From: b flynn & c starr Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2017 4:56 PM To: Karen Edwards Subject: Young Drive variance comment To the Zoning Board: I intend to read this statement at the meeting Tuesday. My name is Barbara Flynn, and I live on 4 Beards Landing. I encourage the Zoning Board to deny the height variance requested for the Young Drive property. I will address each of the conditions necessary for a variance: This variance will diminish the value of surrounding properties. This is especially true for properties on Beards Landing, as it will drastically change the character of the neighborhood. The view from our properties across Beards Creek would forever be marred by the four-story apartment buildings looming on a high point of land over what is now a beautiful natural area. While it could be argued that multi-unit elderly housing in itself might be of benefit to the neighborhood and the town, that benefit is negated by the scale of the proposed structures. Granting the variance is contrary to the public interest. Chapter 175 of Durham’s Zoning Ordinance describes the purpose of the Coe’s Corner District, with particular emphasis on preserving “the scale and scenery of the area.” It states “the construction of new buildings should maintain the character of the area.” Durham’s Master Plan says the same. It is clear from these sources that the height restriction in the zoning ordinance is for the purpose of maintaining the neighborhood character. Contrary to the applicant’s claim that the request is for “a minimal variance,” the proposed structures unduly and in a marked degree violate this objective. Hardship cannot be claimed due to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area. There are no such special conditions. The property is perfectly suitable for many allowed uses, including multi- unit elderly housing, without the necessity for exceeding the height limitation. While the applicant can claim that a variance will make the proposed project “more favorable,” it appears that this benefit is applicable only to the applicant’s return on investment. Maximizing a developer’s profit is not one of the factors that should be considered in a zoning variance decision; if it was, a 5-, 10-, or 20-story apartment building would be just as acceptable on this property. “Substantial justice” is not achieved by granting this variance. The destruction of the character of the surrounding neighborhoods would result in a substantial injustice. The requested variance will be contrary to the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The applicant’s claim that the variance “would not create an abnormal structure within the area and would be in keeping with community atmosphere” is laughably false to anyone who has seen the abutting neighborhoods.