Comp Feature Extractor

Feature-Detection Safety Net ยท Sales Comparison Approach
Detection aid only. This tool reports what appears in the MLS data, remarks, and photos. It cannot confirm a feature is absent โ€” a shop can sit off-frame. The appraiser owns the final call.

18 Turnberry Dr ๐Ÿ“„ Workfile PDF

API usage this job: ~$2.67
This page expires Oct 05, 2026 โ€” download the workfile PDF for the permanent record.
โš  Subject photos extracted at low resolution (median 532px wide) โ€” quality/condition impressions may be less reliable. A higher-resolution photo-pages export would improve them.
โœ๏ธ Revised with appraiser commentary Sep 21, 2026 09:24 โ€” subject re-analyzed with new inspection photos. Revise again
Cards Side-by-side Commentary ReviseManage comps

Relative Quality & Condition ADVISORY (beta) โ€” appraiser assigns ratings

Condition

12 Boxwood Cove presents as the best-maintained of the set (C2-to-C3), reflecting new LVP flooring, fresh paint, and an updated primary suite bath, though this call is tempered by MEDIUM confidence given a secondary bath that was not brought up to the same standard and a possibly virtually-staged photo. 17 Turnberry Drive follows closely at C3, with a 2024 kitchen refresh and 2016/2020 roof/HVAC replacements supporting a clean, well-kept impression. The subject (18 Turnberry Drive), 20 Gleneagle Drive, and 74 Hickory Bend Drive form a closely clustered middle group, all reading as solid C3 properties with layered cosmetic updates (new flooring, updated counters/vanities, a 2022 roof on the subject) over original construction, and no visible deferred maintenance across any of them.

Quality

74 Hickory Bend Drive sits at the more modest end of the set (Q3), with builder-grade millwork and detailing that, while above basic tract grade, is a step below the others. 20 Gleneagle Drive (Q3-to-Q4) is slightly above it, aided by extensive crown molding/chair-rail work and a three-car garage. 17 Turnberry Drive and 12 Boxwood Cove sit together at a similar Q3-to-Q4 level, sharing full brick veneer, tray ceilings, and crown-molding packages. The subject (18 Turnberry Drive) sits at the top of the range at Q4, reflecting vaulted ceilings with skylights, decorative columns, and built-in shelving โ€” though overall the quality spread across the set is fairly narrow, consistent with a homogeneous production-home cohort.

Versus subject

The subject (18 Turnberry Drive) reads as the highest-quality original construction in this set (Q4), with the comps clustering at or below that level, though the overall quality spread is modest. On condition, the subject sits within the same well-maintained C3 cluster as 20 Gleneagle Drive and 74 Hickory Bend Drive, with 17 Turnberry Drive and 12 Boxwood Cove reading as very slightly better maintained overall. The appraiser's confirmation of a 2022 roof replacement on the subject aligns with and reinforces the condition impression already drawn from listing/inspection photos, so it does not shift the subject's relative standing in this comparison.

Notable gaps

Confidence notes

Category18 Turnberry Drive SUBJECT
MLS # 26035052
17 Turnberry Drive
MLS # 25037902
12 Boxwood Cove
MLS # 26003109
20 Gleneagle Drive
MLS # 26017507
74 Hickory Bend Drive
MLS # 26032315
Q/C impression
beta
HIGH Q4 / C3K: updatedB: updatedHIGH Q3-to-Q4 / C3K: updatedB: updatedMEDIUM Q3-to-Q4 / C2-to-C3K: updatedB: updatedHIGH Q3-to-Q4 / C3K: updatedB: updatedMEDIUM Q3 / C3K: updatedB: not updated
Vs. subject
beta
โ€”Q similarC similar
Shares comparable brick veneer, crown molding, and tray-ceiling detailing with the subject, landing at a similar Q3-to-Q4/Q4 finish level and a similarly well-kept C3 condition with its own recent kitchen and bath updates.
Q similarC similar
Comparable brick veneer and tray-ceiling/crown-molding detailing put it near the subject's quality level; condition also reads similarly well-maintained, though this call carries only MEDIUM confidence due to an apparently un-refreshed secondary bathroom and a possibly staged photo.
Q superiorC similar
Extensive crown molding/chair-rail work, arched doorways, and a three-car garage place its original construction slightly above the subject's finish level; condition is comparably well-maintained with similar kitchen/bath updates layered onto original cabinetry.
Q superiorC similar
Assessed as modestly higher quality than the subject (Q3 vs Q4) despite similar brick veneer and millwork, marking the largest quality gap in the set; condition lands at a similar overall level, as newer flooring and a stated new roof/HVAC offset baths that, unlike the subject's, were not updated.
Detached outbuildingsโ€”

Small detached resin/plastic storage shed on rear patio

Storage shed in rear yard

Possible detached structure with garage-style doors visible in the background

โ€”
Photo-only findings

Wood pergola over rear patio

โ€”โ€”โ€”โ€”
Pools & site improvementsโ€”

Swimming pool visible in aerial view, appears to be on an adjoining/neighboring lot

โ€”

Primary bathroom corner whirlpool/jetted tub

Deck reinforced/built to support a hot tub

โ€”
Site & view

Golf course frontage/view (17th hole of Greystone Golf Course)

Corner lot within Greystone subdivision

Mature tree-shaded yard providing summer shade

Distant pond/golf-course-style green space visible from aerial vantage

Cul-de-sac lot with large, heavily wooded rear yard

Subdivision is built around a small lake/pond amenity, though subject lot itself does not appear to be waterfront

Sloped lot with elevated rear deck on tall support posts

Stated potential to finish attic and crawl space into living area

Golf course community with clubhouse and shared pool amenity

โ€”
Dated renovations

New roof in 2022

Roof replaced

HVAC replaced

Oven updated

Microwave updated

โ€”โ€”โ€”
Review required

Confirm actual age/condition of roof covering directly if possible, since only remarks/appraiser statements (not detailed roof photos) support the 2022 replacement date.

Verify whether the rear structure described as a 'deck' in remarks is in fact the brick patio/pergola shown in photos, or if a separate deck exists elsewhere on the property.

Aerial photos (37, 39) suggest a swimming pool on a neighboring lot; parcel boundaries are not clearly delineated, so its association with the subject property cannot be confirmed with certainty.

Secondary/hall bathroom (Photo 19) shows materially more dated fixtures than the primary suite; recommend on-site verification of condition consistency across all three full baths.

Approx Acreage field is listed as 0.00, which appears to be a data-entry placeholder rather than an accurate lot size given the visibly sizable fenced rear yard in Photos 28-30; actual lot size should be confirmed from plat/tax records.

Secondary full bathroom (Photos 20, 22) does not show the same updating evident in the kitchen and primary bath despite marketing language describing a 'completely transformed' home; appraiser should confirm actual condition/age of secondary bath finishes.

Shed structure referenced in remarks is only partially visible in photos; size, construction material, and condition could not be confirmed and may warrant a field visit or additional photos.

Ambiguous structure with garage doors visible in the background of Photo 2 โ€” confirm whether this is part of the subject property or belongs to a neighboring lot.

Attic and crawl space 'potential living space' mentioned in remarks was not shown in any photo; recommend field verification if relevant to value.

No specific dates given for cited updates (windows, HVAC, bathroom refresh); effective age adjustments should not rely on assumed recency.

Confirm whether the 'Swimming Pool(s)' and 'Golf Course' Area Amenities fields refer to subdivision common amenities (consistent with the $125/yr HOA fee) rather than a private pool on this lot, since no private pool is evident in photos or remarks

Kitchen counter material ('Kit Counter-Other') could not be visually confirmed from available photos

Contradictions

Structured Fields (EXT. FEATURES: Deck) and Public Remarks ('spacious deck overlooking the golf course') describe a deck, but Photo 35 and Inspection Photo 2 show a brick paver patio with a pergola structure at the rear, not a raised wood deck โ€” the documented feature type may not match what is actually built.

โ€”

Living room fireplace wall (Photos 5, 6, 8) is shown empty/vacant, while the same room in Photo 7 shows furniture, TV, rugs, and decor โ€” indicating Photo 7 is virtually staged; actual room condition should be assessed from the unstaged photos.

โ€”

Structured 'Area Amenities' field lists 'Swimming Pool(s)' and 'Golf Course' but no pool or golf course frontage is visible in any photo or mentioned in remarks โ€” these appear to be subdivision/community amenity checkboxes rather than features of this specific parcel

โ† all jobs