# Impartial opinions wanted



## JAH (Jul 27, 2014)

By leaving the old floor system its a addition / remodel not new construction.


----------



## CompleteW&D (May 28, 2011)

JAH said:


> By leaving the old floor system its a addition / remodel not new construction.


just curious, how does that change things?


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

CompleteW&D said:


> just curious, how does that change things?


Depends on the community. How far you have to go to meet all current standards - everything from zoning, easements, setbacks, foundation codes. Historical district, materials used - endless.

If you can avoid "New or rebuild" - many advantages.

Here's typical (Cupertino):

*Remodel:* At least 50% of the existing exterior walls (linear measurement) and its associated footing and roof framing
remain as exterior walls/footings and <=75% remodel of conditioned floor area.

*Rebuild:* More than 50% percent and up to 75% of the existing exterior walls (linear measurement) and its associated
footing and roof framing are no longer used as exterior walls/footings/roof in the new design or >75% remodel of
conditioned floor area.

*New Construction:* More than 75% percent of the existing exterior walls (linear measurement) and its footing and
roof framing are no longer used as exterior walls/footings/roof in the new design.


----------



## CompleteW&D (May 28, 2011)

So, by being a "remodel" it doesn't need to pass as many rigid inspections or whatever. That's interesting. 

I'm gonna stick with what I'm good at. Windows, Doors and Siding. :whistling


----------



## JAH (Jul 27, 2014)

SmallTownGuy gave a great answer! Benefits could be anything from permitting fees, set backs, size of house vs size of lot, etc.


----------



## CompleteW&D (May 28, 2011)

JAH said:


> *SmallTownGuy gave a great answer!* Benefits could be anything from permitting fees, set backs, size of house vs size of lot, etc.


He usually does..... :thumbup:


----------



## Oldwagon (Jun 27, 2015)

In this case, the contractor has removed all exterior walls. As I understand it, he's past the threshold of rebuild/remodel and into new construction anyways. Even if, for arguments sake, he only needs to retain the foundation for a rebuild, I see no good argument to retain the original joists and subfloor. I would forsee more trouble/potential cost even at this point in keeping it versus the labor and materials of new. Three guys and one day, done.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Oldwagon said:


> In this case, the contractor has removed all exterior walls. As I understand it, he's past the threshold of rebuild/remodel and into new construction anyways. Even if, for arguments sake, he only needs to retain the foundation for a rebuild, I see no good argument to retain the original joists and subfloor. I would forsee more trouble/potential cost even at this point in keeping it versus the labor and materials of new. Three guys and one day, done.


When its your job - do it your way.

Have you gone and looked at the permit - the site/engineering/special restrictions, etc?

Does your community have no inspectors, no Planning Dept, no Town Hall/City council meetings?

Because from where I stand, you are one step away from getting a combined restraining & gag order.


----------



## EricBrancard (Jun 8, 2012)

Oldwagon said:


> First, contrary to the opinions of a few, this is a million dollar+ neighborhood. A 1,800 Sq/ft ranch on a quarter acre in anything close to decent shape will be a $1mm+ property, a nicer ranch, same size, recently renovated, will be $1.3mm or so. The house that's being demolished and rebuilt should bring a bit over $2mm.


That's some expensive dirt. Where is this?


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

> So, by being a "remodel" it doesn't need to pass as many rigid inspections or whatever.


Hmmm, everything revolves around money - but it isn't always just that.

Sometimes, a place isn't "rebuildable" - if it's required to meet current codes. In that case, not only is the property owner out money, but the community is left with an eyesore AND a tax crippled piece of land that also affects its neighbors.

Sometimes, a "rebuild or new" will allow an overarching body - like an Historical District, or Redevelopment Authority - to demand the new construction to meet an earlier (or rarely, later) time period - putting the cost beyond reach.

In both cases, TIME also plays an increasingly large role.

When things get stalled out because a "higher standard" was met - and no work gets completed - who wins?

Nobody. 

Savvy property owners and Community leaders are both served best when the end result is "doable" and done quickly.

It isn't always about the contractor trying to save some money.


----------



## Oldwagon (Jun 27, 2015)

SmallTownGuy said:


> When its your job - do it your way.
> 
> Have you gone and looked at the permit - the site/engineering/special restrictions, etc?
> 
> ...


Please restrain yourself before you appear the fool to those of us that wasted our money on law school. Both gag order and restraining order are legal terms and they are far from applicable in this scenario. You see, a gag order is an order by a JUDGE, for the parties involved in a pending lawsuit to NOT speak with the public or press. Even if this were to find itself in a COURT of law, which it won't, a gag order would not be issued. There would be no point, it would be a garden variety libel case or at most a tortious interference with a contract by some contortion of the statute or case law. As far as restraining order, that would be an order by a judge for someone to NOT do a certain action, or more typically, to not approach someone within a certain distance. Usually these conditions are NOT met by anonymous posts about a nameless contractor in a nameless city. Strike that. Actually, not usually, that would be never.


----------



## 91782 (Sep 6, 2012)

Oldwagon said:


> Please restrain yourself before you appear the fool to those of us that wasted our money on law school.


Just the answer I was hoping for. From humble "semi-retired trim carpenter", to nosy neighbor, to legal beagle looking for leverage.

And people implied I was being snarky...:whistling


----------



## EricBrancard (Jun 8, 2012)

Oldwagon said:


> Usually these conditions are NOT met by anonymous posts about a nameless contractor in a nameless city.


Nameless, faceless, locationless posts/posters are always my favorite.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Oldwagon said:


> I would forsee more trouble/potential cost even at this point in keeping it versus the labor and materials of new. Three guys and one day, done.


Floor systems and the underlying structure are easy enough to check out. The biggest risk here is that the guy doesn't know how to do that, or doesn't do it.


----------



## FrankSmith (Feb 21, 2013)

You mislead us from the get go. The contract is not for 2 mil. You are projecting that to be its value upon completion. What is the cost of the project?

What if they tear the floor out and another nosy neighbor thinks they should pour a new foundation?


----------



## tgeb (Feb 9, 2006)

Where I'm located you can get hammered pretty good from going from renovation to new construction based upon how much of the existing structure is torn down.

We did a project a few years ago that was permitted to remove less than 49% of the exterior walls, and was considered a renovation. 

The GC insisted that we remove more of the exterior walls and it triggered the permit to new construction....cost was considerable for the Home Owners.... New permit, (and associated fees),increase size of water service,(more fees), install whole house sprinkler system....I'm sure a few other things went with it...


----------



## festerized (May 19, 2007)

Your project looks a lot like a project I estimated this spring. In order to avoid conforming to new zoning codes he had to leave two exterior walls and floor system 
The plan was to set the top of the new floor beams even with the existing decking, this way the new decking would carry over
Is was worried about settling over time and recommended adding a few beams to span the transition. HO is an engineer, he inspected the footings and foundation and concluded no reason for concern


----------



## Framer53 (Feb 23, 2008)

SmallTownGuy said:


> Just the answer I was hoping for. From humble "semi-retired trim carpenter", to nosy neighbor, to legal beagle looking for leverage.
> 
> And people implied I was being snarky...:whistling


I said and suspected in the second post something was up.


----------



## LI-Remodeler (Feb 3, 2015)

The owner of the property is a cheap bastard and wants a top of the line BMW for the price of a cheap Hyundai.

He knows what this project should cost but has no respect for a professional GC and the enormous amount of work (physically, technically, and mentally) to bring a project like this to 100% completion. 

Instead the cheap bastard wants to believe a landscaper with a few magnetic signs on his truck can do the same for less. 

Let this cheap bastard with his big money pay twice, get fined by the local building dept for not meeting deadlines, and have sleepiness nights while you enjoy this circus of fools from your front yard.


----------



## CompleteW&D (May 28, 2011)

SmallTownGuy said:


> And people implied I was being snarky...:whistling


No, I said *I *was the one being a bit snarky. You on the other hand.... had this one pegged from the get go....


----------



## jaydee (Mar 20, 2014)

Oldwagon said:


> Please restrain yourself before you appear the fool to those of us that wasted our money on law school. B.


*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^*

and there's our answer folks.
the alleged op has become a neighbor of interest in the case of the missing demo.

:detective::detective::detective: NEW AT 11...


----------



## kiteman (Apr 18, 2012)

Well, at least he's impartial.


----------



## Oldwagon (Jun 27, 2015)

The landscaper/builder has decided to remove the floor system. Of course, this was after his "workers" spent the morning pulling nails out of the old planks for what one would think was the preparation for plywood over the old joists. Alas, it was not meant to be! The floor would be cast out of the kingdom of incompetence and into the landfill of plenty. One wonders if the floor will ever see the long departed roof, having now been separated by three weeks. Likely the whereabouts of their timber cousins will remain a mystery and the project moves on.


----------

