Buyer Tips Archives - Page 12 of 25

What is going on with the potential County Zone and Code changes?

March 9, 2020 By Tayson Rockefeller Leave a Comment

The county is currently working through a land development code update. They have drafted an initial code, and are currently in the stages of the public review and comment for the draft code. There are some big proposed changes, but what do they mean?

Teton County’s comprehensive plan, zoning, land use and development codes can be a lot to understand. I often have to find ways to articulate information and provide data in an efficient way without being overbearing, similar to situations when I am working with a first-time home buyer. I’m going to try to explain the new proposed zoning changes in this article, saving the development and code changes for another day.

WHAT IS IT NOW?

The County (not City limits) is currently made up of two main types of zoning, A-2.5 and A-20 zones. Most of the areas South of Victor and North or East of State Highway 33 are A-2.5, and most everything else (save for a few areas along the foothills) is A-20. It’s roughly 50-50. What does that mean? It’s pretty simple. A-2.5 has a minimum density requirement of one house & guest house per 2.5 acres, and A-20 is 20 acres. There are a few other zoning categories, mostly related to industrial and commercial use.

WHAT IS PROPOSED?

Aside from the commercial zones, there are five new zoning types proposed. Keeping in mind that the number represents the minimum density requirement per residence, they are as follows: A “Rural Agriculture” 35 acre zone replaces most of what used to be the A-20. A second 35 acre “Wetland” zone is similar, presumably with stricter development guidelines due to its location within wetland areas, mostly in the watershed East of the Teton River. A “Foothill” 10-acre zone encompasses most of the surrounding foothills, which would take the place of the previous 2.5 acres zone in many areas. A rural neighborhood 20 acres zone is built around the areas East of Driggs to accommodate future development, and finally, the highest density zone is a “Rural Neighborhood” 5 acre zone that would encompass the Fox Creek area between Victor and Driggs and the Hastings Lane are between Driggs and Tetonia, both mostly limited to areas East of State Highway 33.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN? This is largely up to interpretation and debate. Unfortunately, it will likely turn into a political debate, but that’s not my purpose here. My interpretation is that it is clear that the density requirements are going to go WAY down. In other words, there will be fewer homes per acre. It will likely decrease the supply of land over time, and increase demand. In theory, this could increase property values in the distant future as existing land is absorbed. At the same token, it will make it challenging for newcomers to the area looking for affordable land. As a property owner, I see both the upside and downside. I do not own any large farm tracts so I am not affected by land development challenges. I also feel that many of our building sites are more affordable than they should be, considering the recreational market status of our community. However, that is mostly attributed to the perception of oversupply (and construction costs), which I have discussed in previous articles, and will discuss further in future ones.

Beauty (and investment) is in the eye of the beholder (or investor)

February 7, 2020 By Tayson Rockefeller Leave a Comment

We can all be easily influenced from time to time, especially when it’s someone that we trust. Our parents, our children, our closest friends, colleagues and co-workers can have an influence on how we live our lives, what we eat, drink, and, how we invest our money.

However, we must remember to rely on the professionals who represent us, or at least hear what they are saying. I trust my attorney with respect to my will, and every time I get a haircut and am asked “What are we doing today?” My response is almost always: “Whatever you think.” Some of you might think that is crazy, but it’s just who I am. We all have a higher priority for certain things in our lives, and some of us really do trust the professionals and their opinion.

I’m working a little bit against the grain with respect to my beliefs in representation and trusting professionals by stating this, but sometimes it can steer us the wrong direction – even if it’s the right choice. That doesn’t make any sense, so here’s an example.

A home is listed for sale at what appears to be a great value. It needs a lot of work, and that is apparent and properly represented. The buyer secures a real estate agent who agrees that the home is a great price despite the issues with the home. The buyer then contacts a home inspector who agrees to perform a home inspection. The home inspector doesn’t know what home values are, but that’s not the inspector’s line of work. No problem here. The inspector performs the inspection and sends a damning report with respect to some of the structural elements of the home. He advises that the buyer withdraw from the contract based on the amount of work required. To be fair, I am not familiar with any home inspectors who would provide advice like this, this is just an example.

The above stated, let’s assume that the home had a fair market value (without any structural problems and a light remodel) of $600,000. The buyer, unbeknownst to the inspector, had a contract secured in the amount of $300,000. The fictitious home inspector’s advice to withdraw from the transaction was based on structural repairs in excess of $100,000, a hefty sum indeed. However, a $300,000 purchase price and even $200,000 worth of structural and aesthetic improvements would leave over $100,000 in potential profit. You can use the same example in different scenarios. Perhaps your friend tells you that they would not advise putting down any more than $1,000 worth of earnest money on a real estate transaction – or they might advise that you offer 20% less than the asking price because that’s what they successfully offered on their home in Oklahoma. Different people have different advice, and all of it should be heard. Just make sure you are paying close attention to the professionals, family or friends with expertise in the specific markets in which you plan to invest. You might make the mistake of withdrawing or losing what might have been an excellent opportunity.

How many vacant building sites are there? (Really)

November 14, 2019 By Tayson Rockefeller Leave a Comment

I’ve been reading a number of articles lately referencing the impact all of the development in the late 2000s had on Teton Valley. Many of these articles compare today’s potential problems with those of the subdivision development era. Glampgrounds, RV parks, and certainly any further land development have been targets, often for good reason. While I agree that the amount of development that occurred in the late 2000s was extreme, I believe that the perceived impact and comparison to some of these other projects is also extreme, and in many cases exaggerated. I’ve heard numbers from 7000 to 16000 undeveloped building lots in Teton Valley which off the cuff, sounded high to me. So, I decided to investigate.

My first thought was that I would have to find a list of the available subdivisions, add up the number of lots in each, and subtract lots with improvements. This seemed like a daunting task. Fortunately, I learned that Rob Marin, the county’s extremely talented GIS coordinator had already done the heavy lifting. He based his analysis on subdivision lots, which is exactly what I would have done. After all, the purpose of the comparison and root of the problem is indeed subdivision lots. He determined (with a small margin of error) that there are 8,454 subdivision lots in the county, and that 3106 had improvements as of the date of Rob’s study, leaving 5,348 vacant subdivision lots in the county.

***Now might be a great time to read one of my past articles, With so many available building sites, why is it so hard to find what I am looking for?

Admittedly, this sounds like a lot. It is a lot. The question is, and point of my article; is the number of vacant building sites really as detrimental and overwhelming as it appears and is made to sound? Here are a few points from the devil’s advocate, speaking in generalities.

1) Some subdivisions really do, in my opinion, exist in a vacuum. What happens in or with them really doesn’t have very much impact on the rest of the real estate market. Example: Tributary, FKA Huntsman Springs. There are roughly 500 vacant building sites in Tributary. This is almost 10% of the 5,000 vacant building sites mentioned. The same goes for many other large-scale developments such as River Rim Ranch. Could it be construed that these developments are problems in and of themselves? Sure. However, if real estate prices plummeted, or skyrocketed in Tributary, I don’t feel it would have a major impact on the rest of the real estate in Teton Valley.

2) We know that roughly 65% of the available building sites are vacant, or at least have no improvements. There are approximately 300 subdivisions in Teton County. For the sake of making a point, imagine that each of them has roughly 25 lots. Each of those have 8 or 9 houses. A few of those own the neighboring lots. This isn’t the case, but it puts things in perspective.

3) Teton Valley is big. If you start breaking this down by quadrant, for example, the southeast corner of the valley (better known as Victor) doesn’t really have a problem as there are relatively few subdivisions with little to no improvements. Things are much closer to the scenario I outlined in point 2 above, if not better. Yes, I know there’s a counterpoint to every point I’ve made here. Some of the big subdivisions that are mostly vacant are considered to be the biggest part of the problem. The issue isn’t necessarily consistent across the board as mentioned in point 2, and while things are looking pretty good in Driggs and Victor, Tetonia has a huge ratio of some of these subdivisions with very few, or no homes at all. In any case, it is what it is. They are what they are, and they’ll sell when they sell. We can’t take away land from those who invested in a piece of Teton Valley just because we now recognize that things got carried away a decade ago. As a final point, throughout the course of my career, there have always been approximately 500 building sites on the market at any given time. I suspect that isn’t going to change anytime soon, so I’m not particularly worried about extreme changes with respect to value. The key takeaway is that there are a few (several) problem subdivisions out there. However, in most cases they are being farmed, waiting for their moment to become a neighborhood. I believe in responsible growth, and hope we can learn from mistakes relative to oversupply and over-development, but I hope past mistakes don’t prevent Teton Valley from growing responsibly.

Manufactured vs. Modular, What’s the Difference?

October 16, 2019 By Tayson Rockefeller Leave a Comment

With building costs continuing to rise, the popularity (or at least the idea) of prefab homes also continues to grow. As a result, I have seen an increase in interest for land that will accommodate these types of homes. However, there seems to be some confusion as to what “these types” of homes are, and what the differences are between manufactured vs modular homes. This confusion has lead some subdivision homeowners associations disallowing anything but stick-built, and has made it difficult for those interested in anything other than a stick-built home to find suitable land.

I’ll save the difficulties and challenges finding suitable land for another post, but I would like to dive into the differences between these types of homes to help shed some light on the issue. Note that some of this is subject to my own experience and opinion. Also, the terms associated with the different types of homes tends to vary by region.

Manufactured: This can be confusing because a manufactured home is prefabricated just like its modular counterpart. Manufactured homes, however, are built in compliance with FEDERAL HUD manufactured home construction and safety standards. They usually have a metal frame which serves as the floor system, as well as the frame for the transportation system. They then can be set on a permanent foundation, but don’t necessarily have to be. These types of homes have transportation size limitations. This is often where you hear the phrase “double wide”, meaning two finished portions of the house that are put together on one permanent foundation at a later date.

Modular: As defined by the State of Idaho division of building safety, a modular building is any building other than a manufactured home that is entirely or substantially prefabricated or assembled at a place other than the building site. I would personally add: Modular homes have construction standards set by local, as opposed to federal regulation. The easiest and best explanation I have seen is that modular homes cannot be moved. It is feasible that a manufactured home could be split, or picked off its foundation, moved to another foundation and placed or reassembled. (Note that when I say “cannot be moved” I have to be careful here, knowing that even stick built homes can be moved.) Sometimes modular home companies create their own category of homes such as a “phased built” or “systems built” to further differentiate and separate their product from a manufactured home. However, in my opinion, these are one in the same as modular. A modular home doesn’t have to be completed in major sections. It could be completed in wall sections and assembled on a permanent foundation. They would normally be transported on a flatbed trailer as opposed to a trailer integrated with the structure.

For further clarification; in my opinion, the following are all forms of modular homes, all of which would be subject to local building codes and inspections which would later receive a standard certificate of occupancy:

– a tiny home built in a factory or shop and delivered to a permanent foundation that conforms to local building codes and receives inspections similar to those required for stick built homes.

– a home constructed in small sections (such as individual walls) potentially with pre-installed siding, floor systems and precut materials installed on a permanent foundation.

– a “kit” home delivered in panelized sections installed permanent foundation.

RV’s: To make matters more confusing, we are beginning to see a rise in popularity of RV style tiny homes that can later be converted to permanent structures. Again, much of this is all subject to local and federal laws. A company building a custom home classified as an RV with wood siding and residential windows would need to comply with Transportation Department requirements in order to be legally transported, but this type of dwelling (RV) may have challenges in obtaining local zoning approval. For example, RVs can often only be parked in one location for storage, and if they are going to be used as a dwelling, can usually only be done so temporarily. In addition, parking an RV may require a special permit.

Idaho Division of Building Safety information for Tiny Houses, Manufactured Homes, Modular Buildings & Recreational Vehicles can be found HERE.

To be continued: Suitable land for manufactured or mobile homes and RVs.

Recent Testimonials