removing and reframing a roof and 2nd floor
Question to anyone experienced in removing a 2nd story and rebuilding …
I am developer & builder for a 4800 sf house on 3 levels that is needs everything, plus it has 8′ ceilings which is a huge NO in our market/price point.
There is a good foundation, a really nice lower level, new mechanical, a lot of existing stone facade that I can easily match, and the plan works quite well. Therefore, there is enough to save that I am trying to avoid a teardown.
The big issues are it needs new kitchen, new 5+2 baths, new 1st level floors, and new windows. The plumbing itself was significantly redone when the basement was finished a few years ago, and the electrical is fine.
No point in putting that much money into finishes without addressing the 8′ ceiling height, so I am going to explore removing the roof and 2nd floor deck and rebuilding. A primary reason for not tearing down or just going from the 1st floor deck is the tax considerations, which are very significant if the house is viewed as a renovation instead of new construction.
I am looking for advice from anyone who has done this type of project to see how they went about it. The two ways I am considering are sistering to existing studs to raise the plate height, or leaving the existing double plate and putting a knee wall on top of it and tying that in, which obviously has some structural considerations.
Thoughts?
Replies
So you are going to 10 ft ceilings or even higher or vaulted?
Sounds like the K&T wiring is in good shape, eh?
Platform framed or balloon framed?
Platform, jack up the entire 2nd floor, joists, walls, roof, and all. New 2x6 studs on the inside, add criples to the outside 2x4 (assumed) studs. Now you have room for more insulation also and can replace that 'fine' K&T wiring.
raising the roof
platform framed, built in the 1960's, electircal is completely modern as is all the plumbing below the 2nd floor (2nd floor is modern, but the copper is 50+ years old so I would replace it as part of the project).
I did something like this a little over two years ago. house wasnt the same size (2800sq finished). we removed the roof, entire second floor, re framed walls. the knee wall sounds like a PITA, i would prefer to sister and new top plate.
consider having a new manual j done since you will be adding a considerable amount of space to be conditioned. You will also need to re wire the house. no way to sister your exterior walls with wireing and any plumbing (hopfully none) running through them.
by the time you re wire everything you have had to remove, you might as well re wire the house completely.
I've been remodeling and raising roofs on residential homes for over 30 years. I have yet to see anyone cost effectivley attempt to sister framed stud walls in order to raise ceiling heights. Sounds like a ridiculous consideration to me. There would be so many obstacles to achieving that (certainly while trying to meet prescriptive code) that it would likely be more cost effective to consider a complete tear down. Also, the fact that the basement was recently finished and plumbing redone* make it a super ridiculous endeavor (IMO). Hopefully you bought the subject property for a song and a dance in order to bring your developement plans back toward reality.
BTW, the second option would also seem to be a challege to meet IRC braced wall requirements outlined in the presciptive code. It is definitetly done, but I see a professional engineer invovled due to wall hinge point considerations. If that turns out to be the case, I also see an architect involved as well.
So, in the end, why don't you just hire an architect and investigate/resolve your rasied roof considerations professionally instead of grasping at straws on this forum?
*chances are it will have to be significantly redone again.
raising heights
I am hardly grasping at straws, thanks, I have an engineer I've already spoken to about it, and he is not concerned about making it work once I tell him what I want to do. However, it isn't clear to me what the best approach would be which is what I am trying to determine from someone who has done it previously (hopefully multiple times and ways), which is the point of the forums isn't it?
I have removed everything from the 2nd floor deck before, but never raised the deck itself, and while I have a team I can go to I am looking for a builders experience and advice.
In my area it can definitely make sense to figure this out. The difference in taxes on a renovation versus new construction can easily be > $20,000 a year (the one I just finished has a difference of +/- $24k) which is why I am looking for an alternative to tearing down, and the difference in value between a house with 8' ceilings versus 9'-10'+ ceilings can be $500,000 for a house this size/neighborhood, which pays for a lot of subs and material to reconfigure the existing.
The plumbing and electrical are fine and modern, and there is a modern 100 amp sub panel in the garage with plenty of breakers available, so I don't have to go to the basement panel if any new circuits were required.
Since I am proposing to leave the floor plan as it is, with careful demo I should be able to reuse a lot of the existing plumbing and electrical, so I just want to figure out how best to get the height because it adds so much in value.
YOu've already told this forum what you want to do. Why don't you simply go to your engineer to have him or her "make it work" as you indicated is part of your plan. What are you waiting for, permission?
BTW, how much is your current annual real estate taxes on this property? I find it hard to believe there could be a difference of $20k in taxes with a specific before and after remodel. Tax assessements are based largely on comparable sales; rarely specific appraisels that take into account "one of kind" type properties. Since you indicate you are ultimately bringing your property 'up to snuff' w/ other local properties I see taxes seeking their own level pretty quickly after the completion of your project. Tax assessors are generally not that stupid. In other words, I don't see your tax break projection as being realistic. You might catch a break with the issue of occupancy with a remodel, but I see that being about it.
raising the roof
Well, believe - I only build in my county so I can't speak to how other places work, and the tax assessor isn't stupid, but he has a law to follow which says that new construction is based upon sales price but a renovation is not, regardless of sale price. I can show you an older house nearby that is currently on the market for 8x one that just sold and it's taxes are about double but when that listing sells it's taxes will not change 1 cent.
... and yes, I could sit with my engineer at $150 an hour and discuss construction methods, but though he has engineered projects like this before, he has never gotten in the field and built it, and I value opinions from those with hands on experience.
So ... what I said was that I want to get more ceiling height on the 1st floor, but I was looking to builders who had actually done that to tell me how they went about it and what their experience was, since I hadn't done it.
and then I intended to go to my engineer and review my thinking, at $150/hour
and then I would go to my architect, and tell her what I and the engineer want to do, at $150 an hour.
Wouldn't you do the same, since that is what the forum is for?
Yep,that's what forums are for....
Coming from a whole different economic situation it seem totally nuts to me to see any merit in raising a ceiling a foot or two considering the heroic effort involved.
But I absolutely encourage you to pursue opinions here or else where. Outside ideas can broaden your horizon and stimulate your creativity. It's up to you to sort the wheat from the chaff.
Rock on....
No, I wouldn't.
I 'd get on with my specific project by enlisting the help of professionals that I know, trust, and work in my area. First and foremost I would want to discuss the project with the professional builder that was actually intending to build the project; not ones I don't know. If that builders needs sounds bites from this forum (regurgitated through you*) in order to properly formulate a cost effective plan of attack for achieving your goals, then I'd say you're talking to the wrong builder.
* which would likely be a nightmare based on your presentation of county tax assessment policy.
qualityjob wrote:
The difference in taxes on a renovation versus new construction can easily be > $20,000 a year (the one I just finished has a difference of +/- $24k) which is why I am looking for an alternative to tearing down..[sic]
This seemed like an odd assertion to me. So, after doing some cursory research on tax assessments, I've found that charts for average annual residential porperty taxes across the U.S. don't go above $10k. Even the avg. annual home real estate tax bill for Somerset N.J. (one of the more expensive counties to live in the U.S.) averages around $8k. Certainly a tax difference of $20k doesn't even come onto the radar. This tells me you must be in la la land.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/412959-Residential-Property-Taxes.pdf
It's possible that the house is located in la la land instead of average land. But that does seem like a steep increase.
la la land
boy, tough crowd, thinking I am making shit up!
... so, regarding what you said, it makes sense if you live in an average area, which I don't, and if you look in Sommerset NJ I bet you will find some neighborhoods command far higher prices than others, so the average tells you nothing ... as they say, you can drown in a lake with an average 1' depth.
In the neighborhoods where I am building, there are few properties with taxes as low as 10k and they are always tear downs, typically a 1940's-1950's ranch that someone lived in since it was built. I looked this morning at a tear down with $28,000 in taxes.
Our current assessment is $1,875 per $100,000 FMV, which means a typical $2,600,000 new construction house has $48,750 in taxes.
For an example of the difference I am talking about, which you can confirm if you really don't believe my by going into MLS, compare
1543 Monk Rd which is on sale currently for $19,500,000 and has $98,391 in taxes
and 626 Creighton Rd which just sold this July for $4,900,000 but has $70,286 in taxes
and you will understand that this is a real issue I have to pay attention to. It is 400% more in price but 39% more in taxes, and that doesn't change when it sells. The reason is that 626 is relatively speaking so much higher is it was built much more recently, and taxed as new construction at that time.
For a $19M buyer they may not care, but in the (for our area) normal $1M - $3M buyer, taxes matter.
So, if I build a new construction house at $2,000,000 it will have $37,500 in taxes, but if I do a renovation that sells for $2,000,000 it might be half that.
Okay, so you're buying and building in rarified territory. So what?
That doesn't explain why the 1543 Monk Rd. is being taxed so much less than Fair Market Value. You said your tax assessor is not stupid. It seems like the flip "edge" your banking on here is simply to game the tax system. I don't think it will happen. Certainly not by sistering studs or running structural raised band boards. You'd have to prove to me the tax "law" says otherwise, because FMV is based on largley based on comps (sq. ft, #of bedroom, baths, construction type, etc), not what is "new" vs. recently remodeled. I believe your tax assesor has the right to visit your property after completion and appraise the condition. If they find it virtually all "new", then I belive they have the right to tax it accordingly. In other words, if it walks like duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck, then it will be taxed like a duck. I live in a higly taxed county as well with many major remodels. Just because a home is remodeled and not new, does not mean you get a tax break on the improvements. Again, you might get by with avoiding the hassle of occupancy requirements of a new home, but that is about it. Go ahead, provide the tax law that states otherwsie, I am open to being better educated on this issue for your county.
It also doesn't explain why you can't find (and afford) an experienced local consultant to discuss your remodeling goals with when you're contemplating building for a $3M spec client. Are you just a cheapskate, or what?
You know it's kind of strange that there are people here who don't underdstand that property taxes, in many parts of the country, are just plain weird.
There are apparently seven states, for example, which still don't have an income tax, and these state make up for it by having fairly outrageous property taxes.
In a great number of locations taxes are not based on the actual value of the property but on a formula, with so much "taxable value" being ascribed to each square foot, eg, (but often exemptions for, say, bedrooms, making it attractive to have every room in the house be a "bedroom").
And it's very common for taxes to be based on some "prior" value of the property -- what it sold for new, eg. Selling the home, pulling a building permit over some value, etc, can trigger revaluation, but otherwise the value stays fixed for decades.
depends on how you view it
DanH wrote:
You know it's kind of strange that there are people here who don't underdstand that property taxes, in many parts of the country, are just plain weird.
"Weird" is not a legitimate adjective for taxes simply because you don't understand them. Taxes are based on value. While different local and state governments may calculate them differently, water usually seeks its own level. Where standard of living is high, taxes are high. Where standard of living is low, taxes are low. Bottom line is that neighbors are not going to let similar properties be taxed at far less than their own--at least not for very long. IMO, if the O.P. intends to bring a formerly low valued property up in value to sell at comparable prices of his neighbors, I believe he (or future owner) will eventually (if not immediately) be taxed accordingly. We're not talking about the status quo here. If permits are pulled, then property value will likley be improved, and assessments will likely go up accordingly. Nothing "weird" about that.
Also, your semantic argument about bedrooms reminds me of permit seekers attempting to avoid residential egress requirements by calling certain rooms "drawing" or "sewing" rooms; particuarly in finished basements. That used to fly. Now, anything that can feasibly be used as a bedroom will generally be permitted and inspected as such. It doesn't matter what it is called. I recognize that there are some backwood juridictions that couldn't care less about this issue in terms of permits or taxes, but I doubt that includes multi-million dollar neighborhoods. Believe it or not, a level playing field in terms of property rights (and corresponding responsibilities) and taxes is one of the major factors that seperate our nation from those of the third world.
Like I said, it's kind of strange that there are people here who don't underdstand that property taxes, in many parts of the country, are just plain weird.
And anyone who thinks that property taxes will always tend to "equalize" doesn't have a clue about politics, either.
...and those that make nebulous and baseless claims simply repeat themselves thinking this changes reality.
Dick Cheney was famous for this when it came to his claims of "weapons of mass destruction". IMO, Colin Powell tarnished his otherwise distinguished career by falling on his sword over this practice. But I digress. Just responding to Dan's transparent (regardless of his obliviousnous) and time worn tactic used when can't make a legitimate point on the subject at hand: change the subject. If you really want to go there, Dan, you should start a new thread rather than highjack this one.
heed your own advice
deadnuts wrote:
you should start a new thread rather than highjack this one.
i call bull s#@t
so over 30 years raising roofs and remodeling huh?
architect...
published published writer...
dumb nuts, if you consider lattice work and fuax brick in a kitchen 30 years of experience raising roofs and remodeling, it should come to no suprise you cant comprehend what this man is talking about.
part of your problem is that you get on your computer and search for your information on google (or houzz) and then spat out some random fact like its law.
the majority of your comments dont even get close to addressing the posted question/concern.
your bigoted condescending remarks dont impress anyone but yourself.
when someone is doing more than the kind of work you do (the above mentioned) and have never been faced with a particular task, its very common (for most that dont know everything about everything everywhere) to talk to others who have faced said task for some insight.
he isnt asking for someone on here to tell him how to do it, he simply asked for those who have done something like what he is facing to share experiences...OBVIOUSLY you dont have any input to give on the topic because it cant be done with pvc or a domino. so why not instead of continually being an as s to everyone you dont just move on to the next post that asks something a little more down your alley (you know, like picking paint colors or how to take down wall paper)
You really spend a lot of time and effort fantasizing about me rather than addressing the O.P. I'm flattered, but recommend not letting your jealousy get the better part of you (if there is one).
Well said.
thank you
Thank you Mark! I could not have said it better.
Deadnuts, I'm not sure why you seem to be upset about what I'm trying to do, but it is a fact that taxes here vary wildly on similar FMV houses, and remodels retain a much lower rate - why is the system as it is? I don't know, but I don't spit into the wind, I work with the conditions at hand.
Also, you made a comment on "used to get away with trying to pretend something isn't a bedroom, but not anymore" that doesn't match my current experience - we have tough inspections, but I know many properties, including two I currently own, where there is a basement room that people could and likely would use as a bedroom (Au Pair or In Law, or maybe just a Christmas spare) but does not have a code escape route, and since they are existing houses the inspector understands and only require compliance if we try to call it a bedroom. Maybe in your area it is different, I don't know. To be even more specific, one I currently own has a non operable window with a 7' sill and it was called a bedoom on the original plans and has a full bath, and it then had an adjacent kitchen that led outside which isn't code - the escape route has to be on the bedroom itself. Maybe this was legal back in the day, I don't know, because I wasn't building 30 years ago. However, I won't call it a bedroom when I remarket unless I bring it to code, but my inspector won't say boo since it is an existing condition, unless I try to label it as a bedroom.
Lastly, before I asked the forum as asked several other experienced 20+ year builders I am friendly with, all of whom work in the high end, and none of them had ever raised an entire 2nd floor either, so I certainly don't feel embarrassed soliciting outside experiences on something I have never done, especially since it obviously isn't done every day. My inclination was towards framing above the existing plate, but I could see arguments favoring raising the plate height so I thought I'd see if others out there have done it. There can be things you are not considering that someone else will bring to your attention.
By way of example, I recently upgraded the electric service on a house and it never occurred to me that the utiliity company would be unable to provide adequate juice at the curb - we ended up having to go down a public street at enormous expense and it threw the budget and schedule completely off. I'll bet that if I had asked every builder and electrician I know, few if any had ever seen that issue, but if I asked the forum maybe there would be just 1 guy out there who would have alerted me to check with the utility company before we made our plan (as I regularly do for gas service, because a lot of the older neighborhoods have low preasure service). Now I know ...
opinion vs. misinformation
I couldn't care less what you are trying to do in terms of building. You have all the right in the world to consider ridiculous ideas and give your opinion on them. I do, however, take issue with* what I believe is the dissemination of misinformation on how properties are taxed and why raising a house (rather than raizing it) will save you over $20 k in taxes . Still do; because you haven't proven otherwise.
BTW, if you're going to quote someone, the least you could do is use their words. More dissemination of misinformation which seems to be par for the course for you. With regard to current egress enforcment: I'm talking about plan review for permitable construction changes. I don't believe any municipality has a right to force residential code upgrades if nothing is being done to the property. I never claimed any did.
* I'd hardly call it upset; but understand your word choice given your tendency to flatter yourself.
opinions vs. fact
Mark,
If I wanted your opinion on what I should or should not do, then I'd ask for it. I didn't.
Further, I've stated my opinion (I'm not obligtated to prove an opinion) on the O.P. raising the floor height. I don't need to get into the details on how to do it. Clients pay me all day long for that.
Lastly, I will call out misinformation every chance I get. If the O.P. wants to make a questionable claim on taxes as part of his post, then I have every right to dispute it and ask him to prove it*. Again, opinions (which his claim wasn't) are another matter. You may want to learn the difference yourself. The main reason I have disputed his claim is because I believe it is wrong to infer to other builders or homeowners that there are huge tax breaks involved with remodeling vs. building new. I've held out the possiblility that it might be where he lives, but he hasn't proven that claim. I can prove that it is not the case where I live. In fact, I've raised the roof on the property that I currently live in (orig. built in 1953) and my home is assessed and taxed the same as any other (high end or otherwise) home in my area. There are no tax breaks involved at all with pre-exisitng conditions. It's FMV; period. As I said before, I believe most (if not all) juridictions apply that principle. Certainly one can dispute the assessed value as an error on the assesso's part. It's not easy, but I've done it; many times. But my argument had to be based on local comps-- which are also taxed at FMV.
*He also have every right to ignore it. However, in most cases silence speaks louder than words.
Actually, I look at education and learning as pretty much the same thing. Whatever the source. So, no, I don't know what you mean... if you know what I mean.
I've learned a lot on forums, but an education should be at least based on truth Forums are frequently full of opinions instead of facts, so I guess I have gotten an education in mistrusting things presented as fact on forums. Still I like to learn as much on varied subjects as I can, even though I fact check before I believe.
You're starting to get it. I have hope for you yet.
Old hand put it another way by saying that it's up to you to seperate the wheat from the chaff. That traditional saying is nice way to put it. I'm simply pointing out when I see chaff being presented as wheat. I try to give as much fact, supporting information, or anecdotal evidence to back up my position, but ultimately you can ignore it if you like. Personally, I think you're missing a learning opportunity when you do.
OK, I believe you on the averages in taxation. I believe you when you support comments with verifiable sources. If you could tone down the frequent insults, I could begin to like you as a person. I've seen others who have problems being a stand up guy on this forum many times, and that sort of thing just ends up turning a post into a flame war instead of a good discussion. Carry on...
There are parts of the country where property taxes were effectively frozen for existing homes, vaguely similar to the infamous "rent controlled" apartments in NYC. The arguement, of course, was that "My taxes keep going up, because my property value goes up, but I'm a poor widow on fixed income who can't afford it", so the law/ordinance was passed to freeze the current appraised value as the "assessed value". Then, of course, folks began to "gentrify" the neighborhoods involved and realized what a bonanza this was for homeowners (let the businesses and those suckers out in the new suburbs pay the taxes for me). So you had the poor widows combined with the rich yuppies wanting the stupid law to stay as it was -- hard to get rid of it then.
In some districts this is quite explicit, in others it is kind of incidental to the "usual practices" of appraising properties, which are controlled by mysterious bureacracies. The effect is the same.
A more sensible structure (such as we have here) is to value all property in the district according to reasonably recent appraisals, then divide the total taxes needed by the total property value to determine the tax per $ value. Then taxes don't automatically go up as property values increase, but instead the politicans must justify how much they need to raise in total taxes.
There are a lot of levies here also, some I agree with, others not so much. Parks, greenspace, schools, and so on, but I guess it's like that most everywhere. It's like three mortgage payments for taxes each year. I can imagine an area where there is a lot of old architecture that the county would rather see restored, or remodeled rather than replaced, and the tax schedule takes that in consideration. But I don't really know that to be true.
One thing to keep in mind is that the "conventional" property tax system, where each $1000 of property value is charged a flat $N in taxes, is a boon for politicians when property values rise. They get more tax money to spread around without having to justify it -- "Sorry, but it's the law."
This abuse of course leads to the opposite abuse of insisting that somehow property taxes be "frozen", often by freezing assessed values. There are so many different ways to implement this second form of abuse that it boggles the mind.
I don't think you can easily "freeze" the markets
Most propety tax systems are based on an assessed value and a floating rate. That rate gets voted on by elected offiicals on an annual basis. And yes, seniors (usually long time residents who have paid into the system a long time anyhow) can get significant tax breaks on personal property by proving lower or fixed incomes.
PEANUT BUTTER & JELLY
Most property tax systems are a peanut butter (assessed value) and jelly (rate) system. It's the jelly that can be most readily jiggered by governments to suit their budget cycles. But it is double edge sword. When they raise the" jelly" too much during periods of budget shortfalls* property values can go on a rapidly increasing cycle (like 2003-2006)**. This is when the sandwich system gets soggy. Property owners will eventually complain loudly about exhorbitant tax bills. Sure, their home assest has increased, but it's not liquid. The money used to pay the tax bill is.Thus, politicians soon vote to lower the rate (they can't jigger the peanut butter so ready as this component is market driven) to offset boons to government coffers. Then it unavoidably drops (liike in 2008), the peanut butter makes things dry, and the "jelly" starts getting increased again. However, the sword blade making this sandwich is sharp, so they have to be careful not to raise it too much in one year so not as to "cut" the voters off. So governments usually go into projected budget shorfall mode (we've been in one for 8 consecutive years) that takes years (if not decades) to correct. I have found that this is the time that governments gets creative with new taxes (storm wate tax, impervious surface tax, etc.) that are really property tax increases by proxy. Only homeowners pay them. But that allows the tax burden to increase more obscurely, and thus palatably, for everyone.
* These shortfalls should (IMO) be made up by cutting expenses, but they rarely, if ever, are. Income ( meaning taxes) are more often than not increased to make up for these deficits.
** This would seem counterintuitive. But this boon in tax dollars leads to excessive spending by governments (hey, they got more free money to throw around) that makes their municipality (schools, fire & rescue, police) look more attractive to buyers. It takes awhile for homeowners (most escrow-I don't) to catch on to this boondoggle because they're too busy using their home's increased equity as a credit card. Many even (amazing & erronously) blame their mortgage company for increased payments until somebody sets them straight. Anyhow, I have found that this is how this cycle plays out. Eventually things reach an equilibration point. If it ever doesn't that means (IMO) that our system has totally collapsed. Some say it already has. Personally, I don't think we have reached that point;but we're close.