No Combo for Now

[kevin_standlee]

I checked into what it would take to combine the lot on which Fernley House sits with the newly-purchased adjacent lot. It turns out to be a lot more expensive than I expected: $2400 for the application fee, and it requires that the land be "reverted to acreage" and then re-divided. Besides, as the lot secures the loan we took out to purchase it, I expect that we can't — or at least shouldn't — fiddle with the boundary lines until we've paid off the loan.

Comments

[solarbird]

Oh! You bought it? Yay!

[kevin_standlee]

Yep. We closed in early October. We put in an offer in mid-August that was accepted, and we were having to work on documentation during Worldcon due to the timing. This was annoying and expensive ($3/page to scan documents!), as the linked post details, but we eventually got it done. That's why we've started (slowly) clearing brush from the west half of the lot, to get it away from the fence that separates it from our original lot and reduces the fire hazard.

Boundaries

[belak]

Likely, it would trigger a red flag for the loan, but could be worked out if the loan company were willing.

The only reason to combine the two would be to cut the separate charges for taxes and other fees. Many counties charge a separate fee per parcel for things like school district taxes, sewage fees, and garbage/recycle fees are usually per parcel, regardless whether there is a dwelling on both properties. They purposely make it difficult, because they want the income from BOTH parcels, not just one, which likely would save you some money if you managed to get it approved.

I'm not sure I understand "revered to acreage" as in respected to acreage? I can't find another reference to revered/revere than respected. Or do you have to flatten everything, THEN apply for a dwelling to be situated and built after they approve said changes? Confusing and yes, expensive!

Re: Boundaries

[a_cubed]

I think that was a typo for "reverted to acreage", i.e. you have to declassify both plots to "fallow land" then get new permits for everything currently on or intended to be place on it.

Re: Boundaries

[kevin_standlee]

Yep, it s/b "reverted" and I've fixed the typo now. Thanks.

Permitting probably wouldn't be too difficult as the entire area is classified as mixed residential/commercial, but it's not worth the effort for now, particularly given that the most ambitious thing we've seriously considered is buying a storage container and putting it on the lot. We mainly purchased it to prevent it from being developed.

Re: Boundaries

[kevin_standlee]

Likely, it would trigger a red flag for the loan, but could be worked out if the loan company were willing.

It's a private loan, not through a mortgage company or bank, and it wouldn't be difficult to agree, but I don't want to complicate things unnecessarily.

The only reason to combine the two would be to cut the separate charges for taxes and other fees.

Yes. It's not that our property taxes for the things you mention are flat fees. They are all percentages of assessed value. However, Nevada has a "homestead" exemption that reduces the assessed value on your primary residence. The East Lot, being a separate property, will get assessed at the full rate, not the reduced rate, so yes, there is money involved.

I'm not sure I understand "revered to acreage" as in respected to acreage.

Typo for "reverted," as noted above. I had not encountered the term until I started researching this. It doesn't mean having to level the entire property (including my own house!). What it means is that they temporarily remove the plat entirely, and thus for a brief time (I'm told it's probably only a few minutes while they do the record changes), all of the property (both lots) become unplatted open land, after which they change back into platted land with a revised lot designation.

[ckd]

I am not a lawyer, and definitely not a Nevada real estate law lawyer, and even more definitely not your lawyer...but it looks to me like NRS 278.4925 might allow a "merger and resubdivision" without requiring the full reversion to acreage. I have no idea how applicable that is to your situation (or if it even helps if it is applicable), but it might be worth knowing about.

[kevin_standlee]

I mentioned the same section of law to the relevant county and city officials, and they insist that the land must be reverted in order to re-plat it, although they also say it's only unplatted for a few minutes while the changes go through. I don't think I want to get into an argument with them on this subject at this time, as they are also the same people who have to approve any land improvements.

[ckd]

Yeah, that definitely seems like the sort of argument where if you lose you lose and if you win...you still lose.