Your guesses are right.

Four homes and a carriage unit above the driveway fronting Crease St with no yard space behind. Interior courtyard/driveway that runs property line to property line paralleling Crease. Five homes fronting the interior courtyard with 9 feet of yard space behind.

The community voted against the proposal at the FNA meeting, but we’ll see what the ZBA will say.

To add to what Liam said, the vote was very split between adjacent residents and the rest of the neighborhood (Against/Pro, respectively). Some of the concerns raised included the fact that one neighbor would no longer be able to see the 4th of July fireworks from her backyard, the buildings were “too rectangular”, the homes would have an association to pay for trash removal and plowing the driveway, no families would move into 3 bedroom homes, and that, at some unknown point in the future, one of the owners may decide to rent out one of the houses. Oh, and that the developers are “greedy” and from out of town. The standoff from the neighboring houses is standard as is the height. The vote will probably waste thousands of the developer’s dollars, maybe even driving them away. I guess some people prefer living next to a commercial wasteland, as long as it stays out of their sight lines and doesn’t have an association. Join the Fishtown Pro-Development Alliance on Facebook so that we can give projects a real, fair hearing at these meetings.

I think the meeting was pretty fair, and the community raised some legitimate concerns. The issue was that the developer was not present at the meeting, only his lawyer and his architect, so they were unable to commit to any of the proposed changes that may have swayed some people.

The developer isn’t being chased away. The dev asked for a continuance, so they could revise the plans and come back to the community with a plan that’s a bit less crowded and treats the neighboring properties a little differently than a 35-foot wall. That’s how the process works.

Dear Tim,

The reason the neighbors were split is because the impact is far greater
on those of us who are closer to the property.  Let me clarify our
opposition since it seems to elude you. First, just because it is legal
to cram 10 homes without yards into our neighborhood, doesn’t make it
right or desirable. If they build ten homes all at the same time who
will buy them without yards? The same people who haven’t bought the
homes that are 200 ft away which are currently for rent? How about the 100 plus properties currently on the market in our neighborhood. It’s not that someone in the future will rent them out, it’s that the builder will be forced to rent them to make a profit.  What about the
the families with multiple cars where were they going to park their cars
on an already overcrowded street? Furthermore if the homes are
“‘rectangular blocks” and are  build within 8 ft 9 inches of the  property
lines on Marlborough they will block our light,and our city views. And guess what? I paid
for that view, I paid for a home with gorgeous afternoon sunlight.  Where
is your concern for my investment and my thousands of dollars?  Nobody wants a commercial wasteland we want a responsible developer to take on this project.  A developer who is local is preferable because they have more vested vs. someone funded by out-of-towners. And let me add that if they had chosen a responsible builder and not one with a history of building on land that doesn’t belong to them that would also be beneficial to their cause.  An engaged developer with a responsible builder building 5 homes with proper yards to bring in 5 quality families into the neighborhood.   That’s $325,000 for the land $64.500 per home, plus building costs, could easily sell for $450K-$500K, equals 1.25M in profit, I don’t think that’s too bad.  But I guess to some it’s not enough to double your money anymore. 

I would like to conclude that this was  fair hearing.  They presented, we questioned, we opposed, they are coming back with version no. 2.  That’s the process. My job is to care about my family, my home and my neighborhood. If they want me to care about their profit, they need to care about us first.

It’s zoned commercial.  There’s 0% chance that the lot will ever be used for that purpose again, and I’m sure that the neighbors would just love their parking situation if it became a car repair shop or a beer distributor.  So, unless you actually want it to remain vacant, there has to be a variance issued so that residential properties can be built.

I’m really very sorry that you paid for a home with a view in a developing neighborhood in the 5th largest city in the US.  The lot’s zoning is currently C2.  Depending on the use, that’s a 35 foot height limit with a 9 foot stand off from your home.  If you thought you were purchasing a home with a view, you were unfortunately misunderstanding things.  And I’m really sorry about that, I really am.  When you purchase a property anywhere, you should understand what your neighbors can and cannot do to their properties.  In this case, the developer has an unfettered right to build up to 35 feet 9 feet from your back yard.  If they decided to build an ugly rectangular box looming over your yard that contained some apartments and street-level businesses instead of a completely residential series of buildings, you actually wouldn’t get any input on it at all.  So let’s be realistic here.  They want to build something that is more positive for the neighborhood than what they’re currently zoned for and, in exchange, the neighborhood is holding them hostage until their will is met.

Also, I’m failing to see how making a project more expensive and less profitable will help prevent the units from becoming rentals.  If their profit margin is reduced through this process, isn’t it more likely that they won’t be able to get their price and have to wait out the market and rent?  Aren’t you creating a situation that makes your least-desired result much more likely?

As for the your opposition to profit, I simply cannot understand anyone’s issue with this.  Developers nationwide have almost universally taken a bath over the past 5 years.  They don’t always make money and your simple math just does not cut it in the real world.  If it was that easy, we’d all do it.

I will continue to reiterate that this was a fair hearing in that the people’s voices were heard.  But it is unfair in that the only people who self-select to attend are going to naturally be in opposition.  It’s an industry rule in any kind of customer service environment that you will hear far more complaints than compliments because anger is a much more natural motivator than happiness.  This rule certainly applies to the zoning meeting, and I think in that sense, the process simply can never be fair unless we have a broader profile of attendees.  Think of it like an election.  We get radical democrats and republicans elected in the primaries because the only people who vote in primaries are radical.

Tim, I have researched this quite a bit to understand my rights in all this. I know that they could right now build a 35ft structure on the lot without a variance as long as they had a mix of commercial and residential. I also understand that residential is favorable, but why not build in phases to make certain that there is interest to purchase vs. doing it all at the same time and potentially cause rental situation? Also 9 ft is 9 ft and not 8 ft 9 inches as is proposed in the plan.  We cannot deal in absolutes. It’s not all or nothing.  You say that they want to build something better then what is currently there, but see I believe the devil you know is better then the devil you don’t know.  And asking them redesign to consider our interests is not uncommon, nor is it as preposterous as you make it sound.  They are not being held hostage, they are being held accountable by the neighbors.  Why do you insist that we should just rollover and accept what is being offered? Is wrong with us wanting better development then what is proposed?   The way I see it nobody will care about us if we don’t stand up for what we believe.
 
I’m not opposed to profit, as noted before there is plenty of profit to be made with 5 homes. A home with a yard will sell better then a chicken coop condo style home. Where is the market research?  I mean there is a house literally 200 ft away that is still up for rent and hasn’t sold.  
 
5 quality homes with yards, 5 quality families, happy neighbors, profitable development I think it’s a great compromise.

I have to side with TIM, neighbors should not chase away investors, and protect blighted properties. On the same note investors should be held liable to flex a little bit for the surrounding neighbors. However, these meetings are BIAS and the FULL VOICE of the neighborhood is not represented, like tim stated it’s usually just the people in opposition in attendance. I’ve owned in this area for four years now, sent a check to join the fishtown neighborhood association to join, they cashed it and never sent me any information. How do you know when these meetings are taking place? Im interested in attending. My attitude is BUILD FISHTOWN, CONTINUE THE UPWARD TREND!

Great discussion in the comments.   Somehow, someway there seems to be a good solution that comes out of the process.   There have been some great projects recently in Fishtown that really is making it a vibrant neighborhood, certainly one of the best in the City. 

Go to Fishtown.org.  You can find info about zoning meetings there and link to the zoning committee’s site. You don’t have
to be a member of FNA to go to zoning meetings or to vote. Just curious,
how did you find out where to send the $5 check for membership?

[...] we tell you about the larger projects going on in the neighborhood, like the proposed ten (or maybe seven) unit development on Crease St., or the five homes replacing the triangular building near Palmer Park, or the large project around [...]

This is not a blighted property.  It was being used as a warehouse/workshop and I presume they were paying rent.  Not as much as 7 or 10 properties would, no doubt. I don’t think Fishtown residents are opposed to developement, they are just opposed to BAD development. 

This building is only “vacant” as of the last month, presumably because the building sold.

A sale price of $450K to $500K?  We’re talking about Fishtown and not Queen Village, correct?

[...] March, we speculated about a proposed ten-home development at 1235 Crease St., in Fishtown. Developers were, at the time, planning to build ten units, with five homes fronting [...]