[WSBARP] Referral Needed --- Lack of Permit Question

[Scott Thomas]

And with regard to the permit, it is not unheard of for a local government
to have lost a permit between 1971 and whenever it was that the permit
records were scanned.  It is not uncommon for older homes with rafters that
are steeply sloping to have quite a bit of area that is less than the
minimum ceiling height.  Building codes have historically addressed the
issue by requiring a minimum room size (70 square feet), with areas having
a roof height of less than the minimum as not counting towards the minimum
room size.  So no, there is not a minimum ceiling height as you might think
of it.
You might also consider asking the City building department which building
code was applicable in 1971.  Almost certainly, it was a version of the
Uniform Building Code, which was revised every 3 years.  It was likely the
1970 version if the home is within the city limits of Tacoma, but it may
have been an earlier version.  Old versions of the UBC should be available
at the clerk's office of city hall, or at Tacoma Public Library.  I seem to
recall that ceiling heights are addressed in the chapter on "R"
occupancies, if you decide to follow that trail.  And i doubt that the
minimum height is 7'-6."  That seems pretty high.  My recollection is that
minimum height is 7-0 under the IRC, but I don't have a copy at my
fingertips.  If it was legal when it was built, then it should be legal now.

Scott Thomas

On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Marc Holmes <marc at holmeslawgroup.com>
wrote:

> Appraisers vary on how rigidly they interpret and/or enforce the
> guidelines so i t may be a lot easier to pick a new lender and order a new
> appraisal.  FHA appraisals follow the property so this wouldn’t work but I
> think VA appraisals are more like Fannie/Freddie and do not.  Ask a loan
> officer that does VA loans and they’ll know.
>
>
>
> I suspect the problem is that the value came in low since the current
> appraiser won’t include the 300’ of attic space.  If that’s the case, they
> might also challenge the valuation if they think the appraiser missed
> something about the comparables he chose or missed a better comparable that
> better supports the price per foot you need.  I deal with this sort of
> thing with some frequency but don’t have the bandwidth to take on the
> client.
>
>
>
>
>
> Marc Holmes
>
> Holmes Law Group PLLC
>
> 808 5th Ave N
>
> Seattle WA 98109
>
> HolmesLawGroup.com <http://holmeslawgroup.com/>
>
> marc at holmeslawgroup.com
>
> Ofc: 206-357-4224 <(206)%20357-4224>
>
> Cell: 206-849-0853 <(206)%20849-0853>
>
>
>
> *From:* wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.
> wsbarppt.com] *On Behalf Of *Ronald L. Coleman
> *Sent:* Friday, February 24, 2017 9:09 AM
> *To:* 'wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com'
> *Subject:* [WSBARP] Referral Needed --- Lack of Permit Question
>
>
>
>
>
> PC purchased house a year ago which was built in 1923, with unfinished
> attic at that time. 1971, attic finished without permit, but included by
> assessor in square footage of house. All work is fine and house has been
> appraised and sold four times since 1971, with the approx. 300 sq ft in
> upstairs (attic originally) included.  House now being sold and VA
> appraiser says cannot  include the upstairs because ceiling is 7 ft 4
> inches and needs to be for code 7 ft 6 or 8 in (I am not sure on the 6” or
> 8”0). City of Tacoma says no record of permit. Workmanship not an issue and
> could be permitted if  ceiling was higher, per City. I need to refer this
> to someone who has handled matters like this. I have heard of whole houses
> and garages being “permitted’ after the fact, and this one seems very
> strange. The VA appraiser will not approve unless City says ok for use as
> finished.
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> Ron Coleman
>
> Ronald L. Coleman
> Direct 253-238-5129 <(253)%20238-5129> - rcoleman at dpearson.com
>
> *Davies Pearson, **P.C.*
> ATTORNEYS AT LAW
> 920 Fawcett Avenue / PO Box 1657, Tacoma, WA 98401
> 253-620-1500 <(253)%20620-1500> | Fax 253-238-5158 <(253)%20238-5158> |
> www.dpearson.com
> Download vCard
> <http://www.dpearson.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Ronald_1584702.vcf> | View
> Profile <http://www.dpearson.com/people/ronald-l-coleman>
>
> This e-mail is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18
> U.S.C. secs. 2510-2521, and is legally privileged and confidential. If the
> reader of this message is not the intended recipient, the reader is hereby
> notified that any unauthorized review, dissemination, distribution, or
> copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail or call the sender at (800)
> 439-1112, and destroy all copies of the original message.
>
> IRS regulations require us to advise you that, unless otherwise
> specifically noted, any federal tax advice in this communication (including
> any attachments, enclosures, or other accompanying materials) was not
> intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any person for
> the purpose of avoiding tax-related penalties; furthermore, this
> communication was not intended or written to support the promotion or
> marketing of any of the transactions or matters it addresses. Please call
> us for additional information.
>
> _______________________________________________
> WSBARP mailing list
> WSBARP at lists.wsbarppt.com
> http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/wsbarp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20170224/18074b51/attachment.html>