All Forum Posts by: Steve Hungerford

I have an old (1930) house, it has Residential multifamily 6 zoning. That means every 6,000 square feet only one multifamily unit. Since the lot is 10,555 square feet there is nothing more than one unit allowed under the multifamily zoning. If I had Residential zoning because of SB-9 more could be allowed on the lot, plus a lot split. FYI the lot used to be zoned commercial when it was bought. So the county has kind of devalued things in my opinion because of zoning changes.

From the County Website:

If a multifamily or qualifying mixed-use building exists or is planned for this parcel, the following ADU's are allowed: Detached ADU's: At least one and up to two detached ADUs, 800-1200 sf dependent on FAR and lot coverage.

If a single family dwelling exists or is planned for this parcel, an ADU and JADU may be allowed, subject to approval for a non conforming use.

Even though only one unit is allowed and a single family exists it seems we can't do 2 detached ADUs like what would be allowed with a multifamily building ? I guess that would be one apartment or one condo ? 

If they scrape the house off and put a condo or whatever qualifies as multifamily, could they then put 2 detached ADUs ?

I know a detached ADU plus an JADU could be allowed now but that is not as desirable as the JADU has to be under 500 square feet and attached.

Thanks

 How would they deal with permitting, do they have a contractors license ? I thought we could do it as owner builder or someone with a contractors license needs to get permits ?

How do you feel they are making it easy ? I keep hearing this when I check at the county level their are lots of permits, reports, issues with converting, confusion, etc. Most people selling something to do with ADU's say its easy this but its far from easy from what I can tell. It should be much easier as bad as we need housing.

 Sorry but you have the information wrong. Dad is out. Also he buys another primary residence (different money) and keeps prop 19 on that but still does the 1031. 

The answer is this: you can be working on the house and it be considered an investment ( of course dad not living there). Therefore 1031 is in play. You can then sell and do the 1031. For prop 19 it just had to be your primary residence WITHIN TWO YEARS of the time of buying the REPLACEMENT PROPERTY. Nowhere does it say at the time of sale of the primary residence you were living there. Prove me wrong ? 

I don't mean sound wrong but this place has very watered down information and really needs to step up the quality of info otherwise why post here ?

You missed the point on everything. You state the obvious about it being a rental for a 1031, pretty obvious. Not trying to take 121, again you missed everything. The answer after research is yes there is a way to keep prop 19 and do a 1031. 

I have conflicting information from the county assessors office and their own published questions and answers page.

I feel the owner does NOT have to be living at the original primary residence at the time of sale. Based on section (3) below they just had to be living there at some point within 2 years of the purchase of the replacement property. The county assessor tells me otherwise, even though I point this out below. 

What are your opinions on this issue in regard to if they have to be living there or not at the time of sale of the original primary residence ?

Question: Does the home that was sold have to be the owner's primary residence at the time of the sale ?

Answer: The home from which the property owner wants to transfer the base year value must have been the owner's primary place of residence as of one of the following: (1) the date of the sale of the original primary residence, (2) the date of disaster that resulted in the substantial damage or destruction of the original primary residence, or (3) within two years of the purchase of the replacement primary residence.

 I am trying any way to avoid Capital gains taxes exceeding well over 250K. The home was bought in 1983 and for very little. A bigger and better house would be great. He also has really low property taxes to consider.

It seems we are boxed in to keeping a very old and dysfunctional house. He needs care too and the house is not ideal for that.

 The property tax savings is pretty big too, especially when factored over time and can be passed on to different generations.