Generally speaking...what is Circle C hoa like? (house, landscaping)

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by jobert

Most are zoned SF-2 (Single Family residence), meaning that they are buildable lots. Some of those buildable lots (such as the ones on LaCrosse) have the community's landscaping attached to them, meaning the new owner could poach the community's landscaping and put it on their own lot or another lot somewhere across town. Bad situation to be in.

I have been looking at them closer and I have not seen one yet that was a buildable lot. You might be able to build a playscape or mailbox on them, or landscape them, but none would meet the City requirements to get a permit to build a residence.

They are not buildable for residential purposes when they are designated in the approved subdivision plan as greenbelt, sidewalk landscape areas, drainage easements & water quality easements, etc. Normally these are deeded to the City during part of the subdivision process. It appears someone dropped the ball here and did not complete the process.

To get back on topic, this should be a concern for the Circle C Homeowners Association for this area. I would expect them to be on top of this issue.

[jobert]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I have been looking at them closer and I have not seen one yet that was a buildable lot. You might be able to build a playscape or mailbox on them, or landscape them, but none would meet the City requirements to get a permit to build a residence.

They are not buildable for residential purposes when they are designated in the approved subdivision plan as greenbelt, sidewalk landscape areas, drainage easements & water quality easements, etc. Normally these are deeded to the City during part of the subdivision process. It appears someone dropped the ball here and did not complete the process.

To get back on topic, this should be a concern for the Circle C Homeowners Association for this area. I would expect them to be on top of this issue.

Some of these lots are over an acre, though.

Perhaps an enterprising individual could purchase one or more of the greenbelts and sell it to the adjacent dozen+ homeowners as 20 ft deep extensions of their backyards. I'd be willing to pay for that, especially if the bid for the entire parcel starts at around $691. Sidenote: they aren't actual "greenbelts", meaning there is no flood plain, irrigation drainage, or creek of any sort running through them to prevent building.

Any way you cut it, it still looks bad that outsiders are allowed in to a guarded community like that. It's messy.

[eribear]

My husband and I just bought a house in Circle C (Vintage Place) and are recent transplants to Austin as well. We love Austin and Circle C so far. It doesn't seem as though the HOA is overly restrictive or anything-- lots of people have cars on their driveways or in the street, and (gasp!) movable basketball hoops!

From what I've gathered, the HOA is reasonable as long as you are reasonable. Be a good neighbor, pay your HOA dues and you wont have problems.

IMHO, compared to more central neighborhoods, you get so much more for your money, good schools, and no neighbors with their cars on blocks. Its not a long drive to downtown and fun SoCo/SoLa neighborhoods, especially compared to Round Rock or Cedar Park. I never expected we would end up in such a "suburban" ultra-child friendly neighborhood, but the relative proximity, decent price for a really cute house won me over.

Also, when we got our apraisal done last month, there were 0 foreclosures for the whole neighborhood. Obviously whatever these ones are are not "real" foreclosures. There are also very few short sales, which is another good sign for the neighborhood.

hope that helps!

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by CptnRn
I have been looking at them closer and I have not seen one yet that was a buildable lot. You might be able to build a playscape or mailbox on them, or landscape them, but none would meet the City requirements to get a permit to build a residence.

They are not buildable for residential purposes when they are designated in the approved subdivision plan as greenbelt, sidewalk landscape areas, drainage easements & water quality easements, etc. Normally these are deeded to the City during part of the subdivision process. It appears someone dropped the ball here and did not complete the process.

To get back on topic, this should be a concern for the Circle C Homeowners Association for this area. I would expect them to be on top of this issue.

Originally Posted by jobert

Some of these lots are over an acre, though.

Perhaps an enterprising individual could purchase one or more of the greenbelts and sell it to the adjacent dozen+ homeowners as 20 ft deep extensions of their backyards. I'd be willing to pay for that, especially if the bid for the entire parcel starts at around $691. Sidenote: they aren't actual "greenbelts", meaning there is no flood plain, irrigation drainage, or creek of any sort running through them to prevent building.

Any way you cut it, it still looks bad that outsiders are allowed in to a guarded community like that. It's messy.

Some of these lots may be large acerage, but they are only 3' wide strips of greenbelt.

I'm pretty sure you are mistaken jobert, on all counts. When it is already designated as green belt or drainage easement, etc., it can't be used for anything else, regardless of who owns. They are "actually" greenbelts if they are designated as such on approved subdivision plat. All an individual home owner would accomplish by buying a piece of it would be to increase their property tax obligation. Most of these yards around the greenbelts do drain towards them, creek or not, the allowed use of this land is already prescribed and you cannot easily change it.

If you go ahead and buy any of this property, all you will accomplish is a tax and liability obligation. You won't actually be able to do anything with it.

Trust me if the savvy land developers who already own it can't figure out a way to make dime off of it, you won't be able to either.

[jobert]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Some of these lots may be large acerage, but they are only 3' wide strips of greenbelt.

I'm pretty sure you are mistaken jobert, on all counts. When it is already designated as green belt or drainage easement, etc., it can't be used for anything else, regardless of who owns. They are "actually" greenbelts if they are designated as such on approved subdivision plat. All an individual home owner would accomplish by buying a piece of it would be to increase their property tax obligation. Most of these yards around the greenbelts do drain towards them, creek or not, the allowed use of this land is already prescribed and you cannot easily change it.

If you go ahead and buy any of this property, all you will accomplish is a tax and liability obligation. You won't actually be able to do anything with it.

Trust me if the savvy land developers who already own it can't figure out a way to make dime off of it, you won't be able to either.

They've already made money off of it from the lot premiums to the adjacent homeowners which would be protected under a contract, you're right. What happens to that contract if the developer let's the property fall into foreclosure? If bought for a price like that, it could mean a $15 annual tax bill, and some private fenced off camp ground for someone - It wouldn't be worth the trouble, but could be a headache if someone decides to buys it for some reason.

That sums up my limited experience with the HOA.

[centralaustinite]

it probably should have been deeded over the HOA at some point. This type of greenbelt/easement is why HOAs exist, to own and maintain such property that benefits (at least indirectly) all the surrounding homeowners. The HOA should pay the property tax and maintain it. I can't believe that the original subdivision agreement would allow anyone BUT the HOA to purchase it.

If I lived nearby, I'd call the HOA president, there's something strange going on.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

Trust me if the savvy land developers who already own it can't figure out a way to make dime off of it, you won't be able to either.

That is not necessarily true. I looked at a lot that was around 200K in a great location on lake austin around 1/3 of an acre (or something reasonably large). I asked my agent about it and he said the reason why it was so cheap was because it was zoned for a boat dock only. So I passed on it. Around 6 months later I found out a guy bought it, went to the city council and had it rezoned and built a house.

Don't assume the developers know everything. When you look at the way they platted the lots in our neighborhood, they did a poor job. They could have had a few more greenbelt backing lots if they had just changed the orientation a bit.

[austin-steve]

I'm pretty sure you are mistaken jobert, on all counts.

You are correct. These are not normal building lots. They have no value to anyone wanting to build a home.

To the OP, CC HOA is well run and reasonable. There would be no reason I know of to avoid it other than a general aversion to HOAs, which is another topic.

Steve

[jobert]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

If I lived nearby, I'd call the HOA president, there's something strange going on.

If you mean "strange" as in tax dodging and gambling with the property owners' amenities, then yes, it's strange.

It sounds unethical, "generally speaking".

[centralaustinite]

Originally Posted by jobert

If you mean "strange" as in tax dodging and gambling with the property owners' amenities, then yes, it's strange.

It sounds unethical, "generally speaking".

Well, it is strange in that I think that these lots should have been better handled in the subdivision agreement, there must be some contractual irregularities somewhere, usually greenbelt-easements-floodplain type of lots are created to eventually transfer from the developer to the HOA who then pays property tax on the lots (low because they are unbuildable) and maintain them (cut the grass, pick up litter). It is very odd that these lots are "out there" apparently on the market and now foreclosed. Hard to say if it was deliberate or just exceedingly sloppy.

Odd.