Residential building permit in Tumwater, Washington

When you need this permit

• TMC 15.06.010 adopts “the International Residential Code, 2021 Edition, as amended by Chapter 51-51 WAC, including Appendix Chapters H, Patio Covers, K, Sound Transmission, Q, Tiny homes and T, Solar-ready provisions, as the residential building code and standards of the city of Tumwater”.
• SOLAR-READY IS ADOPTED ONLY IN PART, AND THE CARVE-OUT IS EASY TO MISS: Appendix T is named as adopted, but the same sentence provides “that Sections R105.3.2, R105.5, R108.2, R108.5, R108.6, R112, and Appendix T103.2 through T103.5 are not adopted”. Appendix Q, Tiny homes, carries no such carve-out.
• SHED EXEMPTION AT 200 SQUARE FEET, WITH A SEPARATION RULE. TMC 15.06.015 amends IRC R105.2 Item 1: “One story detached accessory structure used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses, provided the floor is not greater than 200 square feet (18.58m2). Placed min. 5 five feet from each other on the same lot or to any lot line.” The building code chapter carries the same 200-square-foot figure, so both codes agree here — unlike Pullman and Wenatchee, which publish 120 under the IBC and 200 under the IRC.
• Fences not over 7 feet high are exempt under the same amended section.
• >>> TUMWATER HAS AFFIRMATIVELY OPTED OUT OF THE STATE'S PERMIT-PROCESSING CLOCKS, AND SAYS SO IN ONE SENTENCE. TMC 15.01.045, added by Ord. O2024-005 on 03/12/2024: “As authorized by RCW 36.70B.140, permits issued under this title are exempt from the timeline provisions of RCW 36.70B.060 through 36.70B.090 and 36.70B.110 through 36.70B.130.” THIS IS A PUBLISHED REASON RATHER THAN AN ABSENCE. Most cities in this Washington set simply do not state a review period, and the honest note is “not found where it would be expected”. Here the code tells you the statutory timelines have been disapplied. WHAT EXACTLY IS DISAPPLIED IS NOT ASSERTED — those RCW sections were NOT read for this entry — but the exemption itself is quoted from the code.
• THE THIRD EXPIRY TRIGGER IS OBJECTIVE WHERE MOST CITIES' IS A JUDGEMENT CALL. TMC 15.01.060(A): a permit is void “if the building or work authorized by such permit is not commenced within one hundred eighty days from the date of such permit, or if the building or work authorized by such permit is suspended or abandoned at any time or if no required inspections have been approved after the work is commenced for a period of one hundred eighty days.” MOST CITIES IN THIS SET TIME ABANDONMENT; TUMWATER ALSO TIMES APPROVED INSPECTIONS. A job that is genuinely progressing but has not passed an inspection in six months is on the same clock as one that stopped, which is a much easier condition to trip without noticing and a much easier one to check.
• RESTARTING IS HALF PRICE, BUT ONLY INSIDE A ONE-YEAR WINDOW AND ONLY IF NOTHING CHANGED. TMC 15.01.060(A)(1): a new permit costs “one-half the amount required for a new permit for such work, provided no changes have been made or will be made in the original plans and specifications for such work; and provided further, that such suspension or abandonment has not exceeded one year.” And (A)(2): permits “not renewed … and have not been active for one year from date of last action shall be deemed expired and new applications and permits will be required.”
• TWO EXTENSIONS, NO MORE, AND ONLY FOR CIRCUMSTANCES OUTSIDE YOUR CONTROL. TMC 15.01.060(B): the building official “may extend the time for action by the permittee for a period not exceeding one hundred eighty days on written request by the permittee showing that circumstances beyond the control of the permittee have prevented action from being taken”, and “No permit shall be extended more than twice.” The extension itself carries a fee under the council's schedule. Compare SeaTac (one extension) and Des Moines (“one or more”, no published limit).
• THE APPLICATION HAS TWO SEPARATE CLOCKS. TMC 15.01.050(A): applications “for which no permit is issued within one hundred eighty days following the date of the application shall expire by limitation unless extended”, and (B) plans and other data for expired applications “may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official in accordance with state law”. Separately, under (C), applications in review “shall be canceled for inactivity if an applicant fails to substantially respond within ninety days” to the building official's review comments.
• TUMWATER STRIPS THE MODEL CODES' OWN ADMINISTRATION AND SUBSTITUTES ITS OWN, WHICH IS WHY CHAPTER 15.01 MATTERS MORE HERE THAN THE CODE CHAPTERS DO. Not adopted: IBC Sections 105.3.2, 105.5, 109.2, 109.6, 113 and Appendix H Sections H108, H109, H110 and H112; IRC Sections R105.3.2, R105.5, R108.2, R108.5, R108.6, R112 and Appendix T103.2 through T103.5; IMC Sections 106.3.3, 106.4.3, 106.4.4, 106.5, 106.5.1, 106.5.2 and 109; UPC Sections 104.3.2, 104.3.3, 104.4.3, 104.4.4, 104.5 and 107.0. Those are the permit-expiry, fee, refund and board-of-appeals provisions in each code. Everything that governs them in Tumwater is in TMC Chapter 15.01.
• TUMWATER NAMES 2021 THROUGHOUT AND PUTS NO ROLLING CLAUSE ON THE CODES — BUT IT DOES USE ROLLING LANGUAGE ELSEWHERE IN THE SAME TITLE, WHICH IS THE INFORMATIVE PART. Measured: a rolling-phrase search over Chapter 15.04 returns ZERO across all 7,888 characters, while the same pattern fires three times in Chapter 15.01 — so the instrument was demonstrably alive when it reported zero. ALL THREE HITS IN 15.01 ATTACH TO THE FEE SCHEDULE, NOT TO THE CODES: fees are “as currently adopted or as may be amended from time to time by resolution” (one hit is a false positive, “may thereafter be returned”). So within one title the drafter used a rolling formula for the money and withheld it from the codes. >>> TWO READINGS ARE RECORDED AND NEITHER IS ADJUDICATED. On its face this is named-and-static. But each adoption also reads “as amended by Chapter 51-xx WAC”, and that reference can be read as carrying a state chapter that does move. The contrast with the fee schedule is evidence a reader can weigh; it is not proof of intent and is not treated as such here. Maple Valley presents the same combination without the internal contrast.
• A DEDICATED VESTING CHAPTER EXISTS AT TMC 15.44 “VESTING OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS”, alongside 15.48 Transportation Concurrency Requirements. Neither was opened for this entry and nothing here rests on them, but both bear directly on what rules a project is measured against and when.
• TMC 15.01.100 is headed “Building code appeals – Hearing examiner”. This guide does not summarise it, so no deadline or procedure is stated here. Note that the model codes' own appeal sections — IBC 113 and IRC R112 — are expressly NOT adopted, so this section is the route.
• TMC 15.01.040 is headed “Copies of codes”. In a city that names editions and publishes no rolling clause for them, the filed copy is the practical way to establish which text is in force.