1994, 07-08 Richard Wahl Ltr to AttorneyJuly 8, 1994
Don R. Shaw, Jr.
Executive Assistant to-
W. RUSSRTJ VAN CAMP
Attorney at Law
1707 W Broadway Avenue
Spokane WA 99201
re: Winston A. Smith 3514 N Edgerton Road Spokane WA
Dear Mr. Shaw:
First let me thank you for referring Mr. Smith to consult with
me. He brought the letter, addressed to you, that he had
received July 2, 1994 and I have since inspected the above
residence.
1. As to the footings - that concrete has obviously been in
place for a great many years. There are no signs of stress
anywhere that a visual observation can discern. Certain of it
in front of the house is quite weathered and new edges would
be cosmetically more attractive than it's present state.
That's not a Code violation but more a matter of appearance.
From what I can see, and some research, it would appear that
the concrete work substantially pre -dates building codes, and
certainly the most recent one, a copy of which was attached to
the materials given me by Mr. Smith. Wholes can be drilled to
the size requested but I would suggest that some consideration
be given to this before commencing. I believe it will
seriously harm the concrete and quite possibly weaken the
support of the entire building.
I inspected the footings holding the 4 x 4 posts along the
eastern line of the building. From the condition of the dirt
and dust, I'm sure I am the only one to have done so. They
appear to have all been poured at the same time and done
identically. To dig out, so as to expose the footing, every
other one seems to be an exercise in authority but not in
logic. If they do need to be inspected, I would suggest that
two of the eight would be sufficient, unless a valid reason
exists to believe that whatever two are chosen to be exposed
are any different from the others.
2. The framing -- "To tear off, so as to expose the framing
along all bearing walls including interior bearing
walls. . . .to the entire house" will substantially destroy
the valuation of the home. Currently I would estimate that
the residence in which Mr. Smith lives is worth $57,000 to
$65,000.00.
If the framing of the walls, and the siding around the doors
and all windows, the insulation, roofing, and drywall are all
removed as the various paragraphs of Mr. Davis' letter
requests, the valuation of the house would be not more than a
very few thousand dollars. The net effect would be to
destroy what is currently a quite well built home, and
apparently for no other reason than to teach Mr. Smith a
lesson.
3. The headers -- A number of the headers are exposed as
the house sits. They are double 2 x 6. They are clearly
visible. I fail to understand why it should be necessary to
remove the dry wall, insulation and the siding and subsiding
from all the doors and windows of the house, again this will
in large part destroy the valuation of the home, when only
3 or 4 doors and windows are covered and all the rest are
visible as the house now sets. Is there some reason to
suspect that those three or four are different from all the
others? There certainly is no indication visible to an
intense and through observation.
4. Floor Joists -- The floor joists under a large portion
of the residence can been seen by looking at the ceiling from
the garage. It is not covered, and the joists are clearly
visible. In the one small particular area referred to in Mr.
Davis' letter, I'd suggest the usual method that's been the
method used by carpenters and builders for years would suffice
and not do the damage that tearing off drywall and ceilings
would entail. A small hole drilled in the ceiling, then a
coat hanger wire pushed through to the flooring above, and
that distance is the width of the joists.
The joists that are visible, and there are a number of them,
are all 2 x 6", a perfectly adequate size. I believe only a
2 x 4 is all that's required.
5. Roof Rafters -- Again a substantial number of these are
open and visible to casual observation. They are all 2 x 6.
Part of the attic has to be observed by entry through the
crawl opening, and a large portion is open by virtue of inside
windows. There are a number of skylights along the sides of
which rafters are visible, and they are all 2 x 6s.
If there is some reason to believe that the rafters, at points
where they can not be seen have been shaved to unacceptable
dimensions from the majority of the boards that are open to
view I could understand the requirement that the walls,
ceilings and roof be pulled apart for a through and foot by
foot inspection of each board and nail, but that certainly
does not seem to be the case.
6. Plumbing -- A great amount of the plumbing is visible to
observation from the storage room/area under the area that
is covered by the living room/kitchen/bedroom of the upstairs
living area. The drain lines are PVC pipe, the supply lines
copper. I inspected those lines and all are good. There is
not one indication of a leak at any joint. The pipes and the
joints all were uniformly dusty, so I am sure they were not
specially prepared for my benefit.
An inspection from the roof shows two vent pipes - double what
is required. Again, why is it felt necessary to tear apart
the walls to expose a very few feet of plumbing that is
totally covered up?
7. Gas Piping -- I couldn't find any gas piping. There is
a meter outside the building, but no connection from it, or
any indication that there ever has been a connection. I asked
Mr. Smith what it was there and he replied that he and
Washington Water Power were discussing connecting his house to
gas, and they'd put the meter in advance.
Why is this item in the letter from Mr. Davis? It's clearly
obvious that the house is not connected to a gas line. It
would appear to me that someone is attempting to exercise
authority that does exist but is never implemented such as
this as a means of punishing Mr. Smith. For what I don't
know, but almost all of the requirements of Mr. Davis' letter
are the carrying to absolute extremes of a building code that
never even existed when the house was originally constructed.
8. Gas Venting -- There are two antique heaters in the
house. One is on a porch and the other in the living room.
Because there is no gas service to the house, neither can
possibly work. Both are connected to double wall vent pipes,
but lacking so much as a fuel line, or gas service, Other than
causing further destruction to the premises, I can not see a
reason to tear open those particular walls.
9. Attic Access -- Most of the attic is open and readily
accessible. A large part is open to view without even the
necessity of crawling through the ceiling opening.
-3-
10. One Story Garage -- I asked Mr. Smith relative to this
attached garage, and since you also, and I gather neither
inspector asked to see inside and it was passed over. I'd
think this would be solved by asking to look inside and then
opening the door so they could see the studs and joists.
Don, something is very wrong here. I have talked to other
contractors and repairmen and none of us have ever seen
anything remotely like this interpretation of the Codes. None
of us can figure why the County is applying the new codes to
such an old house. Does it have some particular historical
value or something like that? To tear that house apart as has
been requested will do $10,000 to $12,000 damage to it and a
like amount to repair it back to it's present condition.
Every load carrying beam or wall is straight as an arrow -
there's not a sag nor a crack anywhere. Most of the things
the County wants the house torn apart for can be seen as it
presently is. Personally I can see no reason to suspect that
Mr. Smith has built everkything in sight so very strongly, and
switched to substandard materials and practices on the
portions that are not readily visible, that just doesn't make
sense. Mr. Smith said the house passed the electrical
inspection for closing. Almost everything in sight has been
done to more than any code requirements; I'd think it
reasonable to believe he'd done anything that can't be seen
just as well.
res: r restline
Spokane WA
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
: ss.
County of Spokane)
On this day personally appeared before me RICHARD JAMES WAHL, to me
known to be the individual described in and who executed the within and foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he signed the same as hi_ free and voluntary
act and deed, for the uses and purposes there' • entione
Given under my hand and offici• seal tht Jul
LI and for thee. ate
of Washington, residing at Spokane
My commission expires June 5, 1998