New county board to oversee building codes

By Shar Porier
Herald/Review
Published/Last Modified on Monday, Jul 14, 2008 - 05:31:03 am MST

Font Size

BISBEE — The Cochise County Board of Supervisors will be looking for a few qualified volunteers to fill seats on a proposed Building Safety Advisory and Appeals Board.

The advisory/appeals board will be formed through an ordinance sometime in the next few months, as required by an old Arizona statute.

The reason it is being formed now instead of 30 years ago when the state statute was passed is that Cochise County did not have an official building code until January 14, 2005, explained Chief Deputy County Attorney Britt Hanson.

The county code was adopted in phases, he added. First came codes for the Sierra Vista area, then building codes began to apply to other areas of the county, including rural areas.

“There are probably counties out there that have not adopted building codes,” said Hanson. “So Cochise is not the last in the state.”

The matter came before the county Planning and Zoning Commission at the meeting last Wednesday in the planning director’s report. Susana Montana, planning manager, asked the commission members to give the go-ahead to draft the ordinance, which they did with a unanimous vote.

Hanson said the commission’s vote of approval to proceed was just a courtesy.

“In the future, I’d recommend it to go on the agenda as an action item,” added Hanson.

“The new ordinance is ready.”

Ron Durgen, county building inspector, will be forming the list of possible appointees.

The new advisory/appeals board will be partly comprised of specifically licensed professionals in the construction business — an architect, an engineer, a general contractor, and/or an electrician or plumber in compliance with the state statute, Durgen noted at the meeting. One seat will be held by a resident of the county who will represent the public.

There can be as many as seven members with the additional appointees in the field of construction and design.

The Arizona statute states: “Each appointee shall have substantial experience in the field covered by the particular code ... “

The county building inspector will also serve on the board as a non-voting, ex officio member who will take the minutes of each meeting.

Each member is to be appointed for a four-year term and terms must be staggered so that not more than two terms expire each year, according to the statute.

The advisory/appeals board members will hear disputes over the county building code, said Hanson. The decisions made by the board members will be final, much like the Board of Adjustment, Hanson said.

They also will determine the suitability of alternative materials used in construction, as well as review and advise code changes as they become necessary, according to Durgen.

With the advent of building “green” composite materials made, from various recycled or earth-friendly (think straw bale), Durgen wants these new materials to be included in future amendments to the code.

The drafted ordinance will go before the Planning and Zoning Commission on Aug. 13, said Planning Director Susan Buchan.

The ordinance will then go on to the Board of Supervisors with the commission’s approval or denial.

Public hearings will be held before the ordinance is adopted by the supervisors.

Herald/Review reporter Shar Porier can be reached at 515-4692 or by e-mail at shar.porier@bisbeereview.net.

Print this story Email this story

Font Size

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.
Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

Tombstone wrote on Jul 15, 2008 5:31 PM:

" If you read page 3 of the International Building Code (IBC), which is the code Cochise County has adopted, you will see it clearly states any structure use as a storage building or shed of 120 square feet or less requires no permits. In Cochise County this is not true. You still MUST file for a permit or face a fine of $100. "

Mike Jackson wrote on Jul 15, 2008 10:24 AM:

" To "Safety/key"--The Planning Department PROMISED that the code would make houses would safer, and reduce insurance rates. When the supervisors passed the code, they also voted to test those promises by a massive citizen-based investigation, before imposing the code on rural areas. The investigation still hasn't been set. Last year the county hadn't even asked insurance companies about lower rates. People want proof that the code performs as promised. And what's this "Grandpa Clampett" comment? Do you think that kind of sneering snottiness improves public discussion? "

Safety...is the key wrote on Jul 15, 2008 5:06 AM:

" Building codes are there to protect the owner, and all future owners of the dwelling. This isn't the 1800s where Grandpa Clampett could build whatever he wanted to, in whatever manner he chose because his is "RURAL." Standardization of the codes throughout City and County should be the goal. "

over-regulated wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:14 PM:

" Time to regulate the regulators-vote these guys out of office. Thats the only way they get the message. "

Toni wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:31 PM:

" The politicians won't be doing anything controversial this close to election. If the incumbents are reelected, wait for any big decisions in 2009. A good reason to have www.anybodybutcall.com up and running. If reason doesn't work, use public notification. "

Mike Jackson wrote on Jul 14, 2008 1:07 PM:

" To "voting for Call"--whoever you are--look at every rural building built near Sierra Vista before April 2005, every building in the middle of the county before April 2006, and every building in the eastern part of the county before April 2007--they were all built without a code. Are they all falling down? I don't know why you inject "isolationism," but as to "antisocial," your rudeness is more antisocial than my belief that rural ways of life aren't improved by the imposition of urban-style laws. Keep the city out of the country. "

Mae wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:55 PM:

" Why is Cochise County trying to have a building code for the county that is supposed to be rural the same as the building code in SV that is urban. People with horses, cattle etc should not have to live like people who live in urban areas. living is and should be very different in different areas in the county. when you buy 40 acres or even 5 acres is that not saying you do not want to live the same as someone in town does. and that is a very good question what was permits for before codes existed "

CONCERNED wrote on Jul 14, 2008 11:17 AM:

" I am concerned about the what used to be "ELK COUNTRY" off Burro Road in Hereford.
I is my understanding that the owner sold it to his son and he is now putting houses on smaller acreage parcels. Some one should definately look into this. What are we paying our guys to do anyway??

CHECK it out !!! "

VOTING FOR CALL wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:53 AM:

" Abolish the building code? So you can build whatever claptrap piece of crap you want to? What do you think this is--backwater Ozarks or 'suburbs' of Mexico City? Do whatever you want to do? No thanks Mike Jackson. We don't need your isolationist antisocial 'vision' of society. "

whetstone wrote on Jul 14, 2008 9:23 AM:

" If we had no "official" County building code until 2005, what happened to all the building permit fees that were collected? With no code there were no inspection criteria, therefor no inspection! "

Mike Jackson wrote on Jul 14, 2008 7:28 AM:

" Before this P&Z Commission vote, the county Supervisors--who outrank the Commission--voted to have a work session about a requirement that was approved when the code was passed: a citizen-based evaluation of whether to keep the code or abolish it, based on whether it carries out promises that were made to get it passed--promises by Ron Durgin (named in the story), now-assistant county administrator Vlahovich, and incumbent supervisor Call. These promises have been broken, and the code should be abolished. How the Supervisors handle this issue, as the election approaches, may determine if anybody gets re-elected. "