# Program to legalize unpermitted construction without penalty



## mark handler

Santa Cruz County offers property owners program to legalize unpermitted construction without penalty

By Samantha Clark, Santa Cruz Sentinel

 01/08/15, 9:51 PM PST

http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/general-news/20150108/santa-cruz-county-offers-property-owners-program-to-legalize-unpermitted-construction-without-penalty

FELTON >> When converting garages or adding rooms, most homeowners follow the rules. However, the problem of a high number of buildings without the proper permits exist in Santa Cruz County.

Those properties could have more difficulty selling, and insurance companies won’t cover damages. The owners could also face fines or be forced to tear down those structures.

The problem is rampant, said Vicki Wees, a longtime local Realtor, and one that often surfaces when it’s time to sell.

The arduous process of securing the necessary permits can seem like opening a can of worms. Inspectors visit numerous times during construction to make sure that each step is up to code, from the foundation to the roof. And the fee costs may be difficult to estimate and vary from urban to rural areas.

People hear the horror stories over getting a bathroom, and they just say they will do it on their own,” Wees said.

For a long time, Santa Cruz County has had a reputation for being a difficult place to get a permit approved.

“Frankly, that’s why we think there’s a high degree of unpermitted construction,” said Kathy Previsich, county planning director.

To address the problem, a new program lays out the welcome mat for property owners in unincorporated areas who never secured the necessary permits, and ushers in a new change of attitude within the county.

The Legalization Assistance Permit Program reduces fees and waives penalties, which are double normal fees.

How it works is property owners submit an application, document the construction and pay $470 for a special inspection permit. A building inspector will review the improvements and outline the steps that need to be taken for the structure to meet code.

“It’s worth exploring,” said Brian Kane at a informational meeting for the program Thursday in Felton. Kane inherited an unpermitted driveway from the previous owner of his property.

One of the first people to take advantage of the new program, which began in October, was someone who illegally built an entire home decades ago but now wants to sell. More than a dozen have applied for the two-year program, so far.

“If you didn’t do it with permits, you’re not getting full value for your house. Your insurance company isn’t going to compensate you for unpermitted additions,” she said.

Safety ranks among the key concerns with illegal buildings, said Tony Falcone, county chief building official. Garage apartments often don’t have proper heating, for example, and plug-in heaters can easily cause fires. Given the forest and steep landscape in the county, fires may spread more rapidly. In addition, strict building regulations help withstand earthquakes.

However, for those who start the program and then decide not to participate, the county will return any information shared.

“If you walk away, then at least you know of dangers on your property so you can at least fix that,” Previsich said. “It is confidential and not going to trigger us to initiate code compliance.”

The housing crisis prompted the program in part. Given county’s the proximity to Silicon Valley, gorgeous landscapes and colleges, housing gets eaten up.

“Let’s try to help people legalize and make safe the existing housing stock,” Previsich said. “We have made a good number of changes to our permitting practices in the county and some of our development standards and our ordinances.


----------



## ICE

They charge $470 to inspect and advise what permits will be required.  How is that "without penalty".  In most cases that should work out to $1000 per hour.


----------



## steveray

“If you walk away, then at least you know of dangers on your property so you can at least fix that,” Previsich said. “It is confidential and not going to trigger us to initiate code compliance.”

    This will get them beat for millions if there is ever a fatality....A Town nearby lost a multimillion dollar lawsuit because the assessor picked up an unpermitted dwelling unit for taxes and never notified anyone, fatal fire, "the town knew about it and did nothing" negligence....You lose every time.....


----------



## Keystone

This ranks up there, heads in your *****.

Enact bldg codes.

Enforce bldg codes.

Apparently have a department that enforces bldg codes excessively.

Enact an open door policy for a fee, with the ability to walk away.

Who is going to sign there name to hidden liability.

WTF am I missing, could it be an official living within Santa Cruz that wants to "make it right". I am opening another web page to start my search for a lot to build on and resell, without permits of course.


----------



## mtlogcabin

> “If you didn’t do it with permits, you’re not getting full value for your house. Your insurance company isn’t going to compensate you for unpermitted additions,” she said.


:lol: that is the most :buttinine statement ever made

A house will sell for what ever a buyer is willing to pay regardless of the "Value" somebody else says it is worth.

Insurance pay out on a loss based on the sq footage not if an addition had a permit or not.

If you originally insured your house for XY amount of dollars and you did something to increase the value and did not update your policy to the XX amount then you lose out on the payout amount simply because you where not paying the correct premium for the "value" of the house

Insurance companies don't care about permits.


----------



## steveray

Had a guy burn his house to the ground because he was converting his garage w/o permits and hit a wire that should have had a nailplate....insurance paid.....The big issue we see is mortgage companies that won't lend on a house with unpermitted work. No sale, no refi.....


----------



## steveray

The intent of that program is good....but the potential liability is huge when you ignore known violations or approve stuff you don't see....


----------



## ICE

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> Insurance companies don't care about permits.


Insurance is something I don't know much about other than I'm getting screwed because the insurance company says that I live in the wilderness.

So I have a question that perhaps you or others have experience with.  Let's say that an illegal addition is built.  The house gets sold and the new owner insures the entire square footage.  Now there's a fire that starts in the illegal addition due to faulty wiring or a defective wall furnace.  Would the insurance company be able to deny coverage for the fire since it was caused by illegal construction?


----------



## steveray

Not likely ICE...see my post above...Typically it has to be an intentional fire for them to deny a claim, or as I like to call it: "It's not illegal to be dumb" An accident or unknown no matter how dumb is fine...If there is a fatality and they can prove owner  number one did the wiring that caused the fire by the date on the NM cable, then number one is going to jail for manslaughter....Or at least that is how it goes around here...


----------



## mtlogcabin

> faulty wiring or a defective wall furnace


Happens all the time on permitted and inspected buildings

I would say  they cannot deny coverage for an un-permitted addition unless it was spelled out in the policy

Lots of places around the country do not require permits for construction of a dwelling and or accessory building. Insurance company asses the "risk" and charge accordingly.


----------



## ICE

steveray said:
			
		

> The intent of that program is good....but the potential liability is huge when you ignore known violations or approve stuff you don't see....


I have to question that.  Where is the law that says that the government is required to enforce the law?  As an example, we have a law that requires a pedestrian barrier for residential pools.  That barrier is to keep the public from coming from off site and drowning in the pool.  The requirements are more stringent than the building code.  The law was enacted in the eighties and is retroactive to the dawning of civilization. ....or is it?

A property is not in violation of the law until the government puts the owner on notice that there is a violation of the ordinance.  If I am on the property for any reason and see a violation I must cite the property.  But that's as far as it goes.  I write the citation and provide them with a copy of the ordinance.  The notice is placed in the office file for that address.

If the violation is corrected, the notice is removed from the file.  The thinking behind this non-action is that if something bad happens, the jurisdiction's rear is covered because we told the owner about the violation.  I don't think that it's ever been tested in court.  I do think that a first year law student could rip us a new one.  The legal beagles here figure that we are in the clear.


----------



## steveray

We have a really good States Attorney that works with us on our violation stuff.....I would have to get back into my legal aspects book for the terms, but yes we have a duty to act and the "town, city, AHJ" is treated as one entity and if one part knows something everyone is held to that standard...I think Ford vs. West Haven might be the case where the Town got beat for millions because the assessor picked it up on taxes, but the building department didn't do anything about it....

                                                                                                                                              our state statutes read "shall" instead of "is authorized to"

114.3 Prosecution of violation. If the notice of violation is not complied with promptly, the building official "is authorized to" request the legal counsel of the jurisdiction to institute the appropriate proceeding at law or in equity to restrain, correct or abate such violation, or to require the removal or termination of the unlawful occupancy of the building or structure in violation of the provisions of this code or of the order or direction made pursuant thereto.

Maybe that is the difference for us....


----------



## Mark K

The violation of the law is not dependent on whether or not the jurisdiction had provided notice of the violation.

The liability of a jurisdiction is defined by state law which varies from state to state.

In general the City is immune for liability for the consequences of their discretionary acts.  In California Morris v. County of Marin found the County liable for not performing a mandatory act.


----------



## Keystone

For all that have a loan, search the term - Caveat Emptor - its in your paperwork. Buyer beware, places the burden on buyer to examine...

Insurance companies do care, atleast the ones aware of building codes. Every now and again in the case of fire, new loans, we have been receiving requests from insurance companies for current and past permitted work over the past 2 or more years now.


----------



## fireguy

This just rewards those who did not follow the law and get permits at the time of construction.


----------



## mark handler

fireguy said:
			
		

> This just rewards those who did not follow the law and get permits at the time of construction.


Unless you purchased the house with unpermited modiications.


----------



## ICE

mark handler said:
			
		

> Unless you purchased the house with unpermited modiications.


How is that any different?  Because it's a different owner?  If that new owner did due diligence and found out that there is no permit then he either got a reduction in price or is a dummy.  If that new owner didn't practice due diligence .....oh well.


----------

