Activity

Three sales, one more new listing.

25 Midwood (off Glenville Road), $1.775 million.

76 Valleywood

76 Valleywood

76 Valleywood, Cos Cob,  $1,429,350.

17 Dorchester

17 Dorchester

17 Dorchester Lane, Riverside, full price: $2.825 million. There was a time when this price for Dorchester would have astonished me; no longer.

 

 

15 Meadow Marsh Lane

15 Meadow Marsh Lane

And there’s a new listing at 15 Meadow Marsh Lane in Old Greenwich’s Shorelands development. It was built in 2000, so it should be high enough to stay in compliance with the new FEMA 13′ requirement but if not, it will be interesting to see what an inability to add on or change in any way will do to this one’s selling potential.

18 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

18 responses to “Activity

  1. Toonces

    Re 15 Meadowmarsh: It will also be interesting to see what happens to ability to obtain a mortgage/insurance. If it isn’t built to new Fema height requirements it could make it harder/more expensive to insure which might affect ability to get a mortgage.

  2. If I were seller of Meadow Marsh, I’d pay for and have on display or as part of my MLS listing, approval (hopefully) that house complies with FEMA guidelines. Otherwise, any potential buyer is going to wonder, worry, and maybe look at another house. Let’s say Meadow Marsh doesn’t pass, I might even go the extra $ mile and show quotes from contractors of price options to raise it. I’d stay ahead of the speculation and worry.

  3. Then I say they band together, ask for a group rate. Who actually comes out to evaluate? Some FEMA federal employee or can they hire Mike Finkbeiner?

  4. Toonces

    Meadowmarsh is 3400 sq feet – no basement. Price is ambitious for neighborhood that floods.

    • AJ

      According to the listing, it has a partially finished, full basement; and was renovated in 2113.

  5. Anonymous

    $1.4 for Valleywood? Pictures look nice, and final sale price might give some clues, but I don’t understand this.

    • D

      Its a nice street and all, but just under 3x assessed? Assessors should be busy next go-round.

      Nice house, but I could think of a lot better places to park $1.4 though… good job sellers.

    • Flash forward

      If Valleywood is walking distance to upcoming synogogue then this area will become more valuable.

      • InfoDiva

        It’s a reform synagogue. Walking not required; no prohibition against driving on the sabbath.

  6. jack cooper

    I am pretty sure 15 Meadow Marsh is currently in compliance with the Town and FEMA codes. Even if is not compliant begining July 8, the 50% rule should apply. This would allow a new owner to spend up to one half of the value of the structure on improvements before needing to comply with the new FEMArules

    • If not in compliance, don’t forget that Greenwich P&Z has chosen to impose the strictest standard possible for the 50% rule: unlike our neighboring coastal towns: Westport, Fairfield, etc., which are starting the clock at July, 2013, our board has decided to go all the way back to 1986 and start toting up the cost of any improvements since that date to calculate whether their combined costs amount to half/the value of the present value of the structure- not the land, just the building- any more improvements. If that total adds up to, say, 35% of the value, you’ll be limited to 15%. Dian Fox, chief staff member for the P&Z defends her interpretation of the authority given her because her stated intention is to remove every home near the shore that is not in compliance with the new elevation requirement. She has your existing home in her sights and she’s gunning for you.
      If Meadow Marsh is not in compliance with the coming (this July) standards , because it was built in 2000, I’m confident that it’s cost will preclude any more money put into it. It’s my understanding that that rules out any future renovation/improvements, including a new kitchen, replacement windows, roof, etc. whoever buys a noncompliant house- and let me emphasize that I DO NOT KNOW if Meadow Marsh is or is not in compliance; I use it only as an example of the effect of the P&Z’s rule, any buyer had better be prepared for his house to age gracefully as he does-he’s buying land value, no matter how nice the house is now.

      • jack cooper

        I am prettty sure in the case of a new house built to the current rules, the 50% clock sets to zero. No need to go back to 1986.

        • You may be right, but is a house in compliance now exempt from the new standards? I think not, but it’s all pretty confusing, at least to me. What I do know is that older homes that aren’t in compliance with current rules- and most aren’t, are screwed, especially if they’ve undergone extensive renovations/additions/improvements, ever. The Fox rule guarantees that all that money was wated.

  7. jack cooper

    It is confusing. My undersanding of the 50% rule is the clock starts running at the date when the house first becomes non complying. In the case of a new 13.5′ house, the date of non compliance is July 8th and clock starts running then.