The benchmark in this sample set: target lake, the right road, clean water, and a legal path to the fourth bedroom.

Sample brief. Every address, figure and finding below is invented. It exists to show the shape of a real brief and the moves the method makes — not to describe any actual property.

14 Harrow Point Rd, Marlow · MLS SAMPLE-001 · listing (fictional)

Three findings move the decision more than anything in the listing copy.

• The dock is grandfathered, not permitted. The current structure predates the 2011 shoreline ordinance and is legal only while it stands. Rebuild it — or let storm damage take it — and the replacement falls under the current 60 ft projection limit, which would cost roughly 14 ft of the existing reach. Confirm with the town before assuming the dock you see is the dock you keep.
• The fourth bedroom the listing implies may not be buildable at all. The walkout has the volume and the egress window, but the septic is rated for three bedrooms — and on a waterfront lot, enlarging the leach field to carry a fourth is a siting question, not a cheque you can write. Treat it as the gate: an expansion runs $18–34K if a conforming field can be sited, and the honest answer might be that it cannot.
• It is priced at the top of its own comp bucket. $985K against four true-lakefront sales on this shore between $402 and $478 per sq ft. At 2,180 sq ft the ask is $452 — defensible, not cheap, and there is no distress here to trade on: 59 days on market, no cut, one owner since 2009.

The headline read: this is the benchmark property in the sample set and the model puts it first. Target lake, the road archetype the profile describes, clean water, and a legal path to the program. What you are paying for is the absence of problems rather than any single spectacular feature, which is a defensible thing to buy and a hard thing to negotiate against. As-is $940K–$1.01M. An opening at $935K is arguable; below $900K is not.

The $9,240 tax line is the seller’s, not yours. It sits on an assessment near $520K — well under today’s value — and the town reassesses on sale. At a negotiated $950K the assessment resets toward market, and at the current rate near $17.8 per $1,000 the bill lands around $16,500: about $7,200 a year more than the listing shows, roughly $600 a month. Budget the reassessed number, because it is the one you pay from year one. Confirm the town’s reassessment trigger and its equalization rate before you rely on the figure — the mechanism varies, the direction does not.

Frontage conveys in fee to the waterline — the parcel encompasses the mean high water mark, so dock and mooring rights sit with the owner rather than with an association. This is the benchmark case and it is worth stating plainly, because the two comps that look cheaper on paper do not have it.

No road crossing. The lawn runs from the house to the water. Harrow Point Road ends at the property; there is no through traffic and no crossing to reach the shore — the configuration the profile asks for and the one the model scores highest.

• Confirm: a utility easement along the north boundary appears on the tax map but not in the listing. Get the survey and establish its width and whether it is exercisable.
• Confirm: the shared driveway serving the two uphill lots. Maintenance appears informal; ask for the recorded agreement, or establish that there is not one.

The 2019 renovation covered kitchen, baths, windows and mechanicals. What it did not cover is the envelope: roof is original 1978 architectural shingle at the end of its service life, and the crawlspace has no vapour barrier.

Three disclosure items are marked Unknown — always the most informative part of a disclosure, because they are what the seller declines to warrant:

• Prior water intrusion in the lower level — Unknown. With a lakeside crawlspace and no vapour barrier, treat this as a yes until an inspection says otherwise.
• Age and capacity of the septic leach field — Unknown, and the most material blank on the form. A lakeside field carries two questions money does not always answer: whether the existing three-bedroom system still meets its rated capacity, and whether a larger one could be sited if you needed it — see §3.
• Underground fuel storage — Unknown. A 1978 lake house may well have a buried oil tank. Line up a tank sweep; abandonment costs $2–4K, remediation vastly more.

Lakeshore Residential. One single-family dwelling plus one accessory dwelling unit is permitted, and the acre is comfortably over the minimum. Short-term rental requires an annual permit, issued administratively below 12 occupants.

The binding constraint is not zoning — it is the septic, and it may be a harder one than the listing lets on. Occupancy and bedroom count are sized by the system, so the fourth bedroom and any STR occupancy above six people depend on the same field. Price them as one decision — and establish, before you offer, whether that decision is even available.

The terrain is the reason to doubt it. A conforming absorption field needs a fixed setback from the lake, clearance from the well and the property lines, and enough unsaturated soil above the seasonal high water table — and on a modest waterfront lot those can overlap until no compliant location is left, gentle grade or not. The counter-evidence is honest: the direct neighbour at 9 Harrow Point sold as a 4/3, so a four-bedroom field exists on this street. But that is that lot; siting is parcel-specific, and this one gives up area to a well and 112 ft of shoreline. Make it a contingency satisfied by a licensed designer’s written opinion that a conforming four-bedroom field is sitable — not by an inspection of the tank that is already there. If the answer is no, the fourth bedroom is off the table and this is a three-bedroom at $985K.

The dock line is a range that starts at zero and that is the honest way to carry it — it is a coin-flip on a fact you can establish before closing, not a cost you can average.

The dominant driver on this lake is owned frontage versus deeded or across-road access. The buckets are kept apart because mixing them makes the $/sq ft meaningless.

The spread is the finding: owned frontage clears $402–$477 per sq ft here; access-only clears $281–$290. That is roughly a 35% discount for not owning the waterline, and it is why the frontage question is asked before the house is even looked at.

As-is value: $940,000 – $1,010,000. The direct neighbour at $477 sets the ceiling and is a newer four-bedroom; the subject should not exceed it.

This is the lake’s water — what you swim in and look at, not the tap; drinking water here is the drilled well, tested separately (see the checklist). It is scored apart from access because the two are independent: a clean lake you cannot reach and a reachable lake that is fouling are different problems. Summer clarity has run 6.2–6.8 m over the last five seasons, phosphorus is low, and there is no bloom advisory on record for this basin. Near-shore weed is light and the lake association funds a harvesting programme.

Direction of travel matters as much as the level. Clarity has been stable, not declining — which is a different fifteen-year proposition from a lake that reads well today and is trending the wrong way.

Winter access confirmed — Harrow Point Road is town-maintained and plowed to the end, which the two uphill comps cannot claim. Verified with the highway superintendent; the shared driveway beyond is the owners' responsibility.

What pushes down: the roof is due, the crawlspace is unfinished, three disclosure Unknowns sit on the same lower level, and the fourth bedroom the listing implies may not be sitable at all.

What supports the price: owned frontage with no crossing, a stable clear lake, a town-plowed road, and a 2019 renovation that already spent the money on the expensive interior systems.

What you do not have: leverage. 59 days is unremarkable here, there has been no cut, and one owner since 2009 means no distress and no reset counter to point at. This is a property to buy well rather than to buy cheaply — and saying so is more useful than manufacturing an argument the seller will not recognise.

Suggested position: open $935,000, justified on the roof, the crawlspace and the septic capacity — three quotable items, not an opinion about value. Tie the final number to the inspection so each becomes a credit. Contingencies: survey and the north easement, a licensed designer’s written opinion that a conforming four-bedroom field is sitable, a written determination on the dock’s grandfathered status, a tank sweep, and a bindable insurance quote.

• Survey — the north utility easement, its width and whether it is exercisable
• Recorded maintenance agreement for the shared driveway, or confirmation there is none
• Written determination on the dock's grandfathered status and what a rebuild would be limited to
• Septic — a licensed designer’s written opinion that a conforming four-bedroom field is sitable within the lake setback, not just an inspection of the existing tank
• Underground tank sweep
• Well water test — bacteria, nitrates and hardness on the drilled well; this is your drinking water, and it is separate from the lake
• Roof age and any remaining transferable warranty
• Bindable homeowner's insurance quote before removing contingencies
• Agent CMA with the MLS waterfront and frontage-feet fields — it supersedes the comp table above

Planning research only — not an appraisal, a title opinion, or legal or financial advice. Every item marked confirm needs verifying before you rely on it.

Everything the brief asks for except the setting — and the setting is the half that cannot be renovated.

The clearest illustration of why access and water quality are scored apart: perfect entry into the worst water in the set.

Ruled out by law rather than by money — the one failure mode a bigger cheque cannot fix.