This document is http://littlebigdog.net/OBOO.htm, and was last modified at 12:17 p.m. on February 16, 2010.
Proposed changes to Owner-Builder Opt-Out (OBOO)
OBOO was passed by the Supervisors on June 6, 2006. The minutes of that meeting are at
http://www.co.cochise.az.us/BOS/MeetingMinutes/06-06-06%20Minutes.htm
The existing OBOO plan is online at
http://cochise.az.gov/cochise_planning_zoning.aspx?id=1658&ekmensel=c580fa7b_182_360_1658_2
The draft changes are online at
http://littlebigdog.net/PacketOBOO.pdf
Unless things change, the Supervisors will discuss the proposed changes on March 2, 2010.
This writeup covers only the most notable proposed changes, and
concludes by suggesting a two-branch ordinance making OBOO available in:
(a) Areas presently zoned RU, SM
and SR with a required and actual minimum lot size of 4 acres or
greater of land located in Category D, Rural or Rural Residential -
designated areas;
(b) For areas not described in
paragraph (a), in any parcel of adequate size and configuration to
maintain a minimum setback distance of 20' in every direction from the
residence to the property line.
I. The proposal to require a 75' setback from the property line
The proposal to expand the setback to 75' is made at two places in the draft, Sections 1 and 2.
The present setback is the same as for any residences, 20'. A 75'
setback is larger than the County requires for any homes now. For
mobile home parks, in fact, the County requires only 10'.
A. The setback would gut OBOO.
OBOO is universally acknowledged to be a success in the 90% of the
County where it's already available. However, a 75' setback would
gut OBOO throughout that 90%, in exchange for the possibility of a very
small benefit to about 1% of the County.
OBOO is now available in about 90% of the County, on lots of 4 acres or
more. On a 4-acre lot, the present 20' setback leaves 3.24 acres
buildable, if there are no problems with flood plains, washes,
vegetation, etc. A 75' setback would cut the buildable area
exactly in half, to 1.62 acres. Of course, with a 75' setback, a
lot that's only 150' wide can't use OBOO at all. So a 75' setback
would severely limit OBOO even on lots of 4 acres.
If small lots, such as 36,000 sf, are clumped together until the clump
reaches a total of 4 acres, giving them OBOO is great. But barely
1% of the County is zoned in this size; why should extending OBOO to
this 1% harm the 90% of the county where OBOO is already available?
Citizen emails on the setback issue include:
"if the Planning Dept cannot do simple math ... they have no business being in the business."
"Instead of making this opt out a break for the
individual who chooses to opt out you have now placed a punishment on
that owner builder. Many lots in Cochise County have issues with
washes, vegetation and soil conditions that would need to have the home
moved one way or the other on the lot.... Ms Buchan statement
regarding explosions is absolutely totally ridicules.... Totally
off the wall .... it seems there is no real logical thinking
going on in the Planning Department ...."
B. The Department has not shown any need for a greater setback for OBOO homes.
When Susan Buchan was head of the Planning Department, her
presentations acknowledged that "owner-builder opt-out homes ... may or
may not have any additional safety issues ...."
Despite having no data, Buchan raised the specter of flaming, flying
debris if a gas furnace explodes. Buchan showed a slide about an
explosion in a 24-year-old, $521,000 log cabin in Colorado. She
did not, however, point to any such explosion in Cochise County; she
did say that in the United States "about once a month, someone's house
blows up." But Cochise County has very few people, and once a
month for the entire country, only means once every 192 years in
Cochise County.
Insurance industry figures are more pessimistic: once every 100
years. Yet for every American who dies in such an explosion, 124
of us will die in a car wreck, 91 in a fall at home, and 9 on a
horse. Increasing the setback on OBOO homes is a solution without
a problem.
In January 2006, when the P&Z Commission first considered OBOO,
CCIPRA's then-Chair Kelly Savage looked back to December 2004, when the
Supervisors were considering the county building code, and James
Vlahovich, then head of the Planning Department, argued for passing the
code. Savage noted that Vlahovich said "'he was not able to
recount actual deaths due to lack of codes.' ... He emphasized
that he was really talking about fire safety. The one big fire
danger the codes could protect us from is aluminum wiring. And
Mr. Vlahovich wasn't even able to point to one instance of a lethal
fire caused by aluminum wires. Prior to sales, mortgage companies
conduct inspections, and require all safety defects to be brought up to
code. Historically, the biggest fire hazard out here isn't
electrical, but from lightning strikes. No building code will
protect any of us from lightning strikes. Most house fires are
caused by human error. No building code will protect us from
stupid acts unrelated to construction. A fire truck will not be
able to make it down some non-county-maintained back roads
anyway. So safety concerns are not your real reason."
At the same meeting in January 2006, owner-builder Ben Sussman
stated: "I think that's what going on is that we are chasing a
problem that doesn't exist. Up to this point, we have no
demonstrable examples, either of formal or informal public or private
histories, of building failures that have caused a problem -- safety or
health problem. We don't have any examples of roofs coming off,
flying across the Valley, and decapitating anybody. We don't have
any examples that have been presented of fires because of faulty
wiring. People drowning because of improper sweating of copper
pipes or anything. There just doesn't exist a problem at this
point in time."
In the four years since the statements of Kelly Savage and Ben Sussman,
the Department has still not come up with evidence of any special risk
from OBOO homes. The Department is clearly not acting based on
evidence.
Citizen emails on the "size of setback" issue include:
"Instead of making this opt out a break for the
individual who chooses to opt out you have now placed a punishment on
that owner builder. Many lots in Cochise County have issues with
washes, vegetation and soil conditions that would need to have the home
moved one way or the other on the lot.... it seems there is no
real logical thinking going on in the Planning Department ...."
Buchan answered "Thanks so much for your input. I wish you had
been able to the Special Meeting, as I believe you would realized this
is much more flexible than the previous version." The citizen
emailed back, to Buchan and eight Commissioners, "The citizens of
Cochise County deserve better than this!"
C. OBOO homes are probably safer than builder-built homes.
Many people have expressed the thought that a person building his own house to live in tends to be extra-safe.
At the P&Z Commission meeting way back on February 8, 2006,
Commissioner Walters said "licensed contractors should be subject to
rigorous inspection .... They are going to build to [code], they
are not going to build any better. The people -- the few people I
know -- who built their own homes, built substantially better, by and
large."
Citizen emails on the safety issue include:
"Ms Buchan statement regarding explosions is
absolutely totally ridicules.... Totally off the wall ...."
D. The Department's wish for a greater setback on
OBOO homes is inconsistent with the Department's position in other
matters.
Mobile home parks: If the Department were truly concerned about
exploding propane tanks, then the Department would long ago have gone
after mobile home parks. Mobile home parks are filled with
propane tanks, yet in Cochise County parks, mobile homes are only
required to be 15' apart from each other, and 10' away from property
lines. Mobile homes aren't having a rash of explosions, but there
is no conceivable reason to let mobile homes be only 10' from lot
lines, but require a 75' setback for OBOO homes.
Cluster developments: If explosions were a real concern, why
would the Department encourage apartments and cluster developments,
whose walls either touch or are quite close? They're no safer
than OBOO homes, yet on January 13, 2010, the Department favored a
Habitat For Humanity development of 15-18 homes clustered together on
not quite 2 acres. That proposal is another item on the BOS
agenda for February 23. If safety were a problem, and separation
were the solution, the Department would oppose clustering. Since
the Department favors clustering, safety must not be the Department's
concern.
Citizen comments about the Department's inconsistencies include:
"Automobiles are certainly suspect with their tanks
of gas as are propane tanks. Perhaps ... inhabitants of these
outback areas should be made to wear ... protective clothing...."
"They said at first that they wanted to change it so
MORE PEOPLE COULD PARTICIPATE. Why would they want to do that if
they feel it's so unsafe? They speak with forked tongues."
"the burden of proof should really be on the county!
... it is none of their business either way, this is private, not
public property we are talking about!"
E. The Department's wish for a greater setback on
OBOO homes is consistent with a wish by the Department to gain more
income, regulate for the sake of regulation, and expand the size of
local government.
As to revenue: The less OBOO is used, the more fees the
Department takes in. In this context, comments by Supervisor
Searle at public meetings are instructive: an OBOO permit costs
$75; otherwise, a permit for a small home might easily cost $1500 to
$2500. Citizen comments include:
"the recently proposed setback increase for owner
built homes is ridiculous. This amounts to little more than
blackmail to persuade owner builders to pay for the full county
inspection."
"I was on the [Planning & Zoning] commission
when the owner builder ordinance was passed, the reason (I believe) the
county wants to be involved is MONEY and harassment to put it simply."
"an inspected furnace can blow up years after its
inspection... [Did furnaces in homes] built prior to the IBC have to be
inspected? Do they require annual inspections? I don't
think so...So what is the real agenda here?"
As to regulating for the sake of regulation: When Buchan said
that "owner-builder opt-out homes ... may or may not have any
additional safety issues," she added "it's just that without the
opportunity to ... actually inspect, there is no way we can verify that
installation is done properly."
As to the size of local government: At the January 11, 2006,
Commission meeting, citizen Andrew Noll said "I can't help but noticing
that the most common theme here is that rural people simply do not want
to be imposed upon by their government. And they have chosen to
live rurally for the freedom it offers. So in regards to that, no
one from the rural community that I know of has come forward requesting
that we impose codes on ourselves. So if we can take that to a
logical course of thinking, who are we legislating this ordinance
for?... we need to take more responsibility for our own safety
and for our lives in general. So why have a government impose
things on a sector of the population that clearly doesn't want
it?... And furthermore, if someone is so in need of having
someone look over their shoulder, or giving a stamp of approval on what
they have done or what they have hired a contractor to do, they are
entirely free to go to Planning and Zoning and get as many inspections
as they desire. It is as simple as that. We are not trying
to impose limitations on people who want to get inspections. We
are just saying that we don't want them, as a rural people."
II. Other proposals in the draft
A. Withdrawing encouragement of alternative construction
At present, OBOO is designed "to encourage the use of ingenuity and
personal preferences of the owner-builder in allowing and facilitating
the use of alternative building materials and methods." The
draft, however, merely says OBOO is designed "to allow the
owner-builder the option to construct their own residential structures
without County plan and inspection oversight ...."
To remove positive encouragement of alternative construction would be
to renege on OBOO's original promise. On January 11, 2006, James
Vlahovich, now Deputy County Administrator, presented two options for
OBOO, and said that "Both options encourage the use of alternative
construction, such as straw bale or rammed earth."
On March 21, 2006, then-Department head Judy Anderson wrote a memo
stating that "Cochise County encourages the use of appropriate
alternative construction methods such as straw-bale and rammed earth."
Those statements should not be forgotten now.
B. Requiring jobs for "registered design professionals"
At present, OBOO says that "any change of use involving [OBOO]
structure(s) must comply with the Cochise County Building Safety
Code." In the draft, section 27 says that "Any change of use of a
residential dwelling to a commercial use shall require certification by
a registered design professional that the building complies with the
currently adopted Cochise County Building Code."
It's not even clear what a "registered design professional" is.
Here's a news item from November 11, 2009: "A code change was
recently considered by the International Code Council (ICC)
Administrative Code Committee at its code development hearings in
Baltimore, MD, that would have changed the existing definition of
'registered design professional' ... to recognize only an 'architect or
engineer' as a design professional who may submit plans to a building
official for permit. This code change ... did not pass, meaning
that the existing ICC code definition ... was retained: 'an
individual who is registered or licensed to practice their respective
design profession as defined by the statutory requirements of the
professional registration laws of the state or jurisdiction in which
the project is to be constructed.'" The full item is at
http://www.officenewswire.com/9251
In any event, rural areas have somehow managed to get by without
"registered design professionals" until now. Is this change to
OBOO absolutely necessary -- or is it a way to discourage use of OBOO,
or job creation bill for "registered design professionals"?
III. Conclusion
This writer suggests that the changes to the existing ordinance be
minimal, and add additional OBOO coverage without reducing the existing
coverage. A two-branch ordinance can simply state that OBOO will
be available in:
(a) Areas presently zoned RU, SM
and SR with a required and actual minimum lot size of 4 acres or
greater of land located in Category D, Rural or Rural Residential -
designated areas;
(b) For areas not described in
paragraph (a), in any parcel of adequate size and configuration to
maintain a minimum setback distance of 20' in every direction from the
residence to the property line.