Post by: cfabe on March 06, 2006, 02:35:41 PM
I see signs of structural issues. The roof ridgeline has some significant sag in two areas, and the front wall of the house is leaning out in the center. The roof is in bad shape and is leaking inside in at least one place I can see, with a hole in the ceiling plaster. I also opened up the crawl space access and found standing water, there was a sump pump but I'm sure the power was cut off long ago. I'm guessing that a pier in the center of the house has sunk/collapsed/rotted and allowed the center of the house to sink, bowing the front out. The standing water in the crawl space concerns me, could this compromise the whole floor structure? I'll be tempted to try to rehab this if I think I can do it for under 20k. If the floor structure is sound and there's not much water damage inside, I think it may not be too big of a deal to pour a couple new footings under the house and raise the center back up. Thoughts?
Pictures are located here:
http://www.fabiens.org/gallery/v/chris/MunsonTwp/
Post by: The Rabbi on March 06, 2006, 02:50:46 PM
I've certainly seen worse. Yeah, looks like new roof and decking are in order, probably some supports too. But I dont think it couldnt be rehabbed.
Post by: ...has left the building. on March 06, 2006, 03:44:59 PM
Post by: cfabe on March 06, 2006, 03:46:55 PM
Post by: K Frame on March 06, 2006, 04:52:03 PM
The problems that I see just from the photos...
Photo 100-225
1. It looks like the oil tank is getting ready to fall off its supports. The oil tank looks OK, but I'd be very worried about its condition where it's up against the brick. Figure at least a couple hundred to put it on the proper legs.
2. The chimney looks like it could have serious problems.
Photo 100-226
3. Those rust stains on the siding are likely just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to roof leakage. Don't be surprised if there are serious structural issues.
4. Windows are definitely dated.
100-227
5. You're not kidding that roof has issues. Another good heavy snow and it might have even more issues.
6. Looks like the bottom of the door frame is rotted from water splashing off the step.
7. It may be an optical illusion, but the house may be sagging a little on the left side towards the door.
100-228
8. Garage needs paint and a roof, but other than that, it doesn't look half bad.
100-229
9. Neighbors are too damned close.
230
10. Uhm... Yeah. That speaks for itself. Roof is gone, chimney has one brick in the grave, another on a banana peel. It looks as if it has been patched several times. It may require a complete tear down. It also looks as if it might be sagging away from the house near the roof.
231
11. Nothing too out of the ordinary in that photo, except for the color. Uhm... What is that wire wrapping around the siding and boring through the wall?
238
12. Retract that on the garage. It's pretty evident that that wall is starting to collapse. Probably a rotted sill. If you want to save it, you'll have to jack that wall up, dig out all of the rot, rebuild the sill, and then correct the water problems that led to the rot.
Obviously it's going to have a well and a septic system. You'll have to have those inspected.
Things to have the property inspect for, as well.
1. Condition of wiring, especially in the ceilings where the roof is bad.
2. Any insect infiltration around the sills.
3. Condition of interior plumbing.
4. Condition of heating system. If the crawl space has water in it, that makes me believe that the boiler or furnace may be in serious trouble.
Things you want to look for as you tour the interior.
1. Doors that won't close straight.
2. Windows that refuse to open (unless painted shut).
3. Indications of sagging floors.
4. Any evidence of rodent or insect infestation.
It could be a nice little property, but it really looks as if you're going to be spending quite a bit of money fixing it up.
Post by: cfabe on March 06, 2006, 05:59:12 PM
The big issue with the house seems to be water damage, is it safe to assume that if the plaster is intact inside there hasn't been much water infiltration in that area of the house?
I had already been figuring on complete re-wiring and re-plumning, I'm capable of doing those tasks myself.
At the moment I'm still going to go see the inside but I think the structure may be too far gone, unless the seller is willing to part with it at a lowball price.
More comments are welcome.
Post by: K Frame on March 06, 2006, 07:42:42 PM
Unfortunately, no.
Water infiltration between the walls can cause plaster to "de key," essentially come away from the walls in large sheets. You don't notice it until you either get a large bubble in the wall, or a large sheet comes down. That's fixable, but it's a HUGE pain in the ass.
The only way you can know for sure if the structure is salvagable or not is to have an architect, engineer, or really good general contractor come in an inspect it for you.
Post by: brimic on March 06, 2006, 08:54:07 PM
Post by: Azrael256 on March 06, 2006, 09:10:03 PM
If it's standing up straight, I'd say it's worth fixing it up if you're going to do it yourself.
Post by: K Frame on March 06, 2006, 09:22:05 PM
Post by: 280plus on March 07, 2006, 01:43:47 AM
Don't feel bad, I'm seriously considering a 12,000 plus sq ft x 100 yo brick building. Just about the same shape as that house except it's solid as a rock. It's BUILT on rock. So yesterday I talk to the firesprinkler guy cause the town (and myself) want it sprinkled and he gives me a ballpark of $150,000 to $200,000. KAAAAKK!! I thought "maybe" $50,000. No city water, I'd have to put ~ a 50,000 gal water tank out there. I haven't quite given up, yet...
Post by: K Frame on March 07, 2006, 03:23:53 AM
What the hell is he smoking, or is he going to smelt the fricking copper ore and extrude the pipe on site?
I'm assuming that that's copper/iron pipe, and ripping through all the walls...
How about PEX? It's legal for sprinkler systems in some areas.
I've helped salvage garages and buildings in FAR worse looking shape than that. It just requires a little ingenuity (sp?), some timber, some jacks, and the willingness to see it through.
The one we did decide to knock down? I was helping friends try to rehab a medium sized outbuilding on a property that had been the great grand mother's.
The sill was rotted in the corner and 2 sides were dropping. They wanted to use it as an outdoor shop.
Decided to pull down the building and put up a prefab when we discovered that the entire interior was black walnut, some of it with a pretty incredible graining pattern. That 10x15 building got turned into a LOT of furniture.
Post by: 280plus on March 07, 2006, 04:20:26 AM
It's the tank. 50,000 gallons of water is a LOT of water, takes a pretty big tank. It's ok, the town is so gung ho on doing something with this building, lets see what they've got to offer. My ace in the hole, up to this point, has been my HVAC license. There's no heat in the building and I can put it in for wholesale. 
Yea, The garage could be saved but is it worth the effort? Same thing with the house, the structure is sagging, is it worth it to do all the work to try to resupport it? It'll probably never be straight.
Plus Mike is right, the neighbor's house looks WAY too close to me.
I'd think about it and look at more properties in the meantime.
Looking at fixer uppers can be depressing. You see the potential in a nice old structure but when you start to look at the costs to renovate your heart starts to beat erratically...
LOL...
Post by: InfidelSerf on March 07, 2006, 04:23:29 AM
I say you spend 5k on the garage and 15k on a nice RV.. have you checked the listings lately?
You can get a nice living space in that range.
Then scrap out the house and save up to build a home in a better position on the property.
This is assuming you plan to live there a long time and would enjoy the investment.
either way have fun
Post by: cfabe on March 07, 2006, 05:36:51 AM
On the bright side, I found another property that I'm going to go walk today at lunch. This one is a bare building lot, even closer to my work. 10 acres listed at 100k. But the seller paid only 48k in 11/2004 and needs to move it due to a divorce, so I may be able to get it for significantly less. It does have a stream running through it, but it's not flood zone and appears well drained from the topo map. And the zoning regulations are looser in this area, a 2 bedroom house needs to only be 1200 sqft. Oh and also the property is zoned for 1.5 acre lots, so there is the potential to split two 1.5 acre parcels along the road at the front, and save the back 7 for me.
Post by: Guest on March 07, 2006, 05:44:15 AM
Cfabe- I am convinced the LAND is where the value really lays, for me, far better a useful piece of ground, well drained and arable with reasonable building regs and a small home, than any glitzed up huge house on a tiny unuseble lot. You can change the house, you can't change the land.
Post by: mtnbkr on March 07, 2006, 05:45:02 AM
Chris
Post by: 280plus on March 07, 2006, 05:49:02 AM
I had a "friend" once who built his house anout 1.5 miles from the CT river in a nice new development. The storm sewers drained to the river. When the river flooded the very next season the water came up the storm drains and flooded what turned out to be a little low lying area where his house was. It had never flooded there before they put the storm drains in.
Post by: 280plus on March 07, 2006, 05:50:23 AM
Post by: K Frame on March 07, 2006, 05:52:12 AM
Going by the pictures, 3 apparently solid walls and 1 rotted sill with a sagging wall really isn't that much effort given that to replace the double bay garage that's already there would be a lot more effort and a lot more expense.
"I just found out now that the property is not only in a low, wet area, but it's also in the 100yr floodplain. So I imagine the house has had water issues it's whole life, which coupled with poor maintainence may be a death sentence. Oh and there's also no record of a well or septic ever being installed (records go back to late 40s here), so I had to assume it needed those as well."
The water issues could probably be dealt with, if you're so inclined, but it would be a pain in the butt.
The flood plain issue is a much bigger concern, as you'd have to get flood insurance at very likely a significant extra cost.
No septic or well?
Not a chance.
Putting a septic system in a flood plain is getting a LOT harder to do, and you'd likely end up with an elevated sand mound given that it sounds as if the water table is pretty high in that area.
If you had to do an elevated sand mound, your $15 to $20 K would be dedicated to the septic, and you'd still need to drill a well.
Post by: charby on March 07, 2006, 06:00:55 AM
I don't think you can rehab that place for 20K. Septic might eat a lot that up if its crappy and depending upon the regs in the county/township. Looking at the pictures that house and garage is a tear down to me. I've spent the last 12 months looking for a house and its down right depressing, the houses I want I can't afford or don't want to be strapped by the payments or the ones I can afford I wouldn't give more than the lot value for. People want a lot of money for a pile of *expletive deleted*it.
Charby
Post by: 280plus on March 07, 2006, 06:02:49 AM
Quote
280plus,-what are you going to do with a 12k square building?
Multi use / storage, are you anywhere near CT? I have my own HVAC biz and I've been looking for a building to house my trucks and equipment. I want a portion of the 12,000 but plan to lease the rest out. If I can get around this sprinkler thing. Supposedly there is no warehouse type storage in my immediate area.
Post by: Paddy on March 07, 2006, 06:39:50 AM
Post by: Nathaniel Firethorn on March 07, 2006, 06:48:04 AM
BTW, my parents' house used to have a rendering plant to the west and a refinery to the east. At least you always knew which way the wind was blowing.
- NF
Post by: 280plus on March 07, 2006, 07:01:34 AM
Quote
next door to a rendering plant
Been there... :barf:This bldg is NOT next to a rendering plant.
Post by: ...has left the building. on March 07, 2006, 08:02:44 AM
Post by: 280plus on March 07, 2006, 08:17:35 AM
Post by: cfabe on March 07, 2006, 09:15:25 AM
Post by: Nathaniel Firethorn on March 07, 2006, 10:03:51 AM
- NF
Post by: cfabe on March 07, 2006, 02:12:33 PM
Arial photo: http://www.fabiens.org/gallery/v/chris/cedar/g5_STIMEY506852363749.jpg.html
Pics of property (mostly trees and creek): http://www.fabiens.org/gallery/v/chris/cedar/
Post by: K Frame on March 07, 2006, 04:51:06 PM
Post by: 280plus on March 08, 2006, 12:56:44 AM
"Hydrologist", thanks NF, that's the exact person I need to talk to. There's a brook on the bldg property. I think I might be able to dig an artificial pond to hold the water. It could double as a heat sink for the geothermal heat pumps.
Post by: cfabe on March 08, 2006, 03:38:50 AM
How would I go about finding a hydrologist? Open the phonebook? Ask the county?
Post by: 280plus on March 08, 2006, 04:08:01 AM
Post by: Bogie on March 08, 2006, 04:08:33 AM
Make it bigger. You don't have to make it significantly more expensive. Too many houses have dinky bedrooms, etc., and that really hurts them. If you're able to do your own interior work, you're set right there. Drywall, floors, etc... If you're putting it on a slab (I'd prefer a basement...), tile is easy. Think radiant or environmentally friendly stuff too. If that stream has enough throughput, consider a small hydro setup. Lower energy bills and tax advantages.
If you're good with tools, you can put together a NICE kitchen for about 10% of what you'd spend on the pre-built cabinets. Likewise for other areas of the house - built-in bookcases, closet areas, etc., are so much easier when there's nothing there.
If you design it so that it can easily "stretched" with an addition, that's a plus too... I'd like to build onto my house here, but the dang gas line is right where I'd like to put it...
Post by: 280plus on March 08, 2006, 04:13:02 AM
Was the topo the RED square? if so that ridge in the lower right corner looked nice.
Good luck!
Post by: K Frame on March 08, 2006, 04:13:57 AM
All the 100 year flood plain means is that, on average, every 100 years there will be a flood to that level.
The Susquehanna River in the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, area had, IIRC, either 4 or 5 400 year floods in the 1900s, 3 of them during the 1930s.
Here's a link on the FEMA page that tells you how you can find access to local floodmaps...
http://www.fema.gov/fhm/hm_main.shtm#4
Post by: cfabe on March 08, 2006, 05:33:15 AM
As for the house, I was considering a smaller 2-bedroom house on a full basement, walkout hopefully, designed with a future addition to a 4-bedroom. I can do all the interior finish, electrical and plumbing, and heating too if I go with radiant and don't need sheetmetal work. For the house frame I'm considering a SIP kit.
I would definately consider some type of micro-hydro from the stream, and also possibly using the stream as a heat sink for a geothermal heatpump.
I'm going to try to make contact with the county soil and water conservation disctict people.
With all the hillside on the lot there's also the possibility of a partially earth-bermed house.
Post by: K Frame on March 08, 2006, 06:48:51 AM
Chances are you'd never get permission to do it from Ohio's version of the EPA.
Second, a drough could rob you of your ability to cool your home.
If you want to go geothermal, ground mass is MUCH more preferable.
Post by: 280plus on March 08, 2006, 09:45:30 AM
Post by: cfabe on March 08, 2006, 04:13:10 PM
http://www.fabiens.org/gallery/v/chris/cedar/building+sites.jpg.html
1 - this is where the previous owner was going to build, it's about 8 feet above the water level, but it has some visibility to the neighbors to the sides. His septic plan was to use two conventional tanks and then pump the effluent approx 800 feet horiz and 20 feet up to site 3 to normal leech fields. That's the only place the soils would permit leech fields. At this site I am concerned about erosion from the stream long term. I suppose that could be fixed later if it became a problem.
2 - This site is totally private. It is only about 4 feet above the water level. I think it would probably need fill to raise the level. The road noise is noticably reduced compared to site 1. Longer driveway to build and maintain though.
3 - High and dry. Visibility to the subdivision houses. Looses the feel of being near the stream. Has a view overlooking the low area. Really long drive and have to cut it into the hillside, probably expensive.
Post by: doczinn on March 08, 2006, 04:19:57 PM
Post by: K Frame on March 08, 2006, 05:13:17 PM
At only 4 foot above the water table, you're going to need (I'm not familiar with Ohio's DEP regulations for septic systems, but they are generally the same through much of the country) you'll need at LEAST 4 more feet of fill dirt over an area large enough to handle your septic requirements.
As for the previous owner's septic plans, all I can say is wow. That's an expensive plan.
Well, let's face it. All of the options are damned expensive.
Given the choice between a long driveway and a long septic pump out, I'd pick the long driveway in a heartbeat.
Nothing is worse than having your septic system clog up over a long holiday weekend and flood your yard or your house, or both.
Given all of the parameters of that lot, though, I'd probably be inclined to look seriously at buidling site 2, and not go for a basement, but go for 3 full stories above ground.
Post by: cfabe on March 08, 2006, 05:26:10 PM
Post by: K Frame on March 08, 2006, 07:39:11 PM
Ok. Now I get it.
No, it's normally not the same.
The water table could be inches below the ground, or it could be yards below ground.
You'll be required to have a minimum offset between the leachate field on your septic system and the stream bed, and also a minimum offset between the bottom of your leachate field and the average high water table.
The requirements you can get from your local code office, while the water table information can come from any of a number of source, from digging test pits to the code office to a hydrological engineer.
Post by: cfabe on March 09, 2006, 04:40:14 AM
This is a deep, nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil on flood plains. It is frequently flooded for very brief to brief periods in fall, winter, and spring. Slopes are 0 to 2 percent. The water table is between depths of 12 and 30 inches in winter and spring and during other extended wet periods. Permeability is moderate. Runoff is slow. The root zone is deep, and the available water capacity is high. Reaction is strongly acid to slightly acid in the surface layer and subsoil, except where lime has been added. The shrink-swell potential is low.
This soil is unsuited as a site for buildings, septic tank absorption fields and most recreation uses because of the flooding hazard and seasonal wetness. During the drier part of the year this soil is suited to some recreation uses, hiking, for example. The use of dikes to control flooding is difficult. Local roads and streets can be improved by using fill to raise the road above the flooding level and a suitable base material to reduce the damage from frost action. Sloughing is a hazard in excavations.
Is this telling me what I should have known already? Don't build a house in a low area next to a stream?
Can you never build a basement under the water table, or does it just mean you need a drainage system, sump pumps, etc?
Post by: K Frame on March 09, 2006, 05:19:37 AM
Pretty much.
A 1 to 3 foot subsurface water table will never be approved for a septic field unless you elevate it. To properly elevate it (based on what I'm remembering from helping my father design septic fields, he's a civil engineer), you'd need an area between 1,000 to 3,000 square feet for your leachate field, which will need to be X feet above the high ground water level. The X feet is determined by your local/state code, but 6 feet (IIRC) is a pretty common figure.
So, based on those seat of my pants figures, you'd need a minimum of 6 feet of fill over top of the ground (have to bury your pipes by about 1 foot) over an area of 1,000 to 3,000 square feet.
That's a fair amount of fill, and it's also unsightly as all hell if it's next to or in view of your house.
Here's a good link on elevated sand mound requirements... http://www.age.psu.edu/extension/factsheets/f/F164.pdf
As for basements below the water table, yes, you certainly can build a basement below the water table. It is, however, a big pain in the ass, and generally a lot more expensive because you have to take a lot more steps to ensure the watertight integrity of the walls and floor, and provide for adequate drainage.
Post by: Guest on March 09, 2006, 05:54:12 AM
Post by: K Frame on March 09, 2006, 05:58:50 AM
You can. Visit your local thrift shop or Goodwill and go clothes shopping.
Post by: charby on March 09, 2006, 06:09:29 AM
Quote from: tokugawa
280plus- I bailed out of CT a long time ago. Grew up in rural CT and watched my home town turn into yuppieville. Now I am watching the place I have lived in for 20 years go the same route. Maybe it's time to find a rundown little midwestern town and set up shop there. I wish I could transport myself back to 1960 or so.
Same thing happening in the Midwest too, unless you want to be a lot miles away from basic necessities: grocery stores, retail stores, etc. Anything with in a comfortable drive, up to 1 hour of a urban like area is being developed and yuppified. I live 17 miles from where I work and a complete piece of *expletive deleted*it house (700-1000 sq ft) in a meth users part of town that needs to be burnt to the ground and rebuilt it going for at least 60k, this is on a narrow lot, no garage and within 2 blocks of a railway (Union Pacific) that has trains every 15-20 minutes around the clock. The new homes in the nice yuppie parts of town, 17 miles from Ames, 45 miles from DSM are starting at $200k, but the norm is $300-350k.
The scary part is it is much cheaper to rent a house than it is to buy one right now where I live.
C
Post by: 280plus on March 09, 2006, 06:51:50 AM
The wife and I just spent $25,000 on a raised septic system. The bottom of the diverter boxes had to be 3" above the pre-existing grade. I'd say $15,000 of that was fill and sand.
Fortunately our yard had an incline so now it's flat back to about 3/4 of the way.
I know where the easiest place to dig a foxhole is if the SHTF though! Just not to DEEP of a foxhole.
Post by: Guest on May 14, 2006, 08:17:08 AM