Registered: 1348362173 Posts: 403
Reply with quote #1
Original improvements built in 1930. Torn down to foundation last year and rebuilt as new construction from foundation up. Going with C2 (refi) and low effective age. All records reflect original structure.
But what are you disclosing for year built on page one? May not matter since there is discussion about everything in the addendum, but curious what you would go with from a form filling standpoint. __________________ O IIIIIIIO
Registered: 1452892955 Posts: 2,611
Reply with quote #2
The year built should reflect the age of the foundation.
I would go with 1930. Sounds silly but think of it this way. Would you totally gut and spend billions on a skyscraper that was sitting on a 100 year old foundation? No, you would start fresh. Why do people do that with houses? The foundation isn't likely to last as long as the expected life of a house built new today..... So in about 20-30 years it will likely start to fail structurally. __________________ The AMC is my B!TCH!
Registered: 1204633345 Posts: 2,304
Reply with quote #3
Originally Posted by
Meatloaf The year built should reflect the age of the foundation. I would go with 1930. Sounds silly but think of it this way. Would you totally gut and spend billions on a skyscraper that was sitting on a 100 year old foundation? No, you would start fresh. Why do people do that with houses? The foundation isn't likely to last as long as the expected life of a house built new today..... So in about 20-30 years it will likely start to fail structurally. Was thinking the same. Why in the world would you keep the old foundation it is just lazy. If you are going to tear down.. tear it down. Although there might have been some kind of weird stips if it was in a historic area or something where maybe you could grandfather something? __________________ We argue this: Meanwhile the agent's assistant just did 5 unofficial appraisal inspections they paired with a Zestimate and granted 90% LTV - all guaranteed no buy back.
Registered: 1341185158 Posts: 1,611
Reply with quote #4
My guess is that it's a tax savings or maybe even a code issue where upon 100% rebuild, they would have to change something...setback, garage or house limitation, etc.
To save what..$7k to pour a new foundation in lieu of owning a new construction home? Just stupid.
****I'm sorry, if you were right, I'd agree with you***
Registered: 1203333810 Posts: 2,286
Reply with quote #5
Typically, they keep the same foot print, then do an addition, including going up, by reinforcing the original foundation.
Allows the builder/investor to save a ton of time and money in regards to permitting and approval process, especially in the City. Mike P.
Registered: 1348362173 Posts: 403
Reply with quote #6
That's about what they did. The property is in downtown Canton, and the setbacks are next to nothing on that street.
__________________ O IIIIIIIO
Registered: 1203481907 Posts: 74
Reply with quote #7
I think I remember appraising and architects home once ITP either Decatur or nicer area of ATL IIRC the lady stated as long as they did not alter the original foundation it would not be considered new construction and would be much easier to get all the permits and approvals. So they just used the existing foundation and started over.
Registered: 1203436507 Posts: 4,095
Reply with quote #8
Yup, go look down on
Virginia Highlands at all the 3 story homes......that are built in 1900-1940.... You can go UP but you cant go OUT.... Plus if your house had a garage pad...you are GOLDEN, as they were not allowing new ones to be built.. Well...that was what I remember from the 2000-2010 era before I left GA. -MM