All Forum Posts by: Mark Beekman

A

 There has been -- for six months.

@Mike Wood - My thought, knowing nothing of engineering or building practices, was that his number was unreasonably high.

I talked with the excavator that would be doing the site work and, after a disclaimer that he's not a geological engineer, said he'd use 40 foot piles at $800/piece and that a beam foundation would be an option. I would think that's a far cry from $100k.

And, yes, this would be new construction.

@Mike Wood - The geo-engineering report given to me by the Township had two suggested options to salvage the house formerly on the property:

1. Remove and replace all fill, or

2. Concrete caissons pocketed into the bedrock (which was cost prohibitive for the former house)

I received an email from an engineer today, as a matter of fact, that said the following:

"Mark – The Geotech study you attached lists two methods of stabilizing the site with the pile option seeming to be the easiest.

The problem I see is that that stabilization option, most likely costing a minimum of $100,000 ++ – and that’s a quick guess not knowing all the particulars, would not be able to be recouped by the sale price of a new house on the lot. Deep piles, grade beams, and a structural basement slab and walls would be some of the improvements needed to make this work."

I called him to discuss and he basically said building is doable, but wouldn't be worth my while.

Any thoughts?

@Jeffrey H. - I had looked into the zoning regs for RVs since I was thinking of a tiny house on wheels. Not permitted, unfortunately, but I like the way you think.

@Mike Reynolds Very long story short, I own the property. Despite due diligence, the issues were discovered after the purchase.

Thanks for that info, @Mike Reynolds!

@Stone Teran - This is why I've been thinking about a mobile home for the site. I don't like loose ends -- especially expensive ones!

Thanks, @Account Closed.

There are no settling issues with neighboring houses that I'm aware of. I was told by a neighbor that the area was mined for iron ore (or at least "test pits" were dug to look for iron ore).

It's the low bearing capacity of the soil below the fill that has me spooked. 

I'm looking to build a single family home (or put up a mobile home) on a flat .34 acre residential lot in PA.

Some background:

There used to be a house on the lot, built in the 1960s, that suffered settling issues due to being built on uncompacted fill. The house, and the other houses in the neighborhood, were apparently built on an old mining site from 100 years ago. There are neighboring houses on all sides of the property in question, with one next door being built in the 1990s. All neighboring houses are within 25 feet of the subject property lines.

The Township had done a geological engineering report a few years back. From the report:

"Borings and samplings taken clearly and consistently encountered construction debris, organics, cinder, grass, brick, wood, etc. to depths of 30-35 feet. Soils below the uncontrolled fill were moisture sensitive, highly compressive soils down to refusal at depths of 45-67 feet. Five borings were taken; one at each corner of the ranch structure and one was taken in the rear yard...

...The site has very extensive fill to depths of 30-35 feet. Based on IBC Section 1804, there is no presumptive load bearing value of this uncontrolled/unprepared fill material (which also contains construction debris, organics, cinders, grass, brick, wood, etc.). The bearing capacity below this fill is only 1000 PSF down to refusal at 45-67 feet."

I realize that there may not be any geological engineers here, but I figure that some of you may be familiar enough to give me a ballpark of whether building is worth exploring or not.

Thanks, @Joshua D. Voted up.

I changed the orientation of the pic, but it may take a few minutes to show up.