# Basement/Cellar Square Footage -- Early 1980's Norms



## dartmouthrocks (Aug 18, 2015)

I would appreciate help on a square footage issue for a Colorado home.  Does anyone have experience whether counties/assessors typically included the square footage of a below grade level of a home (would have been called a “cellar” in New England) within the calculation of a home’s square footage in the 1983 time-frame?

The assessor has not included the cellar in square footage calculations since the home was built.

No as-built plans exist in the Land Use file (home has stepped foundation — built into a hill) and the majority of the cellar had ceiling heights now acceptable by the county as potentially  habitable space.  (The cellar floor is decomposed granite.)  Initial building plans showed a crawlspace — on the other hand, the same set of plans included a “basement option.”

Thanks for any help on whether cellars typically had their square footage counted within the ambit of a home’s square footage (in the early 1980’s time frame).  This may seem may like a strange question to ask, but it is affecting whether the county will permit cement and an interior french drainage system to ward against moisture/mold issues.

Thanks for any insight.  Links to codes and reputable sources are greatly appreciated.


----------



## conarb (Aug 18, 2015)

Assessors and appraisers typically do not include unfinished space in their square footage, therefore the building is neither taxed nor valued including that space.  If someone obtains a permit and converts that unfinished space to habitable space then assessors and appraisers include it in their calculations. The county appears to have it backwards, if they want the taxes based upon it they have to approve it's conversion to habitable space.


----------



## cda (Aug 18, 2015)

Welcome....

I wonder if you are our first attorney on site


----------



## cda (Aug 19, 2015)

"but it is affecting whether the county will permit cement and an interior french drainage system to ward against moisture/mold issues."

So what is that they are saying as to why a permit will not be issued??


----------



## fatboy (Aug 19, 2015)

Welcome!

"So what is that they are saying as to why a permit will not be issued??"

_*Location: boulder*_

'nuff said....


----------



## dartmouthrocks (Sep 6, 2015)

conarb said:
			
		

> Assessors and appraisers typically do not include unfinished space in their square footage, therefore the building is neither taxed nor valued including that space.  If someone obtains a permit and converts that unfinished space to habitable space then assessors and appraisers include it in their calculations. The county appears to have it backwards, if they want the taxes based upon it they have to approve it's conversion to habitable space.


Thx for the response (and other responses).

The county assessor now apparently logs unfinished space for homes within their database, if heights are sufficient.

Apparently, floor to "ceiling height" of greater than 6'7" is used a a benchmark for potentially habitable space (in the future even if not put to that use presently).

Sometime during the late 1980's or during the 1990's, all areas of a residential structure (including garages, basements, etc.) that had greater than 6'7" clearances were tallied to calculate a total estimate of potential habitable space for residences -- for purposes of invoking land use review (e.g., whether a proposed home, addition, etc. meshed with existing neighborhoods -- the county is pretty well built out, with very few vacant parcels.)

Apparently, the view was that with the requisite ceiling height, garages, etc., might one day be converted to habitable living areas.

I guess my permit is being held up because the county did not record some areas of my "cellar" that had ceiling heights above the 6'7" threshold when the structure was built.  In the absence of that recordation, and with present land use review standards, there has been a hold up with the permit.  (If the area below grade were a typical crawl space, with say 36 inches of clearance, digging out and leveling it to 8 feet could require a "site review" -- a land use or planning issue.  (If triggered by aggregate square footage vs. neighborhood square footage averages.)

That is why I asked if it may have been common practice for assessors not to include "cellar" square footages in a home's square footages in the 1983 (or so) timeframe, particularly in areas that adopted the UBC.  (No as-built plans were in my building file.)

Does anyone know a a site where I can access the 1979 and 1982 UBC's?  (Maybe a city that has maintained electronic copies of prior codes?)

Any ideas would be appreciated, particularly confirmation of practices in the early 1980's regarding square footage inclusion/exclusion of "cellar" areas, whether per UBC provisions or otherwise.

Thank you.


----------



## cda (Sep 6, 2015)

dartmouthrocks said:
			
		

> Thx for the response (and other responses).  The county assessor now apparently logs unfinished space for homes within their database, if heights are sufficient.
> 
> Apparently, floor to "ceiling height" of greater than 6'7" is used a a benchmark for potentially habitable space (in the future even if not put to that use presently).
> 
> ...


I do not think your answer is in UBC

it is more of a government ordinance item, it sounds like

What were you looking for in the UBC, I think I may have the 82 in my office


----------



## conarb (Sep 6, 2015)

\ said:
			
		

> Apparently, the view was that with the requisite ceiling height, garages, etc., might one day be converted to habitable living areas.I guess my permit is being held up because the county did not record some areas of my "cellar" that had ceiling heights above the 6'7" threshold when the structure was built. In the absence of that recordation, and with present land use review standards, there has been a hold up with the permit.


As we all know the business of government is to make money, I've never heard of an AHJ taxing space as habitable space because that space might someday be converted to habitable space, they might just as well tax portions of the vacant land that an addition could someday be built on, or the air above if zoning allowed an additional story.  I fail to see what the failure to list some of the space in the past has anything to do with the price of rhubarb, but maybe they are agonizing over the lost tax revenue trying to figure out a way to reclaim it in your permit.

CDA doesn't see it as a building code issue, but I see what you are looking for, the code definition of habitable space in effect at the time to attempt to fight them.

Stanford Rocks


----------



## rogerpa (Sep 6, 2015)

> Apparently, the view was that with the requisite ceiling height,  garages, etc., might one day be converted to habitable living areas.


When did crystal balls become part of the code officials tool kit? Or zoning administrators tool kit for that matter. Decisions must be made on the here and now, not what might be in the future.


----------



## cda (Sep 6, 2015)

"""CDA doesn't see it as a building code issue, but I see what you are looking for, the code definition of habitable space in effect at the time to attempt to fight them."""

Will see what edition I have and post definition

Didn't icc provide access online free??


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 6, 2015)

UBC 1982 Sec 1207 Habitable space shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches........

Kitchens, halls, bathrooms and toilet compartments may have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet.

Unless there is a local ordinance amending the ceiling height I do not think they are correct at applying it to less than 7 ft.

PM me and I should be able to send you a fax or emailed PDF from the code book on Tuesday


----------



## cda (Sep 6, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> UBC 1982 Sec 1207 Habitable space shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches........Kitchens, halls, bathrooms and toilet compartments may have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet.
> 
> Unless there is a local ordinance amending the ceiling height I do not think they are correct at applying it to less than 7 ft.
> 
> PM me and I should be able to send you a fax or emailed PDF from the code book on Tuesday


Is there a definition of habitable space?


----------



## mtlogcabin (Sep 6, 2015)

Sec 409 Habitable Space (Room)

is a space in a structure for living, sleeping, eating or cooking. Bathrooms, toilet compartments, closets, halls, storage or utility space, and similar areas, are not considered habitable space.


----------



## ICE (Sep 6, 2015)

Permit?

There's no code against having a concrete slab in a crawlspace.  Certianly no permit is required.


----------



## conarb (Sep 6, 2015)

mtlogcabin said:
			
		

> UBC 1982 Sec 1207 Habitable space shall have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet 6 inches........Kitchens, halls, bathrooms and toilet compartments may have a ceiling height of not less than 7 feet.


Clearly the intention of the code is that it can't be habitable space unless there is a ceiling height of at least 7'6",  they are way off base twisting that to mean that if it is 7'6" it is habitable space.  Take them to court asking for any damages that you can put together, immediately get a writ in law and motion ordering them to issue the permit, then pursue your lawsuit on the damages issue.


----------



## dartmouthrocks (Sep 7, 2015)

ICE said:
			
		

> There's no code against having a concrete slab in a crawlspace.  Certianly no permit is required.


Doug fir structural posts are being replaced by monoposts.  That is driving part of the permit requirement. (Floor was uneven.).


----------



## conarb (Sep 7, 2015)

Why not let some time elapse then go in and do the job without a permit?  With a permit they collect money up front then collect money each and every year through yearly taxes, you have already been paying the yearly taxes on the entire area since you've owned the property, so they are still way ahead losing the permit and associated fees.  Let me caution you, if and when you sell the property disclose, disclose, disclose, disclose that the AHJ has been taxing the basement as habitable space forever, you just opted to make it usable since you were being taxed for it as habitable space.  Be sure you employ a competent architect and contractor so you won't have any code violations.  For any structural work that is in any way questionable, hire a special inspector to inspect it and write his usual report, here in the Bay Area we have so many special inspections that the AHJ's inspections are redundant anyway, if and when you sell include all special inspection reports with your disclosure.  I once had an appellate court judge that I know call me, she had gotten divorced and bought another home, her windows were leaking all over the place.  I told her they couldn't be fixed or removed and reinstalled because of the type of window, they would have to be torn out and new windows installed, but since she had just purchased the home to get out her purchase documents and I'd look at them.  When it got to the page that disclosure boxes were checked the seller had typed an additional page, he stated that he had Home Depot install the windows, that Home Depot had not obtained a permit and that all windows leaked.  Buyers are not given disclosure agreements until they go into the title company to close escrow, by then they are psychologically committed and if an appellate court judge doesn't read and doesn't care about defects disclosed nobody does.


----------



## ICE (Sep 7, 2015)

Conarb,

I would be surprised to learn that Home Depot installed anything.  It has been my experience that the box stores affiliate themselves with certain contractors but the stores do not have a contractor's license.  The contractors will go so far as to answer the phone as if they are the store and put signs on their trucks that mislead.

Every time there is a boatload of corrections I tell the homeowner to take the list to the store and ask for the manager.

There was a dangerous condition and the contractor didn't answer the phone.  I called the store manager myself.  They get all excited about that.  Shucks, I've called the corporate headquarters.  They get all twisted about that.

And conarb, what with you being and attorney and all, I reckon you're treading on thin ice telling this guy to break the law.  Not that I don't agree with some of it but hiring an architect, contractor and special inspector?  Might as well get the permit.  And then you left out the engineer....it's not a party..... you want the engineer.


----------



## dartmouthrocks (Sep 7, 2015)

conarb said:
			
		

> As we all know the business of government is to make money, I've never heard of an AHJ taxing space as habitable space because that space might someday be converted to habitable space, they might just as well tax portions of the vacant land that an addition could someday be built on, or the air above if zoning allowed an additional story.  I fail to see what the failure to list some of the space in the past has anything to do with the price of rhubarb, but maybe they are agonizing over the lost tax revenue trying to figure out a way to reclaim it in your permit. CDA doesn't see it as a building code issue, but I see what you are looking for, the code definition of habitable space in effect at the time to attempt to fight them.
> 
> Stanford Rocks


Spot on.  we were hoping that the building code would just help to provide an explanation of why unfinished "cellar" space was not included in the 1983 time-frame in the square footage category.  The real issue is the disconnect between real world practices in the 1980's and a later land use code directed to "managing" growth.


----------



## conarb (Sep 7, 2015)

dartmouthrocks said:
			
		

> Spot on.  we were hoping that the building code would just help to provide an explanation of why unfinished "cellar" space was not included in the 1983 time-frame in the square footage category.  The real issue is the disconnect between real world practices in the 1980's and a later land use code directed to "managing" growth.


The way I see it is that they classified it as habitable space in the 1980s and taxed it as such, they can't come back now and claim it's not habitable space.  I think an attorney could even make an adverse possession argument, if you notoriously and openly occupy land for (usually 5 years by state) and meet certain other conditions you can take ownership.  California (and I think some other states) has added a condition to the common law conditions that you have to also pay real estate taxes on that land, that defeats 99% of the adverse possession claims.  In your case you have paid taxes on that space as habitable space and a pretty convincing argument could be made that it parallels adverse possession law, you have been openly and notoriously occupying the space for more than 5 years, as well as paying taxes on it as habitable space, they cannot refuse you a permit to alter it.  California requires a title policy from the assessors' office showing that you have been paying taxes on that area, I'd go down to the assessors' office and see what they can show and give you to present to the building department.


----------



## dartmouthrocks (Sep 16, 2015)

conarb said:
			
		

> The way I see it is that they classified it as habitable space in the 1980s and taxed it as such, they can't come back now and claim it's not habitable space.  I think an attorney could even make an adverse possession argument, if you notoriously and openly occupy land for (usually 5 years by state) and meet certain other conditions you can take ownership.  California (and I think some other states) has added a condition to the common law conditions that you have to also pay real estate taxes on that land, that defeats 99% of the adverse possession claims.  In your case you have paid taxes on that space as habitable space and a pretty convincing argument could be made that it parallels adverse possession law, you have been openly and notoriously occupying the space for more than 5 years, as well as paying taxes on it as habitable space, they cannot refuse you a permit to alter it.  California requires a title policy from the assessors' office showing that you have been paying taxes on that area, I'd go down to the assessors' office and see what they can show and give you to present to the building department.


Thank you and all others who responded.  Heard this week that a permit can be issued.  If I have a question on best construction practices, is there a place to post a question?  (concerns max. rate suggested for jacking a beam towards one end that subsided an inch.  was planning on using a 20 ton jet house screw jack and do 1/16 inch a week.  Concern is cracking exterior stucco.)  (Also would like to hear experiences with cross-stranded/poly heavy mil vapor/radon barriers.)  Thanks again.


----------



## cda (Sep 16, 2015)

Congrats on the permit


----------

