TWO OF THE HOMES ARE LEGAL
| Special Reminder: Today is California’s Primary Election. If you haven’t already voted please refer to the Official Burbed Ballot Guide! |
Let’s spend another day seeing what kind of house you can get if you’re willing to drive a little, save a lot. Thanks very much to Burbed reader Tracy Tea House for this magnificent Morgan Hill megaproject!
545 LIVE OAK Ave
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
$899,950
BEDS: 2
BATHS: 2
SQ. FT.: 2,006
$/SQ. FT.: $449
LOT SIZE: 3.28 Acres
PROPERTY TYPE: Detached Single Family
STYLE: Country English
STORIES: 1
VIEW: Mountains
YEAR BUILT: 1946
COMMUNITY: Morgan Hill/Gilroy/San Martin
COUNTY: Santa Clara
MLS#: 81206317SOURCE: MLSListings
STATUS: Active
ON REDFIN: 107 daysTHIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN COYOITE VALLEY. THE LOT SIZE IS 3.28 ACRES. THERE ARE FIVE HOMES ON THE PROPERTY. TWO OF THE HOMES ARE LEGAL, THE OTHER THREE ARE LEGAL NON-COMFORMING. ALL OF THE HOMES HAVE SOME UPGRADES. OWNER LIVES IN THE FRONT HOME. TOTAL RENT COLLECTED ON THE OTHER FOUR HOMES IS $5,200.TWO OF THE HOMES ARE RENTED TO FAMILY MEMBERS AT BELOW MARKET RENTAL RATE.
What an opportunity! There shouldn’t be any downside in buying five houses with permit issues and tenants related to the seller who expect subsidized rent forever!
“Bunus”: Large vehicle collection; negotiate possession.
June 5th, 2012 at 6:41 am
When I pull my trailer up to the bull pen, is it one of the legal houses, or one of the legal non conforming houses?
I found a description written by one of the relatives on the property.
http://writers-voice.com/FGHIJ/J/Jo_Ann_Mann_living_in_a_trailer_house.htm
June 5th, 2012 at 9:22 am
How is a house legal but non-conforming?
June 5th, 2012 at 9:24 am
Goog is my friend:
What is a Legal Nonconforming Use?
A “legal nonconforming use” is a use of land or structure which was legally established according to the applicable zoning and building laws of the time, but which does not meet current zoning and building regulations. A use or structure can become “legal nonconforming” due to rezoning, annexation, or revisions to the Zoning Code.
Must a Legal Nonconforming Use be abandoned or altered to meet current zoning and building regulations?
No, as long as the use is continuously operated and it is not discontinued or abandoned for more than a six month period. However, if a legal nonconforming use is discontinued for more than six (6) months but less than eighteen (18) months, the nonconforming use may be reinstated with the issuance of a Special Use Permit. A legal nonconforming use that is discontinued or abandoned for more than eighteen (18) months loses its “legal nonconforming status.”
June 5th, 2012 at 10:28 am
Tracy, that is quite a story about life in a trailer home. I have a feeling it’s even more exciting to live in a trailer shoved up against 200 other trailer homes, though.
Here is her husband’s version of trailer life, since she didn’t seem fit to bother linking to it.
Here’s a taste of hubby’s tale to whet your appetite.
June 5th, 2012 at 10:54 am
Maybe “Owner” should chime in with his version of life in a trailer park. That is, if he hasn’t succeeded in drinking heavily enough to forget about us completely.
June 5th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
That makes the other houses barely legal?
Now think of all the new traffic this website will get when Google shows it in the list of “barely legal” searches! You’re welcome.
June 5th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
OMG Madhouse, That is an hilarious account of his life in the trailer. “Well, that wouldn’t be so bad except that this is a dry county and the nearest beer store is forty miles away”
Well you can grow your own out back of the lot.
June 5th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Most of the problems I’ve seen with mobile homes is context. If they were installed properly, without being jammed in a tiny neighborhood with poor amenities and absentee landlords who let pests run wild it these stories wouldn’t happen.
But they do, and so they do, and so bad things are associated with them. Any home would have the bad things happen to them if put in the situation most mobile homes are. And in fact, they do…
June 5th, 2012 at 2:32 pm
“Most of the problems I’ve seen with mobile homes is context.”
Some things just go hand in hand. I’m sure a 1973 Airstream Excella would be lovely in the middle of a 1-acre lot in Atherton though.
June 5th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
At least an Atherton resident probably wouldn’t be setting fires.
June 5th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Going to add the “mobile home” tag to this thread. Heh heh heh.
June 5th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
Maybe not in Atherton, but they are setting them in Redwood City;
http://redwoodcity.patch.com/articles/teen-pleads-not-guilty-to-lighting-ex-boyfriend-s-bed-on-fire
Men, when she needs to talk, you need to wake up or this trailers going down in flames.
June 5th, 2012 at 6:41 pm
A land yacht would be tougher to maintain than a mobile home because of all the customer fittings and travel-based amenities, but sure, if you want to live in less than 300 sqft, I’m fairly certain it will perform better than a stick-built house at that size.
http://www.airstream.com/files/library/09fc4ca3f4b1652c.pdf
I’m fascinated that airstream has a library of every model ever sold.
Anyhow, context is key – packed in like sardines you’ll get mice in single family homes, no matter how expensive they were to build.
June 5th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
customer? Custom fittings. Sheesh.
June 5th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
In addition to the election, today is a Transit of Venus. You can watch it live from the Mauna Loa observatory courtesy of the Exploratorium. Here’s a photo.
June 5th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
You can even see how popular Airstream must be in Palo Alto with this video.
June 5th, 2012 at 9:59 pm
Home owners are from Mars. Home renters are from Venus. One is logical. The other is not.
June 6th, 2012 at 12:23 am
All I can say is I always wondered why I get stuck behind slow-moving Porsche Cayenne SUVs, I guess they’re used to their towing (minus any towing package).
June 6th, 2012 at 8:05 am
This is just down the street from where Sierra LaMar disappeared.
June 6th, 2012 at 11:46 am
It’s interesting how the satellite photo doesn’t seem to match up in any significant way with the photos of the property., or at least it’s really unclear where the boundary lines are. Looking at Zillow I think the giant car collection may not actually be the property in question… it’s probably actually the L-shaped plot that wraps around it. Otherwise that shot of the grassy field is one heck of a photoshop job.
Those “subsidized renters” are a permanent deal-breaker for anyone remotely interested in this place, at least if they have even a tiny fraction of a brain in their heads. I know someone who was unable to move into a Bay Area house owned by their aunt because said aunt eventually gave up trying to convince their intransigent long-term renter to leave quietly. Who in their right mind would buy their way into that problem?
This nearby property has its own share of Comedy Gold:
http://www.redfin.com/CA/Morgan-Hill/38-Nichols-Ave-95037/home/1585333
Dig that picture of the flagpole viewed through the “security fence”, and almost the entire one acre is paved over. For the asking price of 1.2 million it’s a steal if your lifelong dream is to live out your very own “Hogan’s Heros”-esque prison camp fantasy!