From: Karen Edwards Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 12:31 PM To: Karen Edwards Subject: FW: 29 Mill Road Karen Edwards We have recently moved our offices. Please note new address below. Town of Durham 8 Newmarket Road Durham, NH 03824 (603) 868-8064 www.ci.durham.nh.us -----Original Message----- From: Charles Forcey [] Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2015 3:27 PM To: Tom Johnson; Karen Edwards Subject: 29 Mill Road Dear Mr. Johnson and the Zoning Board of Appeals, Thank you for all that you have done to improve the quality of construction and the upkeep of Durham properties. I am especially grateful for the recent efforts you and other town officials have made to get ahead of the movement of student housing into residential areas like my own, the Faculty Neighborhood. Through your efforts, a student rented property on Valentine Hill went from being a weekly source of grief and problems for the families living there to a quiet family occupied space. We can’t thank you enough for working so hard to reverse the encroachment of poorly managed student housing into the faculty neighborhood. It is in that context, then, that I write about the application for a variance on the unrelated people zoning rule for 29 Mill Road. I am loath to limit the economic viability and freedom of use of any private property in town, but the specter of boarding houses up and down Mill Road with a similar look and feel to the fraternity row up and down Madbury Road compels me to write in opposition to this application for a variance. At the moment, Mill Road contains some of our largest, best constructed, and highest profile houses in the neighborhood. These houses, and their higher resale value, have helped support the efforts of many of us in the adjoining neighborhoods to enlarge, improve the efficiency of, and add value to our homes (originally built to much more modest standards). When we look for comparable sales, the near mansions on Mill Road are a rare and important set of higher value properties that provide comparable properties to single family dwellings of similar square footage and build quality. Zoning exemptions that facilitate the conversion of big houses to long-term rental properties would add yet more student rentals to an already nearly saturated market, and remove the kind of real estate properties that Durham most needs to maintain its residential and village quality. What compels me most to write, however, is what an exemption to Durham’s core limitation on unrelated renters is what a pattern of such exemptions might do to this fragile row of stately homes that occupy such a visible position at one of Durham’s primary scenic gateways. Already this road challenges families who live on it with the speed and volume of traffic on Mill Road. If rental houses were to spread out one by one along Mill Road, the landscaping, quiet driveways, and serene beauty of these homes would almost certainly decline. While the circumstances outlined by the applicant are moving, I worry that almost any owner could claim an exemption to the rule citing the stagnant real estate market or relocation needs. I hope you will hold the line on this important rule and resist any steps that encourage the rental of these beautiful homes to students. If the zoning and planning board wishes to help the owners of this property and abutters preserve resale values, then the town should invest in creating a pedestrian, kid, and bike friendly boulevard would be much more effective than enabling — even for a short time — the conversion of these homes to rental properties. Traffic calming bump outs at the cross walks, bike lanes, and plantings should be considered to return Mill Road to a more residential feeling. A strong avenue of beautiful homes bordering campus is a common site in healthy university towns and affords a wonderful lifestyle for those of us with family members who devote their careers to the university and the town. A pool of beautiful homes within walking distance of campus keeps the senior administrators and faculty living close to campus, reduces commuting and parking pressure, and in turn encourages more responsible energy use and efficient residential settlement patterns near the walkable downtown in contrast to new, scattered luxury developments in the surrounding countryside. Thank you for your attention to this comment. I speak out with regret at opposing what otherwise might seem a reasonable and modest request from a neighbor. This neighborhood, however, is too significant and vulnerable to allow a single “broken window” to appear in its up to now cohesive residential façade. In addition, I fear an exemption made to one owner even for a temporary period will open the door to appeals of economic or personal hardship from other owners. Sincerely, Charles Forcey 12 Thompson Lane