The Benefits of Building a Custom Home
When it comes to choosing your next home, you may be torn between buying an existing home and working with an architect and builder in order to build a custom home. While pre-existing homes offer the ability to move in right away, they may contain hidden costs, like the need to upgrade appliances, renovate or build additions. Custom homes, by contrast, are completely move-in ready with all the features and square footage you need to make your home comfortable and functional.
1. More Home for the Money
Custom homes can offer more home for the money. When home buyers purchase preexisting homes, they often need immediate maintenance and upgrades. At a bare minimum, you’ll probably find yourself gutting the kitchen and the bathrooms and completely replacing them, which adds to the overall cost of the home. Likewise, the existing home may contain features you don’t want and exclude features you do want.
When you build a custom home, you are only paying for the square footage, features and customization you want in order to maximize the home’s flow and function.
2. Built to Your Specifications
Custom homes can be built to your specifications and your family’s needs. Most preexisting homes include one or two bathrooms and two to three bedrooms. If you have a large or growing family, own your own business or work from home, an existing home may not be able to meet your space needs. Custom homes can be built with as many bedrooms as you need, modern kitchens with all the right materials, home gyms, offices and great rooms and/or gathering rooms that are large enough to entertain friends, family members and clients or coworkers.
3. Better Energy Efficiency
Older homes are not as well insulated and do not typically contain as many green features, unless the previous homeowners have performed extensive upgrades. By contrast, custom homes can be built to your energy-efficient standards. Instead of fiberglass insulation, you can request spray foam insulation. You can request energy efficient windows, doors and roofing, and you’ll be able to choose between standard hot water heaters and tankless hot water heaters. In some instances, you may even be able to install solar panels on your new energy-efficient roof in order to further reduce your new custom home’s ecological footprint and save money on your energy bills.
4. Appliances Included
Custom homes include the appliances, and you can negotiate with the builder to include upscale or luxury appliances instead of the standard builder-grade appliances. When you purchase an existing home, if the appliances are included, they are often several years old, outdated and may not include the features you desire.
5. Better Privacy
When you decide to build a custom home, you can choose your lot and the style and orientation of your house. This gives you more privacy options than purchasing an existing home. With a custom home, you have the option of setting the home further back on the lot, orienting the home’s design and layout and customizing your landscaping in order to maximize privacy.
6. Move-in Ready
Custom-built homes are ready for you and your family. Once they are finished, you do not have to worry about making upgrades or repairs for several years, and many new, custom homes come with home warranties so that you can have increased peace of mind.
Tired. Just tired. At the August 19th Plan Commission Meeting there was more discussion and a vote on revisions to the Zoning Ordinance regarding Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS). Type in “WECS” in the search box to the right to see past posts on this subject including the definition per the Culver Zoning Ordinance. It was obvious that the Plan Commission members were whipped on this issue, as was I. This is one that I really wish they had employed an outside consultant on. I feel that they got bogged down on details as they focused on specific WECS’s rather than making general rules that could be applied to all systems. So be it.
The main concession they made to the crowd was broadening the “protected” area, i.e., no vertical WECS’s within 2,500 feet of the L1, P1, R1, R2, C1 or C2 Zoning Districts. This extends the ban well outside the annexed area of town and effectively bans them from our current Extended Territorial Authority in several directions. I understand why they did this considering the vocal minority and their influence on the Town Council, but I’m afraid that this will kill our chances of achieving an expansion of our Extended Territorial Authority. I will beat this poor dead horse one more time here with another example:
Wherever this new restriction extends past our current Extended Territorial Authority it has no effect, i.e., if our Extended Territorial Authority is only 1,500 feet from one of the “protected” zoning districts, the additional 1,000 feet has no effect because it is in land governed by the County’s Zoning Ordinance, not Culver’s. My feeling is that anything like this… things that add restrictions that currently do not affect land within the County’s jurisdiction… will make it difficult if not impossible to extend our authority to include that area. Many outside the jurisdiction will fight any attempt to extend Culver’s jurisdiction just on principle. Why give them ammunition for the battle?
What many in the audience fail to understand about the above scenario is that there are other issues that will affect them. While we tried to mimic the County’s A-1 district when we created Culver’s, there are things there that are allowed by Special Use Permit. This means that they have to come before the BZA for approval. If those requests are under Culver’s Extended Territorial Authority, they come to Culver’s BZA. If they are under the County’s jurisdiction, they go to the County. The property owners within Culver’s jurisdiction may not even be notified, let alone have local representation.
I don’t know if I will speak to this further at the public hearing. I respect the Plan Commission and their attempts to accommodate all inspite of themselves. And we’re all tired… Just tired…
Picture source: LolSnaps.Org
At the October Plan Commission meeting, the discussion on WECS’s continued. (Previously discussed here.) The Commission could not come to enough of a consensus to formulate a new Ordinance but they did take a series of votes that defined several of the issues. It would appear that proponents of banning WECS’s are achieving most of their goals. If they proceed along their current path, Culver residents would not be allowed to have a WECS that produces more than .5 kilowatts in the lake district, park district, and R1 residential district as well as within 1/4 mile of any of those districts.
I would still contend that the proponents of the ban are too focused on their distaste for the aesthetics of current wind turbine technology and fail to consider the advantages that could come from advances in the field.
Representatives from the Concerned Property Owners of Marshall County requested that Culver change their zoning ordinance regarding WECS’s and as a result, the Culver Plan Commission held a Public Hearing on an ordinance change at their August 2013 meeting. (WECS is the acronym for Wind Energy Conversion Systems and applies to any device that takes wind energy and converts it to usable forms of energy.) The initial request was for Culver to match the County’s zoning requirements which currently bans commercial WECS’s and allows residential systems with a Special Use Permit in selective zoning districts. Unfortunately audience members requested that the ordinance be tweaked to further restrict residential systems as well. At that time I spoke up and reminded the Plan Commission that they had recently created an A1 – Agricultural District with the intention of mirroring Marshall County’s A1 district. This was done to eliminate discrepancy protests to extending our Territorial Authority. The Commission agreed with my argument but still had some reservation so they decided to table the issue.
At the September Culver Plan Commission meeting the topic came up again. Russ Mason, Building Commissioner, had conversations with some farmers and had made some minor tweaks to the height restrictions for WECS’s. Audience members also spoke up and protested the allowance of WECS’s in residential areas even under the special use requirements. I again spoke up with two points:
I generally feel that upgrading electrical fixtures and devices to the newer energy-saving devices is the easiest green energy to justify. Great strides are being made in this area to the point that my average client can see savings with a short pay off time. This is often something that shows gains with a one-to-one swap of new for existing fixtures. Further gains can be achieved by designing around the new fixtures and adding energy-saving controls.
One of my supplier reps was in yesterday and shared the following analysis that he completed for one of his manufacturing clients who was considering upgrading their existing exterior wall pack lights from HID (High Intensity Discharge such as High Pressure Sodium or Metal Halide) to LED (Light Emitting Diode):
These are the wall pack security fixtures you see high on the wall around factories, warehouses or buildings with parking near their wall.
Fixture prices:
HID TWH400MTB w/lamp $218
LED TWHLED 30C 50K $450
At $0.08 energy rate, 10 hour/day, 365 days/year the energy savings is $102.79/year.
LED = In a ten year time frame you would spend $450 for the LED fixture and $305.80 for energy use.
HID = In a ten year time frame you would spend $218 for the HID fixture plus change the lamp four times and the ballast once. 2 hours labor times 4 times is 8 hours. The cost for the four lamps and the one ballast is $124.