Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board hears public concerns about county water‑heater permit; staff says inspections are in-person and code changes require advisory process
Summary
Residents objected to a longstanding requirement for permits on water‑heater replacements; development-services staff said the county inspects replacements in-person, charges $72.15 for permit plus inspection, and that removing or amending the requirement would follow the Building Code Advisory Board and Planning & Zoning process.
Several residents and business representatives urged the Board of Supervisors to eliminate a county plumbing/permitting requirement for residential water‑heater replacements during the April 21 meeting.
Chuck DeShazer (Topock) and public commenter Jennifer Esposito said many homeowners and small contractors lack notice of the water‑heater permit and that the requirement appears to be a fee without inspection. They asked the board to repeal the replacement permit requirement or at least remove penalties.
Scott Holtry, development-services director, said county records show the county has historically required water‑heater permits and that his April‑to‑April check showed 54 permits issued in the most recent year (these are replacement and installation permits under the county permitting system). He told the board the fee is $72.15 and that it covers both the permit and the inspection. Holtry said inspectors perform in-person inspections for water-heater permits; the department is evaluating technology options for remote/video inspection but has not adopted video inspection as the routine process.
Supervisor discussion noted that new-home construction includes water heaters in the building permit and that the replacement permit requirement applies to replacements and retrofits; supervisors suggested staff review the code sections and the permitting approach. Attorney Davis and staff explained that code amendments require review by the county’s Building Code Advisory Board and Planning and Zoning Commission before returning to the board for a final action; supervisors asked staff to present a formal agenda item to modify or clarify the permit requirements if desired.
Ending: The item was discussion-only; staff was asked to prepare a future agenda item outlining the permitting history, statutory and insurance considerations, and recommended code changes or clarifications for the board to consider.
