Residents of rural Yavapai and Coconino counties would have found it much easier to build on their properties if the Arizona Legislature had passed House Bill 2096, introduced by Rep. Barbara Parker of Mesa [R-District 10], during the current legislative session. The bill failed to pass the house on Feb. 27, after press time, by a vote of 27-31 following organized opposition by the Coconino County Board of Supervisors.
HB2096 provided that a county government could not require a building permit for any owner-built single-family home or accessory dwelling unit less than 600 square feet in size that was located on residential rural land. It would also have abolished the requirement to obtain a building permit to construct a garage or greenhouse of less than 400 square feet, solar or wind power systems or wastewater systems on qualifying properties.
The bill’s language was explicit in requiring county governments to adapt their policies to owner-builders’ skill sets.
“A county shall ensure that its land use requirement, zoning rules, building codes and housing policies maximize the ease of constructing residences on residential rural land and the affordability of residing on residential rural land,” HB2096 read. “The county may not require blueprints of the structure or require that the site plan be prepared by an engineer or other similar professional. The site plan and sketch must be prepared only to the level of detail and quality that would reasonably be expected of a nonprofessional with a high school education.”
Authorship
The bill was written by Parker’s constituent James Rogers.
“I love, love, love driving constituent-driven bills,” Parker said. “They’re my favorite because they’re the best ideas. They’re from the people. So I want to emphasize, this is not a lobbyist-driven bill, this is not a special interest bill, this is not a government bill. It’s a bill that costs nothing … He literally cross-referenced every single Arizona Revised Statute that would apply and brought it together into a perfect product that meets all our current statutes already.”
“I was able to buy a small plot of land in Coconino County, with the intent of maybe building a cabin there myself,” Rogers said. “I’m an attorney, so I, of course, wanted to make sure I was following the rules, and checked the laws and the applicable codes, and it almost seemed impossible for just a regular person to build something on their land without a whole lot of red tape, or involving engineers and plans and things that seemed unnecessary on a plot of rural land … It seemed like it would be a good idea to have something for the whole state to make it easier for those individual homeowners to do something on their own land, who don’t have a ton of money to hire a fancy architect and engineer and all that, to have a nice little place of their own.”
“There’s a lot of affordable land in Arizona,” Rogers added. “The difficulty is navigating the building codes afterward.”
“We’re kind of renaming it right now to the cottage home bill,” Parker said. “There’s other bills going through — actually several — that are calling themselves tiny homes, tiny homes, tiny homes, tiny homes. But those are commercial development … So we thought we would rename ours to distinguish it as the cottage home, which would imply more homey, freedom, individuality, if you will.”
Inspiration
“Part of the inspiration was looking at the multiple counties that [already] have different kinds of programs,” Rogers said.
“It’s being done in versions in Coconino, Greenlee, Pima, Cochise,” Parker said. “Take Greenlee County. That’s one of the 11 places in the nation with no building codes at all. This is not unheard of. They adopted no building codes, the county doesn’t have to review plans, they don’t inspect construction.”
She also quoted from Coconino County’s Innovative Materials and Systems Pilot Program: “Building codes exist to ensure the safety of the built environment, but are limited to mainstream construction. This can sometimes stifle innovation and sustainable building practices.”
“I chose 600 [square feet] because that was what Coconino County did,” Rogers said on HB2096’s size limits. “Four hundred [square feet] seems a bit small for some uses, so that seemed like a happy medium … If you have a smaller structure there’s less safety concerns. It’s going to be less architecturally complicated — there’ll be be fewer structural elements that might cause concerns about safety.”
Public Support
“I have people across the state reaching out from all over the state — not constituents, from all far corners, all kinds of people saying, ‘This is the greatest idea ever. Why haven’t we done this before? This is fabulous.’ Every one of my colleagues have loved it,” Parker said. “We have support from commercial builders, who love this idea. I have support from the Natural Resources, Energy and Water committee chairman. The diversity of support that I have — I have young people reaching out, older people — people who have little pieces of land that they’ve never been able to anything with, and now they’re just so excited at the opportunity to have the freedom to do what they want to do with their lives … There’s not one single individual voter or constituent who does not want it.”
Parker also pointed out that the owner-builder option will appeal to unique individuals.
“This is more a lifestyle type of home,” Parker said. “This is not something that every single person who wants to buy a home is going to go do. It’s going to be more of the person who wants off the grid, or some autonomy, a little bit more independence.”
“It’s not going to be for everybody, but it is nice to have it in the mix,” Rogers said.
“It’s a nonpartisan type of idea,” Parker continued. “It’s all about individual freedom and individual lifestyle. It should appeal to Democrats and Republicans. For example, Republicans who love their independence and would love their autonomy and freedom to not be encumbered. And then I think it also really should appeal to a Democrat who’s concerned with green living and lowering their footprint, because you can certainly use different types of materials. You could have an eco-friendly home, a recycling type of home.”
County Opposition
“There’s been zero pushback except from the County Supervisors Association [of Arizona],” Parker said. “For them, it’s all about control and fees … Their whole mantra was, ‘The sky is falling.’ ‘Everything can go wrong.’ ‘The roof’ll fall in, it’ll spontaneously combust, it’ll hurt people, safety, it’s not safe.’ I said, ‘Please produce that evidence’ … And he could not. They cannot produce any evidence of any kind.”
“It’s all for them,” Parker continued. “Every complaint goes back to 100% codes, 100% restriction, 100% oversight, 100% we’re in charge … Safety is their only mantra. ‘We have to save the people from themselves.’ ‘We’re the only ones that can save them, so we have to have control.’ They even sent a text to one of my colleagues that said, ‘We have to have control.’ They mentioned control over and over again.”
As of Feb. 9, the legislature’s request to speak system showed that 100 people had registered to speak in support of the bill. Eighteen had registered to oppose it, including all five Coconino County supervisors.
In addition, Parker pointed out that even a cursory search of news stories will reveal numerous examples of fires and structural failure in homes professionally built to codes.
“If people are building stuff for themselves, they’re tending to be more careful than a builder who’s just building something to sell and moving on to the next house,” Rogers said.
“They’re going to build better quality products,” Parker concurred. “You build it — your own little leak? You fix your own little house. Nobody’s harmed.”
“I don’t want our tiny home bill to be lumped in with the greater discussion of the housing crisis,” Parker said. “The housing crisis affects a lot more building. Ours is much more about freedom, about autonomy and that different type of lifestyle … I think this attracts people to rural areas because it fits … Give them more freedom.”
Parker added that Arizona Rep. Selina Bliss [R-District 6] had expressed no objections regarding the bill and that Arizona Rep. Quang Nguyen [R-District 6] was “enthusiastic” about it.
Legislative Status
After amendment to exclude Maricopa and Pima Counties, HB2096 failed to pass the House by a vote of 29-28-1 in favor on Feb. 13, when Bliss and Nguyen voted for it; the bill failed as a result of Rep. Lydia Hernandez [D-District 24] being absent and not voting, which according to legislative rules counts as a “nay” vote, causing the bill to fail on a tie. There are two current House vacancies.
Majority Whip Teresa Martinez [RDistrict 16] then moved to reconsider the bill within 14 days, which passed on a voice vote and subsequently, on Feb. 21, to calendar the bill for a Committee of the Whole to consider amending it, which also passed on a voice vote. The bill then failed on reconsideration by 27-31.
