Peter Chase & left messages.  Talked to 2 electricians about electrical work.   I will mail them my sketch & get an estimate/bid from them.

March 10, 2006 - got calls back from LaValley's & Peter Chase, answering my questions for Everett.   Also asked LaValley's Craig Messer when I'd get my cost quote for the building.  He said "soon".  Mailed electrical sketch & cover letter to 2 electricians.

March 17, 2006 - REALLY bad news - I got a voice mail from Ralph Nicosia-Rusin at the FAA.  Apparently, Dufresne-Henry sent the application directly to him, because supposedly the usual person was out or no longer there.   So, D-H sent it directly to him in an attempt to speed things up.   Unfortunately, Ralph has been out for surgery, so my application has done nothing but sit in his inbox for the entire month. 

March 20, 2006 - Called Ralph at FAA & talked about my construction application.   Explained to him that the building permit is on hold until I get the FAA approval.   Ralph seemed to give a damn, and said he'd try to get it approved in a couple weeks.  He invited me to call him in 2 weeks to check on it.  I emailed this info to Peter Chase and Rick Yarnold at D-H.   Rick promptly replied and said he'd also talk to Ralph and do what he could he help it along.   Of course, no reply from Peter.  I am still waiting to get the final bid cost from LaValley's on the building.   Still waiting to get bids on the electrical work.  I did get a call last week from one of the electricians.  Even though I thought I'd made things excruciatingly clear with notes on the drawing, plus a detailed text description in a cover letter, he didn't understand some of it.  Hmmmmm?   It still sounds like the electrical (and anything else I try to do there) is going to be a big hassle, with Ken Walsh and his people picking every nit.  

March 21, 2006 - Got sick of waiting for Craig at LaValley's to get back to me with the cost quote for my Building Permit application, so I just estimated it on the application, and took the application and all supporting plans & documents to the Planning Dept.  It cost $316.80 for a building permit!  They used to be $10 in Cornish and they are now $30.    They also told me at the Planning Office that I CANNOT do my own wiring for anything but single-family residential.  My financial screwing as the builder of a "commercial" building in the self-important City of Claremont has only just begun.  Got a call from one of the electricians.  He quoted "ballpark $3K" on a time & materials estimate.  I'll see what the other electrician comes back with, but I'll probably go with him.  The other electrician is the one who was asking all the questions last week

March 24, 2006 - Still no cost quote from LaValley's.  Called Craig again & left message.  Also got my bid cost from St. Pierre for the site work.  $8500!  Apparently, some people see the word "airport" and thinks it means "independently wealthy".  The idea of using St. Pierre was that they will be already on site starting April 1 for the City hangar site work, so I shouldn't have to pay them to deliver their equipment there.  My parents are putting in a LaValley's garage at the same time, and their site work cost is $1300 for 24' x 24'.  I'll have to see about having those guys do my hangar site work.  Everett Cass got back to me with a quote of "about $5500", but he probably won't be able to start it until May.

March 27, 2006 - still no cost quote or callback from Craig at LaValley's.  That's getting irritating.  Called him yet again.  He said he's been backlogged and hopes to get it out in 2-3 days.   That's the same line of crap he gave me several weeks ago.  I also got a call over the weekend from the other electrician.  He quoted me $3200 for my scaled-down version of the electrical plan.  I am not sure which one to go with.  The first one was time & materials.  The second one is a fixed bid.   Probably the fixed bid is safer.  I also talked again with Ken Walsh, the Building Inspector, about the requirements for the electrical work.  He says it has to follow Article 513 in the NEC and all the wiring has to be Class1, Division2, whatever that means.

March 30, 2006 - Got a call from my electrician.  Part of the electrical problem is that even the professional electricians (or even a big engineering company like Dufresne-Henry) don't know what all of Ken Walsh's requirements are for this, and Ken is very difficult to reach to ask any questions.  Ken's so busy enforcing all his many rules.  The electrician said he'd talked to Ken again about the electrical requirements for the hangar.  Ken is going totally over the top on this.  I can't use any Romex in the building.  From the top of the plane to 10 feet above, it, there can't be any outlets.  There can't be any outlets within 5 feet of the plane or within 18" of the floor.  If I have outlets at all, there has to be at least one every 12 feet.  I can't use any florescent lights; all lights have to be "explosion-proof".  The electrician said Ken had told him he (Ken) has never done a hangar before, so he's obviously going way overboard on the requirements, as he tries to learn on the job.  The part that really ticks me off is that Ken says the main power has to be on some sort of a motor switch and that there can be no live power to the building when I am not in it, so I have to have some sort of motor switch near the door to kill all power to the building every time I leave the building.  This is insanity.  There's no hangar in the world like this, even big commercial ones.  I called Ken to talk to him about it, but I was told he is out for several days.  He seems to be out a lot.  I am thinking seriously of canceling this project, due to the extreme hassles and harassment on it from these people.

March 31, 2006 - called Ralph at FAA again & left a message.

April 4, 2006 - called Ralph at FAA again from the Sun N Fun air show in Florida, and left a message.  Called Rick Yarnold at Dufresne-Henry to tell him what Ken Walsh is demanding from me (and will presumably be demanding from the City's hangar) on the electrical.   Rick agreed that it seemed out of line, and he will have his electrical people look into it.  He agreed with me that holding my private hangar to the same requirements as a large, public, commercial hangar is not reasonable.

April 6, 2006 - got a callback from Ralph at the FAA.  Apparently, whoever he sent the "expedited" construction request to has been OUT all this time, so, nearly 2 months after I submitted my application, there still has not been a damn thing done on it.  I reiterated to Ralph that my building permit is on hold, waiting for them.  He claims he will try to get something going on it. 

I've been trading voice mails with Ken Walsh all week.  He left me a long detailed voice message.  He said he looked at my plans, and they  are basically OK, except Peter Chase said the color shown on the plan (white) was unacceptable, and that Peter wanted an "off-white".  That's REALLY annoying, as there's little difference between white and off-white, and I've told Peter MANY times I don't care what the color is.   Anyway, I'll get the color designation changed on the plan.  Ken also needs a clarification on the snow load.  He says it's specified 50# in one place and 85# in another.  And Ken again said that I have to follow Article 513 of the NEC, so he has no flexibility there. Ken always seems reasonable and business-like when I talk to him, and everyone says he has high integrity, but it's still extremely frustrating to try to get anything accomplished when he's such a stickler and so hard to reach.

One of the reasons these parasites made me wait nearly a year to get a building permit was so they could put together "comprehensive hangar building guidelines".  Click HERE to see the product of 8 months of "work" by these hard-working, highly motivated professionals.  Nothing specific at all.  I especially like the last item, where they say there are "specific criteria", but they can't seem to name any of them.  They had also told me verbally that bifold hangar doors are a requirement, but I guess they didn't have enough TIME to get that onto the "Guidelines" document.  There isn't a single thing on there that wasn't already in place, discussed, and agreed to last May, when they decided to hold up my building application for 8 months while they created this document.

April 9, 2006 - I'm back from Sun N Fun.  Sent Peter Chase and Rick Yarnold an email about the electrical situation and the paint color situation.   I asked Peter to provide some specifics on what he wants for colors.  I am SO sick of all the hassles and the Claremont City people doing all they can to sabotage this project, that I am seriously considering telling the City they can shove this hangar.  I called Ken Walsh with some questions about the electrical requirements, but he never did call back.  Even though Peter Chase had told me they would be beginning site work for the municipal hangars on the first of April (as opposed to last October, when they could have started and when they told me and the Planning Board they'd be starting within two weeks), there is still no sign of any site work for the municipal hangars. 

April 10, 2006 - Talked to Mike McNeil at LaValley's.  Mike said he will get with Warren and Ken and resolve any questions about the snow load, and he'll get back to me with the results.  So, that's one headache removed.  Besides Rick Yarnold, Mike is the only bright spot in this whole unbelievable hassle.  He's helpful, responsive, prompt, and he does what he says he'll do, when he says he'll do it.

April 11, 2006 - Mike McNeil called me, as he promised.  He said he's already resolved the snow load question to Ken Walsh's satisfaction.  I stopped by LaValley's and got a color chart.  I dropped the color chart off at Peter Chase's office.   I talked to Peter this morning, and he will choose whatever color he wants, and he will take it to Ken and get the plan updated, and let me know what color he chose.  He also told me he'd talked to Rick Yarnold, and that neither of them had expected Ken's position on the electrical.  He seems to have gotten over the childish hostility he was exhibiting on my last few conversations with him.  Hopefully, between Peter and the engineering expertise of Dufresne-Henry, they will talk some sense into Ken.  D-H has their Electrical Department looking into it now.

April 12, 2006 - Peter has chosen "Desert Sand" for my hangar color.  I don't think that's the closest in color to Dick Love's (the City's goal is to match the color of Dick's), but I don't give a damn - it's Peter's choice.  He says he will get with Ken Walsh and update my plans in Ken's office.  I informed LaValley's of the change.  Peter also said the City has not yet gotten an electrical permit for their building.  I warned him he may be in for a surprise on that from Ken Walsh.

April 13, 2006 - It's been nearly 2 months since I sent my plans & FAA construction application to the FAA.  I called Ralph at the FAA.  I got more BS excuses.  He says my application still isn't even showing up in their database yet.  They haven't done a damn thing with it.  I again reiterated to him that they've had it nearly 2 months, and that my building permit is on hold for their approval.  I also told him it's slightly shorter and further from the runway than Dick Love's hangar, which they approved a year ago, so it should be a very simple matter to get this approved (height and distance from the runway are the two most critical issues).  He claims he will try to get it expedited, but somehow I no longer believe him.   2007 update - this whole hassle and delay with requiring additional FAA construction approval was not necessary at VSF, Springfield, VT, because the VSF management had done their ALP (Airport Layout Plan) properly, in contrast with the incompetent fumbling of Peter Chase and the Claremont bureaucrats.

April 17, 2006 - Called Rick Yarnold at D-H.  Rick will try to get something moving at the FAA.  No news on the electrical situation.  Maybe I should just cancel this thing.  I don't know how I will heat the building - I had planned a small, inexpensive, vented  LP space heater, but with Ken Walsh being such a nut case about the wiring, I can just imagine the cost of a heater to satisfy him.  He's treating my hangar like I'm building a friggin' oil refinery.  He's also the one who made the concrete plan such a hassle and required me to hire Warren Stevens for the soils engineering.  He has essentially put LaValley's out of the business of building garages in Claremont.  LaValley's has been building pre-fabricated, efficiently-erected, low-cost garages on slabs in this area for over 35 years.  Ken Walsh has single-handedly made it pretty much impossible for them to build any in Claremont now.  This is because Ken refers to some arcane part of the building code that says "no slab foundations"; everything has to have frost walls now.  I applied for a variance, as did Dick Love and the City, because the airport is all sand.  But most other places won't be able to get a variance, so that drives the cost way up.

April 19, 2006 - I called Ken Walsh to see if my plans for using an Empire vented LP heater are going to be OK.  I actually managed to catch him in his office.  Most of the time, he's out in the field, in a meeting, or "off".  I had decided that if he was going to give me a big hassle on heating the building, I would probably cancel the project.  He seemed ok about it, so I went down and got details on the heater from the LP gas company, Limoges, and got a mechanical construction application from the City Planning Office.   Ken also said he's STILL waiting for resolution on the snow load and paint color issues, and that Peter or I can't make a pen change to the color specified on the plans; he must have a letter from Mike McNeil on it.  So I called Mike McNeil about all that.  Mike said he thought it was resolved.  He will send Ken a letter about it.  Also called Ralph at FAA again and left a message, imploring him to get my application moving.

April 21, 2006 - Called Ralph at FAA.  He says my approval letter is going out today.  I thanked him profusely.  He faxed me and Peter Chase a copy.  I immediately took it to the City Planning Dept.  Ken is "off" (yet again), so I'll have to wait to Monday to see if he's got any more hassles & delays for me.  He sure seems to have a lot of days off for a guy who's only been there about a year.  I stopped by the airport, to make sure my stakes are still in place.  Even though the City got an OK on their building plan for the City Hangar early last fall, they STILL have not even broken ground.  Their most recent "revised start date" was April 1.  It's just unbelievable how indecisive that project is.  And I don't think Peter is the type to pursue anything very aggressively.

April 25, 2006 - I still can't get Ken Walsh to return my calls.  I've been calling once or twice a day since last Friday. Robbie Williams can start the excavation next week, if I can only get Ken to do his job and give me my Building Permit.  I called again in late afternoon.  The secretary told me Ken said he was "busy and would get to it when he had time".  She also essentially told me to stop calling.  I think dealing with Ken Walsh through the building and inspection process is going to make all the previous hassles look like a picnic by comparison.  My parents and I just put up a 24' x 24' LaValley's building in Cornish, one town north of Claremont.  The building was completed today.  The entire process, including getting plans made, getting a building permit, excavation and fill, concrete, and erecting, roofing and finishing the building, took less than a month.  Contrast that with what the parasitic Claremont bureaucrats have created; a full year of constant hassles, foot-dragging, finger-pointing, incompetence, indifference, indecision, lack of cooperation, and delay, just to get a building permit so I can BEGIN the hassle of dealing with Ken Walsh.

April 27, 2006 - called Ken Walsh & left another message, asking him to return my call.   I said he had previously looked at my plans and said there were 3 things needed; 2 clarifications and the FAA approval.  I got him the clarifications a couple weeks ago.  I got him the FAA approval a week ago tomorrow.  So, what's the delay or problem?  I don't know, and he won't even return my calls to tell me.   Later in the day, got a callback from Ken and someone from the Fire Dept.   He is about to issue the Building Permit.   He says I have to put in a SECOND personnel door for fire egress, but he'll issue the permit, contingent upon adding another door.  He also wondered if NHDOT had to sign off on anything, or if their approval was implicit in the FAA approval.  I said I wasn't sure, and I'd check with Peter.  Ken also clarified for me at what stages of construction I can expect to need an inspection.   Looks like this is finally all set to go.

Then he said there was a question about the permit application for the mechanicals - heating.   Mark Limoges had drawn up a simple heating plan, and indicated on the plan that he'd checked with Empire, and that the Empire Direct Vent LP Heater was approved for use in hangars and garages.   Ken said he wanted to see something more formal - like a letter from Empire stating that the heater was explicitly approved for hangar use.  I emailed Peter Chase about the questions Ken had, and got a prompt reply that everything is OK there.  I called LaValley's and left a voice mail for Craig that I want to get my building order started, and I want to know how much of a deposit he wants. 

I later exchanged some emails with Peter Chase on the latest things from Ken and to give Peter a heads-up on what to expect from Ken on the City hangars, like the additional door requirement.  Peter also finally explicitly confirmed in an EMAIL that I am #3 on the waiting list for the City hangars:  Yes you are 3rd on the city hangar list and Nancy Merrill will be involved in the annual leases.   I should have been #1, as I'd been asking since 12/04 to be on the list, long before they figured out how to make a list, and I've been #1 on the waiting list for existing hangars for several years, but as long as I am in the top 6, I'm not going to argue about it.

I called Mark at Limoges Oil, and Mark suggested I call Empire myself.  I called Empire, and they stated flat-out that the heater is not approved for anything but residential.  The guy at Empire said they don't make anything but residential.   I am still getting screwed every time I turn around by this "residential vs commercial" designation.  I exchanged a couple more calls with Mark, and he will look into a solution.  I am very discouraged, and thinking strongly of canceling the project.

April 28, 2006 - Got a call from the Planning Dept, and they say my Building Permit is ready to pick up.   That's ironic, as I am now back to thinking seriously of canceling the project, due to all the current and projected hassles from Ken Walsh.  I picked up the Permit, and talked to Mark Limoges again.  Mark called me later, and claims that if I buy and follow the fire code book NFPA 409 Section 5.12, I can install the heater in a separate room and duct the heat to the hangar.  But whether or not that NFPA 409 document describes how to do it (have to buy it first to read it), it doesn't matter - the only thing that matters is what King Ken will allow.  If he allows me to have a Direct Vent heater in the enclosed office, then I might be able to do that.  I've already planned to get around Ken's absurd electrical requirements by simply cutting the electrical back to the absolute bare minimum; like one light and the legal minimum for receptacles.  Otherwise, it's over, and I will just rent a City hangar, if they ever get them built.

May 1, 2006 - Called Peter Chase & left a message asking him to call me about how we can deal with the heating problem.  Since this is a fire protection issue, it seems the Fire Chief ought to have some significant input into what's acceptable.  In theory, Nancy Merrill, as Business Development Coordinator, should also be helping me through this and the other issues, but there's little chance of hope there.  Nancy does as little as possible, and Peter just passively goes along with whatever the other bureaucrats tell him to do.

May 4, 2006 - Peter Chase finally called me back.  He didn't have much to offer, although he said he'd get with Nancy Merrill and see if they could do anything.  So, that essentially means they'll do absolutely nothing.  JUNE '06 UPDATE - of course, I never heard back from Peter or Nancy on this.  He said he's in the same boat as me, with the City's hangars having to meet Ken's demands.  I asked about getting a City Ordinance passed, to classify private hangars as non-commercial.  He said the City Council is behind Ken Walsh 100%, so he says there's no hope of getting anything changed.  I went by his office and read the fire protection codes, which were quite depressing.   I called Ken Walsh and left a message for him to call me.  According to the fire codes I was reading, NFPA 409 Section 8 (not 5), I can put my heater in a separate, sealed room in the hangar, with no access from the hangar to the room.  If Ken approves it, I will proceed.  If not, I am done with this horror story.  I never did get a call back from Craig at LaValley's.  I guess my offer to give him a check for about $20,000 deposit wasn't important enough for him to bother with.  At this point, it really doesn't matter, but I'm not very pleased with Craig's consistently poor responsiveness.

May 11, 2006 - After waiting yet another  !@#$%^&   WEEK  for Ken Walsh to return my call, I called him again and left another terse message, asking him to call me.  I also called the City Manager's office and left a message for Guy Santagate to call me about my complaints about the way these bureaucrats drag their feet, make everything so difficult, and don't return calls.  Ken called back and said he isn't interested in NFPA 409, as it's not in his list of codes to follow.   He says I have to follow the Mechanical Code, and that goes by manufacturer listings.   Apparently he picks & chooses which codes he wants to follow.  He says the heater has to be listed by the manufacturer as tested and approved explicitly for HANGAR use.   I called Mark Limoges again, and told him all that.   He will see what he can find.

May 15, 2006 - Mark Limoges called me and asked me to bring him a copy of my drawings.  He found a source that should be able to get me what I need.   Now the big question is "How much will it cost?".  I drove the drawings over to Mark's office.  Guy Santagate also returned my call.  I thanked him for returning the call, and mentioned that in general I wasn't happy about how the planning & development people were so uncooperative, but I didn't have my ducks in order for a formal complaint.  My specific complaint was about Ken not returning my call, but by then I had finally gotten a callback from Ken. Frankly, I am just so sick of all the hassles, I no longer give a damn and will most likely not build the hangar.

May 19, 2006 - Got a call back from Mark Limoges.   He checked with some heating industry source of his, and said he was told that there is no heater that is "certified" for hangar use.  He says there is a sealed unit that hangs from the ceiling, but he said, and I know from reading the NFPA 409, that it has to be at least 10' above the wing.  Possibly above the engine, whichever is higher, I don't recall for sure.   At any rate, with 12.5' ceilings in my hangar, it doesn't matter.  I reminded Mark that Ken had repeatedly stressed that the heater used had to be listed by the mfg as a "listed use" for a hangar.  He's going to call Ken Walsh himself, and see what he can find out.   At this point, I hardly care, as I am now about 99% ready to cancel the whole !@#$%^ thing and just rent a City hangar, if they ever get them built.

Neither I, nor the City, nor the other builder, JD Dunn, has broken ground yet.  I think I'm the only one who even has a building permit.  The City hangar was approved last fall, and they've gone nowhere with it.  Claremont has a seedy reputation in NH as a dirty, gritty, poor, dying little low class mill town, and the Claremont bureaucrats' efforts to stymie any growth or development don't help change that.  Lowes is building a store in Claremont.  Or at least they WERE.  There has been NO visible change in their site since last fall.   Home Depot is in there next door, but their store was put up shortly before the reign of King Ken.  I suspect that the lack of movement on the Lowes building may be due to the current anti-development attitude in Claremont.

May 25, 2006 - got a callback from Mark Limoges.  He finally connected with Ken Walsh.  Ken is still insisting that the heater has to be listed specifically for hangar use, even though Mark and his heating industry sources say there is no such thing.  I've talked several times to people who built hangars at Newport, NH, the next town over.  They certainly didn't go through any such hassles on their construction.  They said it was pretty simple, and the local officials were helpful and cooperative; just the opposite of the Claremont bureaucrats.  I had looked into building at Newport, even though it's at least twice as far from my house as Claremont, but they don't have the space for small individual hangars like mine.  They are only allowing T-hangars and one or two large individual ones. 

Mark said Ken is now "looking into" various codes on the subject, and claims he will call back on it.   Ken seems to be learning how do do this as he goes along.  I then called Nancy Merrill and told her I am about 99% decided to cancel this project, due to all the hassles and added costs created by Ken.  I told her that, if I can't heat it, I won't build it.  Nancy said she'd talk to Ken and get back to me on it.   Nancy later called back and said Ken is out on vacation for a couple days (AGAIN!), and she will have Anthony Lyons, their boss, call me about it.  I also asked her how Ken could have so much vacation for someone who only started there about a year ago, but she had no answer.  Anthony called back later, but I was in an area of bad cell phone reception & will call him on it after the long weekend.

May 30, 2006 - I called Anthony Lyons.  I wasn't sure what to say to him at this point, as I am so TIRED of all this hassle that there really isn't anything he could say that will make me change my plans to cancel building my hangar.   But I didn't want him to say he'd called me and I hadn't bothered to call him back, so I called.  I told him about the issue with Ken demanding that the heater must be specifically LISTED for use in a hangar.  Even Anthony agreed that was not possible.  Anthony said any commercial heater should be fine.   His main interest seemed to be in defending the players in this.  He asked if I'd gotten Ken's demands in writing.  Apparently he thinks it's a misunderstanding at best, or that I'm making this stuff up.   I can't even get Ken to return calls, much less try to get him to make his demands in writing.  I told him Ken had told me very specifically on multiple occasions that "hangar" had to be a listed use.  Ken also told Mark Limoges the same thing.  I also told him in general terms about the hostile, condescending, and uncooperative attitude of the city bureaucrats in general and Nancy Merrill's lack of helpfulness in particular.  He claimed I was the only person who'd ever complained about Nancy.  So apparently that made it a non-issue in his eyes.

Anthony said I could set up a meeting with him, Ken, Mark Limoges, and electricians, and get a definitive position on exactly what I need to do.  I've been trying to do something like that by myself for months, via phone calls between Ken and me and/or my contractors, and it sure hasn't worked.  In fact, I've asked the bureaucrats all through this process to do just that, and they have refused, citing they are "too busy", telling me I have to just go through the "normal process", and refusing to cooperate at all.  It takes at least a week just to get Ken to return a call, and then he talks in generalities.  I had also previously asked Ken about sitting down with the plans and going over in detail exactly what was required, but he said he was too busy to bother with that. 

After playing dumb, in the first part of our conversation, about why I was calling him, Anthony mentioned that he'd been reading this hangar page.  I thought it was quite telling that he had already read about all my issues and problems, knew about all of them all along, and had done nothing about any of them.  He didn't speak to Ken to straighten him out about the bogus requirements Ken was pushing.  He didn't speak to Nancy about her lack of helpfulness and responsiveness.  He didn't call me to rebut any of my claims of hassles or to see how he could help.  That's a perfect example of the lack of cooperation and bad attitudes of the Claremont bureaucrats.  When I talked to him, he mainly seemed interested in defending Ken and Nancy and their actions.

There was an article in the Sunday Valley News newspaper, featuring Anthony Lyons, with him bragging about how Claremont is trying so hard to be a great place to locate.  So, I will be making the effort to write a rebuttal to that. 

May 31, 2006 - got a call from Mark at Limoges.  He's been very good at following up on this stuff, even as my interest is waning.  He said Ken Walsh finally got back to him, and now Ken has changed his tune, and is saying that the standard commercial sealed hanging heater will be acceptable.  I said I didn't think it would be allowed, due to the "10 feet above the wings" requirement in NFPA 409, but Mark said he thought Ken would OK it as long as it was as high as possible and in a far corner.  I told Mark what Anthony had said about Ken and the heater, and Mark agreed that Ken had previously been very clear and explicit in telling him the heater had to come with documentation specifically listing "hangar" as a listed and approved use.  I told him I was getting so tired of the hassles I didn't think I wanted to try to continue.  I thanked him for his efforts, and told him if I proceed, I will definitely have him do the heating.  I also emailed a rebuttal to the Valley News about the Claremont development story.

June 1, 2006 - sent email to Nancy Merrill, notifying City that, because of their hassles, I will no longer attempt to build this hangar, and I canceled my lease with them.

June 2, 2006 - Valley News informs me they will not allow me to mention the URL of this page in my letter to the Editor.  That's too bad, but there's nothing I can do about it.  It would have been helpful to spread the word about these people and how they operate.  Emailed Schweiss Bifold Doors and told them I won't be getting the door.  That's a $1600 deposit pissed away right there alone.  I added up my costs, and this mess has cost me about $4,000 in direct costs, plus indirect costs and the hundreds of hours of effort I've put into it. 

Nancy acknowledged canceling my hangar plans, and told me she's passed on to Peter Chase that I still want to lease a City hangar.  On 4/27, when I confirmed with Peter that I am still interested in being on the waiting list for the City hangars, he finally acknowledged that I am #3 on the list, and said Nancy was handling the hangar leases.  So, those 2 are apparently STILL pointing at each other regarding the City hangars.  Of course, Nancy STILL has done NOTHING about getting the leases ready in advance.

June 7, 2006 - The Valley News printed my letter yesterday.   Unfortunately, they wouldn't print my URL and they wouldn't print any of the specifics listed here. 

I went out to the airport today to retrieve the stakes I had put in the ground to lay out my hangar.  A few weeks ago, I had put up a little business card-size note on the bulletin board in the FBO office at CNH that said "HANGAR BUILDING AT CNH" and the URL for this page.  I see the childish Claremont officials have torn it down.  

Apparently these people don't have time to return phone calls, but they do have time for such childish behavior.  I've been considering whether it's worth the trouble to start an ad campaign publicizing how they really operate in Claremont.  As they say on the ads for the Today Show on NBC, "The Story Must Be Told".

Here's the summary I wrote for the Valley News:

The Planning Manager was arrogant and openly hostile to me and my plan from the minute I met him.

You’d expect that the Business Development Coordinator would be someone whose role is to encourage development and help smooth the process, rather be as obstructionist as possible.  Not in Claremont.  She dragged her feet as much as she could at every step, and would only return my calls about 25% of the time.  Another hangar builder also mentioned her in particular as being especially obstructionist and unhelpful.

The City Attorney never returned a single one of my calls about the leases.

The Code Enforcement Officer is gaining quite a reputation in the surrounding area as a very hard case to deal with, making life difficult for everyone.  Due to all the additional enforcement work he has created for himself, it takes about a week to speak to him on the phone with questions about what he will and won’t accept, and he has no time to deal with any of the details.  Even professionals, such as two different electricians or my heating contractor, could never figure exactly out what he wanted.  His demands made my project quite a bit more expensive.  In the end, his insistence that I use products that do not exist (heater certified specifically for hangar use) was the final straw for me.

The Airport Manager was helpful at first, but I also found him to be increasingly resentful of being asked about how the various processes were proceeding.  He was the most helpful and interested of the bunch of them, but that isn’t saying a lot.  Since he’s also the Fire Chief, he’s probably overtasked from having too many responsibilities.  Seems to go along meekly with whatever the other bureaucrats tell him to do.  Definitely not a "take charge" kind of person.

They all pass the buck among each other.

While at the Airport, I also noticed that the City STILL has not done anything on the hangar they are attempting to build.  There was a new pin at what I assume is Dunn's hangar corner, so I guess his hangar project is proceeding slowly.  No ground has been broken at all out there, even though we're already months into the short local building season, and the City received Planning Board approval for its hangar, as well as FAA and all other approvals, way back last fall.  Given the poor management of that project, I will be VERY surprised if they can even manage to get it done THIS year (as opposed to LAST year, when it was supposed to have been done).  And it certainly isn't Dufresne-Henry's fault for being slow to redo the ALP, as was suggested to me.  I found D-H to be extremely prompt and responsive in all my dealings with them, and I wasn't even their client.  Some of the delay is probably due to all the additional unexpected requirements Ken Walsh is laying on them, as he did with me.

June 12, 2006 - emailed someone with an avionics business who had been talking with me about relocating to CNH and building a hangar there.   After reading my account of what a horror story it's been in Claremont, he said he'll definitely be setting up shop elsewhere.

June 27, 2006 - stopped by airport, as I was in the area.  No ground has been broken yet for any hangars.  Unbelievable incompetence and footdragging.    They had claimed they would start the construction last fall, within two weeks of Planning Board approval.  They fumbled that, then claimed they'd start April 1.  Here is is nearly July, and they've still accomplished nothing.  Also, the Claremont bureaucrats haven't had time to do anything useful, but they have found the time to go out there and tear down my card from the FBO's bulletin board again.  I've been working on writing a story about the Claremont situation for the Atlantic Flyer, an east coast GA magazine.

July 7, 2006 - I was flying around the area today in a rental plane, and saw that they are just now breaking ground for the hangars the City is supposed to be building.  So, they've started it about 9 months after they got approval from the Planning Board to build it, and at least 3 months after construction could have begun (and was scheduled to begin), if it was being managed properly.  I landed there and put up a flyer for a fly-in at Lawrence, MA, and also put up one of my cards, as the Claremont bureaucrats had torn down the one I put up the other day.  They don't have time to return calls or to do their jobs, but they sure do have time to keep a close eye on that FBO bulletin board, and to make sure any cards I put up are promptly torn down.  Incredibly childish, on top of their already-proven incompetence, arrogance, ineptitude, and malfeasance.  I also flew to several other local airports, and put up cards and flyers.

July 11, 2006 - finished my Atlantic Flyer  article and submitted it

July 13, 2006 - stopped by airport.  Childish Claremont bureaucrats have again torn down my card.  Put up more.

July 26, 2006 - There was an article in the local Valley News paper the other day about hangars at Lebanon Municipal Airport, about 20 miles north of here.  The article said the City had just opened bids to build 20 hangars at LEB.  I called the Lebanon Airport Manager's office and talked to Jay Fitzgerald, the Operations Manager there.   As I expected it might be, talking to Jay was was like night and day, compared to the evasiveness, finger-pointing, stalling tactics, and general incompetence of the buck-passing tag team of Peter Chase and Nancy Merrill.  Even though Lebanon's hangars won't be built until probably next spring, after they build a new ramp to them this summer and fall, Jay was on top of everything, and was very responsive to all my questions.   He has a waiting list already started.  I asked him to put my name on it, and he took care of it immediately, right there on the phone.  He said I'm approximately number 15 on the list.  I asked about leases, and Jay said they were already working on them, and that they'd be notifying people on the waiting list as soon as pre-leases were available.  Jay was completely straight-forward; none of the arrogance, games, stalling, finger-pointing, and evasive half-answers I always get from Peter Chase and Nancy Merrill.  I think the difference is that Jay is professional and knows what he's doing, while Peter and Nancy are such incompetent amateurs that it takes them an entire year just to figure out how to do something as simple as establish and maintain a waiting list.  Once the Claremont hangars are finally built, I just know it's going to be the same circle of incompetence again with the leases for those hangars. 

Even though LEB would be a MUCH better airport for first flights and flight testing (two runways, both considerably longer than CNH's single runway, as well as a tower and ATIS), it's about 20 miles away, versus about 8 to CNH, and the auto traffic in and out of the LEB area is much worse than CNH.  The only other drawback to LEB is that the article in the Valley News said they expect to make $120,000 per year from the 20 hangars.   That's $500 per month for a T-hangar!  Jay confirmed that amount is about what they expect to get for the hangars.  That's much higher than I was expecting, and much higher than what I think are typical rents around here.  Maybe Lebanon is just higher rent because it's a much classier city and airport than Claremont, even though it's a smaller city.  We'll see what the Claremont bureaucrats come up with for rent.  In keeping with their Amateur Hour procedures, the last time I asked, they had no idea what the rents would be.  They probably won't know and will still be fumbling with that and the leases long after the hangar is built.  Oh well - I am on both waiting lists now, so we'll see what develops.

July 28, 2006 - stopped by airport.  Childish Claremont bureaucrats have again torn down my card.  Put up more.

Aug 12, 2006 - stopped by airport & met Dick Love.   He & I have had numerous conversations over the last year or so, but I hadn't yet had the chance to meet him, so I was looking forward to it.  However, he immediately confronted me about him being accosted by Peter, Nancy, and other City bureaucrats regarding the comments about the bureaucrats in general and Nancy Merrill in particular that I have attributed to him here from my past conversations with him.  He said he did not want those comments attributed to him.  Although I very much disagree with his current statement that he never said things like that, it's his right to not have comments attributed to him, if he so chooses.  His outlook on his hangar, and the hassle involved in building it, seems to have mellowed considerably since he and I first talked a year and a half ago.  Back then, he used to rant at great length about the Claremont bureaucrats when I talked to him on the phone about his hangar.  I told him I'd remove all comments attributed to him, and have done so.  Apparently, all the Claremont bureaucrats are in quite a tither about my expose' here, and read it regularly.  Of course, they still do nothing to correct their behavior and attitudes that are described here. 

Speaking of the bureaucrats, the city hangar building is fully erected now.   Dick said they finished it last week.  Of course, even though the building is nearly complete, there is still no contact from Nancy/Peter concerning the leases, rent, etc.  I emailed them about  that to see what they say.   The electrical is partly installed- just the conduit and boxes.  One of the things I had tried to do with my hangar to reduce the additional costs imposed by Ken Walsh's requirements was to cut down on my electrical, by reducing it to a minimum number of lights and outlets.  Ken had countered that by saying I had to have an outlet every 12 feet.  The city hangars do not have an outlet every 12 feet.  There are only 3 boxes in each hangar; and 2 of those are apparently for light switches.  They may also add an outlet there in those two switch boxes, but that's still a far cry from the "every 12 feet" that Ken Walsh said I had to have in my hangar.  I emailed, Ken, Nancy, and Peter about these things.

Aug 15, 2006 - No response from Peter Chase.  I got a reply from Nancy Merrill on the hangars, saying We expect the hangar’s to be completed by the end of September. The lease terms are currently being developed by the city attorney and will be available prior to the time construction is completed. Rents will be $200 a month.   Nice and straightforward; it sounds like maybe they're making things happen in a timely and clear-cut manner now.  I'm still suspicious that they will try to pull a fast one on the leases and the waiting list before this is over, but I am giving them the benefit of the doubt for now.  The rent sounds much more reasonable than LEB.    I can't believe LEB will ever get pilots to pay $500 per month for a small, uninsulated metal hangar.  These hangars are going to be hot in the summer, cold in the winter, and dripping condensation on everything every time we have our regular major temperature swings.

Ken Walsh replied to my email query to him about the electrical outlets.   He now claims he never said anything about requiring outlets every 12 feet.     Since I got it second-hand from one of the electricians, and not directly from Ken, there's nothing I can say about that.  Ken also felt compelled to give me another of his lectures - this time chastising me for visiting the hangars without permission.

Aug 21, 2006 - followed up on the article I wrote last month for the Atlantic Flyer.  I didn't see it published.   Apparently it missed getting into the August issue, so it will be in the September issue.

Aug 22, 2006 - I saw in the Claremont paper yesterday that they were having a ribbon cutting ceremony for the City hangars today, so I went over to see it.  It was mostly City officials and various politicians patting each other on the back for doing their job.  Jerry Coogan came up and said hello before the ceremony began.  He said he reads my web page regularly, but then he quickly moved away after saying that, so I don't know what that was all about.   Peter got a lot of praise for getting the hangar built (no mention of the major slips in schedule, of course).  It's a super deal for the City.  They said it cost half a million bucks(!!), and one of the speakers said Claremont only had to cough up some $12K of that, so it's all profit for the City after that.  Peter was also praised for getting the FAA grants to get it done.  They claimed the FAA doesn't usually do grants for hangars.  The ceremony was mercifully brief.  Unfortunately, I forgot to bring my camera.  There is still no sign of any activity for JD Dunn's hangar or any other private hangar.  The electricians were there in the first bay, running the wiring through the conduit.

Sep 14, 2006 - stopped by airport.  Of course the childish Claremont bureaucrats have torn down my card again.  Noted several things.   First, the hangars are STILL not completely wired, even though the wiring process was started over a month ago.  I also noted, in the hangars where they are further along on the wiring, that the lighting is three FLORESCENT lights.  Once again, just like with the outlets, my electricians had told me Ken Walsh told them that my plans for florescent lights were not acceptable, and that I had to have special EXPLOSION-PROOF lighting.  Yet these hangars do not have that.  I think Ken had no idea what he was doing, and was just making up stuff as he went along on, but I can't prove it, as he didn't actually say it to ME; my electricians told me he had said it to them.  He DID claim to me personally, repeatedly, that I had to have a heater specifically certified for hangar use (no such thing), and Anthony Lyons subsequently tried to deny that Ken had ever said that.  I also see that the conduit and trenching is done for the private hangars.  I also noted that there is no apparent sign of any provisions for water supply.  I've heard from a couple sources that the City has changed its position on supplying water (I had asked about water supply early on in the process, and was told "no way"), and they now will be supplying water (and presumably a sewer line to get rid of the water) for the private hangars.  Yet the trenching is already done and filled back in under the taxiway, and I don't see any sign of provisions for water.  The old runway in front of the hangars is all torn up, waiting to be repaved.

Sep 23, 2006 - stopped by airport.  Taxiway in front of hangars is still torn up.  Electrical still not done.  If they don't hurry up on the paving, they will miss the weather window for doing it this year.  There are only a few weeks left that will be warm enough for paving.  Nancy's last word on the hangar had been that they expected to have it done by the end of September.  Yet another in a very long series of deadlines for this hangar that they have been too incompetent to meet.

Oct 1, 2006 - stopped by airport.  Electrical still not done.  Someone at the airport said the paving was just done a couple days ago, and that they've been waiting for the paving to be completed before they could get a lift in there to finish the electrical.  Of course, still no word from Nancy Merrill or Peter Chase on the status of the hangars, nor any sign of any progress on getting the leases ready.  They have known for over a year that the leases were going to be required now, and I've asked them about it several times, yet they STILL have not been able to produce something as simple as a standard hangar lease, or even the repeatedly-promised "pre-leases" to review.  It's a wonder these people can ever get anything accomplished.  Also noted that apron paving stops short of where the plan had shown JD Dunn's hangar to go.  It only goes south as far as where my hangar was to go, so I guess something has already changed with that plan. 

Oct 2, 2006 - Emailed Nancy & Peter, inquiring as to status of hangar and leases.  See my entries for Aug 12, 2005, over a YEAR ago, where Nancy said the pre-leases would be available when construction began, and for Oct 5, 2005, nearly a year ago today, where they claimed then that the City Attorney was "developing the pre-lease agreements".   It's a year later, and the municipal hangar building is very nearly ready for occupancy (although I'm sure they will find ways I can't presently imagine to drag that out as long as possible), and they still haven't even done the pre-lease agreements, much less the actual leases to be signed.  The ineptitude and lack of productivity of these people is just amazing.  Peter and Nancy form a perfect tag team of buck-passing, finger-pointing, and abdication of responsibility and accomplishment.

Oct 6, 2006 - still no response from Nancy Merrill or Peter Chase on the municipal hangar leases.  Called Claremont City Manager's office to lodge formal complaint about Nancy and her incompetence and her consistent failures to respond.  Left message for Guy Santagate to call me.

Oct 8, 2006 - beautiful day - out for a motorcycle ride & stopped by airport.  Hangars appear to be complete.  Electrical looks complete.  Yet, still no word at all from Nancy or Peter on the leases for the new municipal hangars.  They continue to ignore my queries to them about it.  As I've suspected since I first met Peter nearly two years ago and he was so evasive about the hangar waiting list for so long, I think he and Nancy may be planning to attempt to sneak an end-run around the "waiting list" and get their "preferred insiders" into the hangars first.  Either that or I have underestimated the level of their ineptitude and they really are continuing to fumble with the leases after the hangar is complete. 

Oct 11, 2006 - The Claremont bureaucracy has gone above and beyond my wildest expectations.  They've now gone from merely incompetent and uncooperative to downright dishonest.  I got an email from Peter Chase this morning, saying  "The leases are ready and you can pick it up at the fire station today or I will drop it in the mail later this afternoon".   I went over to pick it up.  It was in a sealed envelope.  Peter looked nervous as I picked it