no certificate of occupancy/ over the building restriction line

[Anonymous]

This house has been on the market for ages originally asking was $800k and now it is down to $595k. The listing says sold as is and states, "No Cert of Occp as garage is over build restr line". So how does one go about fixing that? Is this a deal if the buyer is willing to deal with getting whatever waiver/permit or what not is required to get the certificate of occupancy? That tax bill is a bit high too $12k yikes. I know it's Takoma Park but that is a grand a month.

www.redfin.com/MD/Takoma-Park/6512-4th-Ave-20912/home/11147692

[Anonymous]

you tear out the garage

[Anonymous]

If you look at the listing you will see the garage is the ground floor and the house is built on top of it. So what happens?

[Anonymous]

Who would pay that much for a house that has no cert of occupancy. I think the positive comments about the house, with no mention of this tiny problem, are ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like you would have to tear down a significant part of the house in order to get in compliance. Obviously, you won't be able to get a mortgage.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I think your lender would not fund the mortgage unless you have a certificate of occupancy. However, if you are paying cash, you could take the risk that you can obtain a variance and be allowed to keep the house built as it is over the line. If you don't obtain/aren't granted a variance, the county can fine you . . . and the fines could be expensive.

[Anonymous]

I assume that the nice neighbor to the left won't be supporting your appeal for an exception.

[Anonymous]

If they have no cert of occupancy for the reason stated, the builder either 1. Did not get an approve building permit in the first place, which makes the entire place suspect, or 2. The builder ignored the setbacks in the approved plans, which makes the entire place suspect. Lose, lose situation.

[Anonymous]

Montgomery County has an excellent on line system for researching info. on building permits and related complaints. This is the text from an inspector responding to a complaint about house construction in 2006 (no idea how or if the issues identified were resolved, the most recent building permit is currently unavailable):

Investigation revealed a house under construction at this address. The foundation walls of the existing house remain. A rear addition and new 2 stories have been constructed. The foundation wall of an existing attached garage is approximately 3 feet from the adjacent left side house. A first story addition has been built above the garage. It is approximately 5 feet from the adjacent house. The remaining rear addition and new 2 stories appear to be approximately 9 feet from the adjacent house. It appears that one or both of these houses encroaches the side lot line setback. I posted a SWO on the front window. I reviewed the plans submitted the next day and it is obvious the owner has not conformed to the approved plans. The addition above the garage does not appear on the plans and the proposed construction is for an addition and new second floor of the existing house. The foundation walls of the existing house are all that remains. Everything else is new construction. The construction constitutes a new house construction rather than an addition. Aditionally, the owner has exceeded the scope of work that was approved. I spoke to the owner by phone and informed him that construction must cease and that a new house permit was required.



The complaints and notes indicate a bit of a saga, apparently the house was on land that had been in PG county until annexed by Takoma Park, the set back for an addition is 3 feet and 7 feet for new construction, which is why now much of the house getting torn down became important.