4 ms·

I think the permitting process is a bit different for places like this. Depends on what kind of power you're using: solar or utility? You have a sewer, or a wel

by hbosch 6y ago

I think the permitting process is a bit different for places like this. Depends on what kind of power you're using: solar or utility? You have a sewer, or a well, or do you collect your own water and compost waste? People build and modify structures all the time with and without permits. If the bureaucrats had their way you'd need a permit to change a lightbulb. Also, is it a residence? This could easily be considered a "storage shed" as much as it could be considered a "house", much like RVs are insured differently than jobsite pickup trucks. Furthermore, it's more or less on the buyer to make the call about a structure's safety and value. Even buying a regular house, in a regular neighborhood, you can go ahead and buy it even if the inspector says it's going to burn down within a year. The bank might not loan you the money, but you can buy it as long as you can afford it. Houses get bought and sold every day that don't meet electrical, plumbing or general safety codes.

Johnny555 6y ago
As long as it's all disclosed, then it's probably fine. It's not only on the buyer to figure it out -- the buyer doesn't need to tear off the drywall to see if the house was taped together with duct tape instead of using nails. (but he might end up doing that if he has reason to doubt the construction quality). If the seller built the house himself without any professional guidance or inspection, he needs to disclose it. I don't know about unincorporated areas, but around here if you put power and water in a shed, it's no longer just a shed and you need permits. And I think that if it's meant for human habitation even without power or water, you need the permits (though you may not get the permit without lighting and water/sewer)
0xffff2 6y ago
I don't know about Washington, but in Oregon if it has electrical you need permits. Full stop. It's absolutely not on the buyer. It's on the buyer to do their due diligence, but it is certainly unethical, if not illegal to sell this cabin without disclosing that all of the work (especially but not limited to plumbing and electrical) was done by untrained and unlicensed amateurs. It's probably illegal too, but I don't have the expertise to be sure of that. And while my libertarian leanings make me comfortable using disclosures at time of sale to put some of the liability on the buyer, I'm very much not sure that the law sees it that way.

by hbosch 6y ago

Johnny555 6y ago

As long as it's all disclosed, then it's probably fine. It's not only on the buyer to figure it out -- the buyer doesn't need to tear off the drywall to see if the house was taped together with duct tape instead of using nails. (but he might end up doing that if he has reason to doubt the construction quality). If the seller built the house himself without any professional guidance or inspection, he needs to disclose it. I don't know about unincorporated areas, but around here if you put power and water in a shed, it's no longer just a shed and you need permits. And I think that if it's meant for human habitation even without power or water, you need the permits (though you may not get the permit without lighting and water/sewer)

0xffff2 6y ago

I don't know about Washington, but in Oregon if it has electrical you need permits. Full stop. It's absolutely not on the buyer. It's on the buyer to do their due diligence, but it is certainly unethical, if not illegal to sell this cabin without disclosing that all of the work (especially but not limited to plumbing and electrical) was done by untrained and unlicensed amateurs. It's probably illegal too, but I don't have the expertise to be sure of that. And while my libertarian leanings make me comfortable using disclosures at time of sale to put some of the liability on the buyer, I'm very much not sure that the law sees it that way.