Commisioners: A Deal?s A Deal With Stories

[Alicia Leonard]

COMMISIONERS: A DEAL?S A DEAL WITH STORIES

By DOTTY NIST
Property owners have been directed to remove stories from two western Inlet Beach homes that were built taller than 2003 approval by the Walton County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) had specified.
At the June 10 BCC meeting, vesting was considered to allow three- and four-story homes, substantially complete on Lot 2 and Lot [?]
Read full post...

 

[Smiling JOe]

With the question remaining how to deal with the two substantially-complete homes, Blackshear asked Demers whether it would be viable for a story or stories to be removed from the top of the homes. Demers said it would not, since the homes are concrete. While it could possibly be done, he said, the cost would likely equal what it would take to demolish and rebuild the homes.
LaSeur said she understood that the property is currently under foreclosure.

Now what? The homes are ICF (insulated concrete form), and taking off the top two floors will not only be costly, they would likely have to redesign and rebuild the two remaining floors. If the properties are in foreclosure, do you think the lender is going to be paying a contractor to tear down the Gulf Front homes? So the County made what I think is a good decision, but in my opinion, they stopped short, by not giving a time frame for the change to be made. Now, all they have is a ruling, but without enforcement, what good is that?

 

[TreeFrog]

Now what? The homes are ICF (insulated concrete form), and taking off the top two floors will not only be costly, they would likely have to redesign and rebuild the two remaining floors. If the properties are in foreclosure, do you think the lender is going to be paying a contractor to tear down the Gulf Front homes? So the County made what I think is a good decision, but in my opinion, they stopped short, by not giving a time frame for the change to be made. Now, all they have is a ruling, but without enforcement, what good is that?

Care to speculate if they already figured out that would be the outcome? So, they sound like good guys without having to actually stand up to the property owners? Or am I just being a conspiracy theorist again?

 

[Smiling JOe]

In this case, my best guess is that they (BCC) really wanted to drive the point home that people cannot walk over the BCC. I truly think their vote was just one step short, rather than a political move. The lender's name was never mentioned and the lender is the one who will have to take it in the shorts in more ways than one, if the County does require the work to be done.

So let's say the lender takes back the properties, (I believe there are about seven lots.) and sells the homes, which were ordered to be substantially lowered. They are sold "as-is" and the buyer doesn't request a Property Disclosure Statement. OOPS! Now the new buyers are stuck with homes that have to be partially or fully leveled. What's next, after the lawsuits against the listing agent, selling agent, seller, and Board of County Commissioners?

 

[Alicia Leonard]

In this case, my best guess is that they (BCC) really wanted to drive the point home that people cannot walk over the BCC. I truly think their vote was just one step short, rather than a political move. The lender's name was never mentioned and the lender is the one who will have to take it in the shorts in more ways than one, if the County does require the work to be done.

So let's say the lender takes back the properties, (I believe there are about seven lots.) and sells the homes, which were ordered to be substantially lowered. They are sold "as-is" and the buyer doesn't request a Property Disclosure Statement. OOPS! Now the new buyers are stuck with homes that have to be partially or fully leveled. What's next, after the lawsuits against the listing agent, selling agent, seller, and Board of County Commissioners?

I can only harbor a guess on this. After meeting with code enforcement, we discussed what happens in foreclosed properties. They should be notified that they have violated code and I would think could not sell without disclosure of such a violation. If they did, I would think they would be held responsible, not the BCC.

 

[scooterbug44]

I wish they had been more proactive on getting those extra stories removed - it takes a great deal of planning and coordination to add an extra story to a house, so it was a blatant violation!

IMO far too many developers would rather pay a fine after the fact than follow the rules, so we need to set a strict precedent.

 

[wrobert]

I can only harbor a guess on this. After meeting with code enforcement, we discussed what happens in foreclosed properties. They should be notified that they have violated code and I would think could not sell without disclosure of such a violation. If they did, I would think they would be held responsible, not the BCC.

My guess is they will end up at the code board for us to figure out what to do. From the agenda tonight, it looks like the borrow pit stuff is heading our way. Fun for all.

 

[Smiling JOe]

Lawyers will suit everyone from whom they can potentially win money, including the BCC. They wouldn't likely be found guilty in this case, but I would expect them to also be sued by the buyer.

The laws are interesting regarding disclosures, especially if someone buys this property then resells it for a quick flip. If the buyer #1 never asked, and was never told about the County's ruling to remove the floors, he or she may not be liable to buyer #2 who gets screwed. (I'm not an attorney. This is just my understanding on Disclosures of Material Value.) It is also my understanding that Sellers are not required to disclose information of material value at will. A Realtor is, however, required to do so, but many sellers would never tell their Realtor in the first place. (Surprise!). That is why a buyer should always include an addendum for Property Disclosure Statements in the contract. When I list a property, I always request a Property Disclosure Statement to be completed by the seller, so that I am made aware of things which may affect a buyer's purchase decision. I have it handy so that any interested buyers can read it for themselves in include it in their contract. In many cases, if you don't ask, you don't receive. The Courts expect that buyers will perform their own due diligence, and when they don't they aren't given as much consideration, and may lose their case.

Scooter, I bet it adds even more planning to add two additional stories to a house. It wasn't mentioned in the article, but the actual height of the top of the tallest home built by this "developer," exceeds 50ft. In essence, it is a five story home, as some of the parking level is enclosed. Only two habitable floors were permitted.

 

[Alicia Leonard]

Lawyers will suit everyone from whom they can potentially win money, including the BCC. They wouldn't likely be found guilty in this case, but I would expect them to also be sued by the buyer.

The laws are interesting regarding disclosures, especially if someone buys this property then resells it for a quick flip. If the buyer #1 never asked, and was never told about the County's ruling to remove the floors, he or she may not be liable to buyer #2 who gets screwed. (I'm not an attorney. This is just my understanding on Disclosures of Material Value.) It is also my understanding that Sellers are not required to disclose information of material value at will. A Realtor is, however, required to do so, but many sellers would never tell their Realtor in the first place. (Surprise!). That is why a buyer should always include an addendum for Property Disclosure Statements in the contract. When I list a property, I always request a Property Disclosure Statement to be completed by the seller, so that I am made aware of things which may affect a buyer's purchase decision. I have it handy so that any interested buyers can read it for themselves in include it in their contract. In many cases, if you don't ask, you don't receive. The Courts expect that buyers will perform their own due diligence, and when they don't they aren't given as much consideration, and may lose their case.

Scooter, I bet it adds even more planning to add two additional stories to a house. It wasn't mentioned in the article, but the actual height of the top of the tallest home built by this "developer," exceeds 50ft. In essence, it is a five story home, as some of the parking level is enclosed. Only two habitable floors were permitted.

Thanks, SJ. I would have thought that if such a violation occurred, then a agent would have to disclose it due to the amt of money it would cost to fix. I guess common sense and law are strange and distant bedfellows;-)

 

[wrobert]

Thanks, SJ. I would have thought that if such a violation occurred, then a agent would have to disclose it due to the amt of money it would cost to fix. I guess common sense and law are strange and distant bedfellows;-)

I thought code violations were statutorily required to be disclosed even if no information was requested. Plus if an order is issued it would be recorded and a title search should find it. At least this is the way I thought the system worked.