# Removing illegally built second floor home addition



## festerized (May 19, 2007)

I have been working out and fine tuning the scope of work on this odd project.
Customer purchased this home from bank as is butt can’t live here until illegally built second floor has been removed.
The previous owner had hired a contractor to build a second floor addition to their summer home, come to find out the contractor had no license, no insurance and no permit. How the house was lost to the bank is not clear. Now 5 years latter it’s time to repair the damages.


----------



## WildWill (Jun 6, 2008)

Are you going to be re-building the second floor?

Do you have to remove the entire second floor? As in, is it all new.

When removing the second floor do you take it all off or just down to where it can be properly inspected?

How long ago was the second floor put on?


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

Oy. Building an addition is one thing, but removing one would be a bit of a brain twist. :laughing:


----------



## dave_dj1 (Mar 16, 2010)

get a big blue tarp, and start rippin'!


----------



## JustaFramer (Jan 21, 2005)

Can't strip that think to the frame to get inspected and permitted?


----------



## Aaron Berk (Jul 10, 2010)

Tinstaafl said:


> Oy. Building an addition is one thing, but removing one would be a bit of a brain twist. :laughing:


Demolition rocks :thumbup: let me at it :laughing:

Can you rent a circus tent to put over the whole thing while you work?


----------



## thom (Nov 3, 2006)

The jurisdiction may be doing the owner a favor by requiring this, that house is But-Ugly. Removing the top and saving the bottom is probably not worth the cost. Think about demo-ing the entire building and building new. Walls don't cost much to build, you would need a new roof structure and new siding anyway, probably will need to work in modifying existing utilities. Cost wise and value wise it might make sense to start over on that one.


----------



## festerized (May 19, 2007)

This will be an easy fix, they existing flat roof is still there


----------



## festerized (May 19, 2007)

thom said:


> The jurisdiction may be doing the owner a favor by requiring this, that house is But-Ugly. Removing the top and saving the bottom is probably not worth the cost. Think about demo-ing the entire building and building new. Walls don't cost much to build, you would need a new roof structure and new siding anyway, probably will need to work in modifying existing utilities. Cost wise and value wise it might make sense to start over on that one.


The building department wants the entire house torn down, it’s impartive that construction cost do not exceed 50% of the total value of the home.


----------



## Sir Mixalot (Jan 6, 2008)

Button clicked! This is going to be good.









-Paul


----------



## thom (Nov 3, 2006)

festerized said:


> The building department wants the entire house torn down, it’s impartive that construction cost do not exceed 50% of the total value of the home.


What's left after tearing off the top, not much. The siding will need to be re-done anyway. The doors are at grade which seems to indicate general problem with the first floor also. 

The building department is correct, start over. In the long run, your customer will probably be money ahead.


----------



## Aaron Berk (Jul 10, 2010)

festerized said:


> This will be an easy fix, they existing flat roof is still there


:blink: say it isn't so?

And what is the access to the second floor like? A ladder up the side of the house:thumbsup: :laughing:


----------



## festerized (May 19, 2007)

Aaron Berk said:


> :blink: say it isn't so?
> 
> And what is the access to the second floor like? A ladder up the side of the house:thumbsup: :laughing:


There's an attic access already cut in with stairs


----------



## Tinstaafl (Jan 6, 2008)

Aaron Berk said:


> Demolition rocks :thumbup: let me at it :laughing:


_Thoughtless_ demolition rocks. Figuring out how to demo while leaving something worth finishing, AND the price to do it, not so much. :laughing:


----------



## Big Shoe (Jun 16, 2008)

Hurry up..........Winters comming! :jester:


----------



## Snobnd (Jul 1, 2008)

I am about to work on just that kind of problem you are running into, I will let you guys know how mine will work out, keep us informed as to what you run into while doing demo, I think a match would be faster......:whistling


----------



## txgencon (Jan 4, 2011)

festerized said:


> The building department wants the entire house torn down, it’s impartive that construction cost do not exceed 50% of the total value of the home.


I was scratching my head until I figured out you meant "imperative".


----------



## festerized (May 19, 2007)

txgencon said:


> I was scratching my head until I figured out you meant "imperative".


I did this entire thread from my phone. Lol.


----------



## txgencon (Jan 4, 2011)

festerized said:


> I did this entire thread from my phone. Lol.


I'd tell you how my phone "interpreted" a text message I tried to send to my wife one time but it isn't suitable for this forum. I was in the dog house for a week.


----------



## festerized (May 19, 2007)

thom said:


> The doors are at grade which seems to indicate general problem with the first floor also.



The house has no foundation, 4” of good old 40 year concrete, even still house is still standing with no signs of setteling


----------



## TimNJ (Sep 7, 2005)

festerized said:


> The building department wants the entire house torn down, it’s impartive that construction cost do not exceed 50% of the total value of the home.


Have the customer get an econo modular dropped in there.
You supply foundation and GC expertise.
Quick in and out.


----------



## moorewarner (May 29, 2009)

Sir Mixalot said:


> Button clicked! This is going to be good.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What does that little button *do* exactly?


----------



## Cole (Aug 27, 2004)




----------



## ohiohomedoctor (Dec 26, 2010)

That thing needs a fire......


----------



## Beanfacekilla (May 19, 2011)

That is what happens over the years...

The longer a house stands, the more contaminated it gets. Everyone and their brother does work on houses, but they don't know what they are doing.

Rip it down, and build new. Just my $0.02


----------



## festerized (May 19, 2007)

Just after I finished framing the roof we got hit with Super storm/Hurricane sandy I got crazy busy doing storm repair so I never got a chance to update. Drove by this past summer, roof is on, no siding. Sandy wiped out the interior causing more damage which I assume causes a problem with the 50% rule. Just to recap, township said we could remove existing second floor and build new roof provided cost do not exceed 50% of the value of the home


----------



## festerized (May 19, 2007)

Few more pics


----------



## Alldayrj (Oct 9, 2014)

Wow so the homeowners just abandoned it?


----------



## Lugnut1968 (Dec 11, 2014)

Hmmm... 2011-2015? I hope ya got paid by the hour 


hehe, seriously though, great job. Taking it from an eyesore to a nice looking place.

*edit*

Also, with the additional damage done by Sandy surely they would waive the 50% rule.... right??


----------



## festerized (May 19, 2007)

Don’t think he walked away, just has an insurance claim headache, home has suffered damage from a previous hurricane, the work I completed and now sandy damage. Not sure if the HO purchased the home before or after the first storm.


----------



## TimNJ (Sep 7, 2005)

I thought they were requiring the buildings be lifted that close to the water.

How did they get away without doing that?


----------



## festerized (May 19, 2007)

Good question, guess that would depend on which direction the claim goes. House is on a slab so it could get expensive to lift


----------



## rocket1420 (Feb 1, 2015)

Wait, the house suffered interior damage to the first floor? Seems like it would've been wayyy cheaper just to start over. What was left after the storm damage?


----------

