My husband and I are interested in a piece of property in the mountains that we know will offer some challenges when it is finally built. Our plan is to buy the property now while it is still somewhat affordable and build on it years down the road when we can afford to build. Before we sink our savings into this, we need a professional to evaluate the property for buildability – whether septic can be installed, current costs for site preparation, upcharges (in current dollars) of building on this slope, water issues we may have (there are aquifers in these mountains that can affect buildability), and all the many things that we, as ignorant homeowners, don’t know about what affects building on a given site.
Who does this? What sort of professional should I be looking to hire to tell me these things before I buy so I don’t make a costly mistake for a pretty piece of property that is useless. I can ask the realtor, but he wants to make a sale, so I’m not sure if I could totally trust the person he recommends.
Replies
Try a civil engineering firm that does business in that area. Certainly for septic design, and probably alot of other factors, a local firm would be valuable as they may have files on other projects with the same general features and could provide advice and perhaps even preliminary design services at a reasonable cost.
That's what I did when I was in your shoes, and the experience was really valuable...especially when I needed expert opinion to get a zoning variance.
Around here, I don't think any one individual could answer all those questions adequately. A buyers agent RE would probably be the right person or a lawyer specializing locally in RE law. That individual would know the questions to ask and who to ask them of.
To further complicate things, you are dealing in a five dimensional process, not jut the typical three that you would inn building now. Cost of money vs inlation in land value over time is one issue
But the other time involved dimension is that laws are not static. Property bought heere in 1985, for instance, that could be built on then, is no longer buildable since 1988 or so and others have more sestrictions than they did before the ordinaces were updated to newer state and federal standards. An absentee owner neds to be aware of all locally proposed ordinance changes that might effect the status of their property as part of the onus of ownership.
There is another example of how things can change too. It has nothing to do with laws that can be influenced or defeated by you and others joinuing together. It is bearucratic infringement.
About three years ago, the Agencies that copntrol such things established three protected nesting areas on the island here. hearings were held first, etc. We ended up with a protected location just north of us for Bald eagles, but it did not impinge on our land
But just a few months ago, they increased the size of the circle on map that defines the happy eagle nesting zone. It now covers a sizeable portion of our land. I guess the eagle family is so happy they are off-springing in subse3quent generations.
So, if I sdecide to build additional on my land, it will have to be done during a seven month period defined by the experts that know when eagles can tolerate the noise and I would have to be sure that I don't cut any trees with an active nest in it.
Welcome to the
Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
where ...
Excellence is its own reward!
I would echo the thoughts of piffin. You really need to be careful about the tree huggers. Your valuable land could because worthless very quickly. The feds could do it like in piffin's case but also look into the local zoning. You need to see what they will allow for a house, septic system and other changes to the land. Some beautiful people area's are extremely restrictive on what you can and can't do, even though you own it.
Also, you may want to talk to the building inspector in that town to ask about what that area is like. He will probably know about the existence of ledge, poor drainage or other natural features that may make it more expensive to build there. You might not be able to pour a full foundation if that area has a high water table. Pay attention to some of the houses that aready exist in that area, and maybe ask those people living there what they have experienced.
Thanks to all of you for your input.
I'm not extremely concerned about the zoning changing, since this land is at the edge of a development (still within, but the boundary can't move any farther out), and there is enough money living there that they have a voice with the local government. The other good thing is that the other side of that boundary (and part of the view) is owned by the LDS Church, and they basically run the government. It would be very difficult for anyone (tree-huggers included) to get anything done that might limit the church's use of the land. But I am aware of that as a risk. My ex-grandparents-in-law bought a piece of land to build on that turned into a wetlands because all of their neighbors brought in fill to raise their properties, so the land they had basically sank too low to the pond to be buildable. There is also always the possibility that some endangered species will move in, but they usually chose more sheltered spots - this is on the windward side of a ridge.
Both a civil engineer and the building inspector are on my list to talk to about this. Thanks.
There is a great pond ( excess of ten acres) just down from me that has a setback requirement of one humndred feet. The local civil engineers ( beaver) have been raising the water level every year. The nearby residents like this 'improvement' except for one property that was once out of this zone but the entiore house 24' deep, is now in the no-build area, limiting its potential.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Echo the advise, guess I'm a bit late in getting in on the front of this, but similar problems crop up on land everywhere. Almost have that here in my neck of the woods, new ordnances ruin old plans. Sounds like there are a few here who know the local problems, listen to them.
Hey where is aimless? Still waiting to hear back. Must have hired that Civil.
She has a family to tend to too.
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
Almost have that here in my neck of the woods, new ordnances ruin old plans
If that's a local zoning issue, very possibly a "taking", based on the US Supreme's decision in S.C. Not that you can now do what you want, just that the authority making the change must compensate at market value. 10 yrs ago every Realtor should have known the case and the concept.
Locally, they tried to circumvent it by not refusing previously permitted use, but to prevent further subdivision, previously available, and driveway restrictions. Whether that's a taking or not remains to be determined by the courts. The solution for us was to create a new parcel for each building site. Any change in the rules preventing building will now be a taking. Then the argument will be over market value, but at least there's an argument and compensation.
We have no problem holding undeveloped land, but we keep an ear close to the ground to know what might adversely affect us and act accordingly. In our area land prices have exploded exponentially, to the point that Realtors don't much bother trying to find comps.
In my modest experience (not Utah), western septic requirements have been used to limit development. Should be a zoning issue, but I've bumped into health authorities who usurped the authority to limit population density. Lawsuits get expensive.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
VATom:
I'm in North Georgia, where most of Atlanta likes to come and spend the weekend. Was a lazy community just a few years ago, but now has been discovered, and land prices are getting nuts.
We're on the fringe of a National forest (my land abuts), and the County is trying to get a land use ordinance passed, to curtail some of the growth. Lots of confusion and wrangling.
Proposed restrictions include no building above a certain elevation, limits on sites on steep slopes, nothing on really small parcels in the country, etc.
Think common sense will prevail, but have seen several examples of really crappy stuff going up in a hurry on parcels that people bought years ago, just to beat what they think will eventually become unbuildable lots. It's a really interesting place to build anyways - I've seen, (and placed a few) really creative septic systems. Some of these "hang off the sides of hills" homes have sub or even sub-sub basements, just to deal with the elevation changes from front to back. If we ever have a California style mudslide here, the demo contractors will be busy here for years.
The other problem is creek front lots - I spent last summer rebuilding porches and decks, and shoring up foundations on places literally within a few feet of good sized creeks and rivers. Got three floods this year alone, and it amazes me why anyone would want to go through that a couple times a year.
As for me, I built halfway up a side of what passes for a mountain in these parts (with apologies to those of you that are in the real mountains, remember, this is Georgia). Have a rock the size of a semi trailer under my crawlspace - God will have to get really angry to flood my place.
Hi Denny,
Our abomination is called "The Mountain Protection Plan". Originally prohibited all building above a certain elev., virtually all of our 83 acres. Then they backed off, to avoid a taking, and said one house was allowed. Fine, but what about the previously allowed creation of new parcels? We already were restricted to 30k sq ft of less than 25% slope/building site (elsewhere in Va 50% slope is allowed). And that couldn't be long and skinny, as a mountain ridge often is. They had the audacity to proclaim that the plan wouldn't cost land owners anything, as you could still build a house after all. Conveniently ignored subdividing potential. In our case, losing 4 building sites (out of 5 in the whole 83 acres).
When this was being written I invited the group up to see how somebody, us, could live in the area they thought needed preserving, without harm either to the mountain or the "viewshed". This is a big tourism area, Monticello et al. They weren't interested in anything I had to say or show them. Didn't bother to come up.
Last go-round the board of supervisors lacked 1 vote for passage, so they put the undefined MPPlan into the comprehensive plan so that it couldn't go away. Awaits future board action. The latest wrinkle was to prohibit all fill for driveways accessing the protected areas. Claim to be worried about erosion but I see it as a backdoor method to prohibit development, not by a taking, but by making the driveway prohibitively expensive. My estimate, as a road builder, is to at least quadruple the cost of a driveway. So my $20k driveway becomes $80k, or more. Immensely more if serious stone is encountered. The banks of my driveway are 8-10' high. Without filling on the low side, they'd be over 20'. Not exactly an improvement for either us or the mountain.
"Common sense" prevail? Good luck. All the professional planners (in county employ) here believe that all construction should be constrained to planned hi-density subdivisions. The upshot for me was to get a surveyor out to put each building site on a separate parcel. And now that it's done and paid for, it's far easier for us to go ahead and develop a building site, especially if we didn't work the tax system so well. Before, as one large parcel, it was only a guess as to other building sites and a large surveyor's fee to find out. So much for "protecting".
Whenever the governing body makes zoning changes, somebody loses. Might not be a taking as the US Supremes only identified one particular situation. Don't get me wrong, I'm a zoning fan, but it's a 2 edged sword. And when a small group gets a little power, watch out if you don't happen to agree with them. A good friend here mentioned that he favored the protection plan. Mouth dropped open when I asked if he thought it reasonable that I lose upwards of a million dollars in the process. PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
that's right... i've been involved in local govt for many years..
and 7 years on the Planning Board
the typical Planning , Zoning , or historical board member today , is on a mission to deny further development..
they've got theirs, and they don't want anyone else , thank you..
unless , of course , it happens to be one of their relatives..
a lot of the rules they develop are counter -productive to thier goals...
one perfect example is your defensive subdivision, now .. it's done.. but if you hadn't felt threatened , you may never have sub-divided at all
it sure is a messMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
it sure is a mess
Hi Mike, I assumed this type of thing was common everywhere. The peculiar thing is that I agree with most of their goals. That's why I invited the group up. It was clear to me that prohibition wasn't going to work. Takings are too expensive. Not that they understood the concept. I heard the county attorney speak 3 times before he got it right. It ain't complicated. Paraphrased: change the rules so that the land owner can't build and you have to pay previous fair market value.
You can't see our place from a public road. I left trees. The worry here stems from 2 houses where they mowed 5-10 acres of mountaintop. Didn't exactly improve the appearance of the mountain.
What I proposed was an ordinance requiring a green belt between any development and public roads. They rejected the idea as requiring more work for "staff", preferring unworkable prohibition. And on my public tax dollar....
Not all that long ago I was interested in involvement with local government. Then I decided that life was too short to deal with idiots. Now I minimize my financial "contribution" and watch out for my interests. Probably you're a lot better reasoning with that mindset than I am. They totally missed the irony you saw.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
It's hard to believe how much we have in common....When on the PB, I reallty got a kick when any one of the former members of the board who had worked for stronger restrictions came in with an application and ended up feling like, " That applies to ME!?!"
Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!
VATom:
I see your points.
In my case here, I've got 23 acres, and don't plan to divide it, though I do want to add a guest house, and a bit of pasture one of these days. I'd hate to think that I'd run into problems with that idea, but I'll keep your words of wisdom in mind.
I've read the proposed document here, and just don't see the problems with it that everyone was up in arms over, but then, I figure that most people scream first, then check to see if they were actually kicked.
Percapita income in these parts is 14K a year, land prices are 'round 10K an acre. Tends to figure that the buyers are from out of town, so as these new people flock in, they will tend to raise the level of awareness. Case in point - the old board of commissioners and the entire board of education were turned over in the last election. With the demise of the old guard, I'm hoping that common sense will prevail.
Still, I was smart enough (or at least lucky enough) to buy here, before the flood, and on the side of the county that will likely not grow anytime soon. I am protected by National forest behind, and own everything I can see, within gunshot range, downhill. And if all goes sour, I'll sell to a couple Yuppies, and move to Tenn or Ky.
Or Maybe I can convince the bride to take me back to Montana...............
And if all goes sour, I'll sell to a couple Yuppies, and move to Tenn or Ky.
There you go. Always have an exit plan. We do. I hung on to a few acres of family Arizona mountain land. A new University research park here is slated to double the population of the county with a huge economic engine. Doesn't bode well, but I'm still building, not packing up.
Zoning changes only hurt some people, others win. For instance, now that I'm protected, consider what'll happen to my (buildable) land value if/when the new rules go into effect and almost all mountain land here (30,000 acres of this county) becomes suddenly unavailable. <G> It's bad government, but we'll come out smelling sweet. And I wasn't foolish enough to let the driveway rule change catch me.
Keep an ear to the ground. That guest house already mostly wouldn't be allowed here on 23 acres. Constitutes a de facto subdivision and you're 19 acres short.
Good luck.PAHS Designer/Builder- Bury it!
Stop beating up on tree huggers. I need lumber for my upcoming project.
I once had some property in a remote, mountainous area of Colorodo, purchased under the same idea that you are contemplating.
You will need as a minimum for a "normal" house, septic, water and power. I called local companies in the county for budget estimates for these services. They will know the particulars of what is required to drill a well, dig an apporpriate septic field and whete the nearest power connection point is. Not only will they be able to provide you with a reasonable feasibility, but also a range of costs to expect at present.
The other issues of zoning and inflation would need to be evaluated separately. The cost of building on a slope or a cliff could also be estimated by an experienced builder that has done similar work.
Some would say it is not a good idea to buy property more than 6-12 months prior to building on it. For some of the reasons listed. Not always the case but something to think about. A lot can change. (No pun intended!)
Mike L.
Hey aimless,
Another fellow Utard. Couldn't help but post on this one. I'm a little educated on the local issues that you may face. And there are some real issues that you will want to uncover, but if you are in the right place, you might not have a problem. I live in Big Cottonwood and am working through the permitting process for Salt Lake County (FCOZ). Are you in the Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone? Sounds to me like you are. If you don't know this, you'd certainly better find out. I will be glad to fill you in on what I know and am experiencing of the building process with the County.
I am working with an existing footprint and it is no walk in the park. The two big issues at present are these: 1) will you have a year round water hook-up and 2) is your slope greater than 25%? I can talk to you about septic, mine is getting replaced as part of my project, already perc tested and designed, currently in review by the Health Department. I can talk to you about water and a little about environmental, that's what I do for a living, but no, I'm not an engineer, and don't ever accuse me of being one. How close are you to a stream? That's a big one too.
Who is the realtor? I might know somehting about that too. Tell me more about your location and situation and I will tell you everything I know regarding the permitting and zoning issues. Don't pay for advice yet, there's still some digging on your own you can do. If you are in FCOZ you need to thoroughly read the FCOZ reg's on the Salt Lake County Planning and Development Services web page. But on top of that, you need to talk to me a little, because I have read that over and over and pretty well understand the subtleties that really don't jump out, and which the County will hang you on when you try to build. If you would like to talk in person you can use my e-mail or phone, let me know, but I'd gladly keep it in the posts as well.
Looking forward to the discussion,
Rob
Rob,
Thanks for all the info. Actually we are looking at land above Heber, so it's Wasatch county rather than SL, and FCOZ doesn't apply. There is year round water hook-up, as well as power. Gas will be propane. Although the realtor tells me they haven't had problems with water up there, water is pricey, so we will be trying to add some water collection (from snow) into the budget when we build. There is a seasonal stream along the edge of the property, and that is one of the things that has me a bit concerned with placement of septic. I believe it has been perc tested, but I haven't seen the paperwork confirming that yet. And I'm not sure how long a perc test is good for. If we have to put in septic now, that is a budget headache, and it limits siting of the house later when we get with an architect (it will take me years before I get over my last experience with an archie, just one more reason to delay building). I'm not sure what the slope is. It isn't a cliff, but it sure would be fun with a sled.
Plus the property has a killer view of Timpanogos and the back of the Wasatch front (the pretty side, where you can't see the temperature inversions!).
Thanks for any info you have,
Amy
Hey aimless,
Well, I think you're in much better shape being in Wasatch County. I have no knowledge of their process or restrictions. You sound like you've got it pretty well figured out. Not knowing the particulars of the area or Wasatch County, I would suggest first finding out distance from stream that you can build, distance from stream for septic (which you seem to be working on), minimum lot size for construction, maximum buildable slope.
I would check for a Wasatch County website for the building inspector or planning division. If no web info available, just start calling around the county office and talking to the planners, inspectors, health department, county geologist, etc to ferret out any potential restrictions or current goings-on that may lead up to a future restriction. Sounds like a nice place though.
Best of luck and send me a line if you want to discuss any details that you uncover.
Rob