Get email alerts on the Building Code Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local builder urges Cañon City to exempt very small structures from blanket soils‑testing rule
Summary
Design professional Lester Leone asked the committee to rescind a 2020 amendment requiring soils reports for all residential projects and to allow licensed design professionals to decide when tests are needed for structures under 350 sq ft, citing time and cost burdens.
Get email alerts on the Building Code Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lester Leone presented a petition asking the committee to change a Cañon City ordinance adopted in 2020 that currently requires soils testing for many residential and small commercial projects. Leone said his proposal would not eliminate soils testing but would exempt structures under 350 square feet (a threshold he tied to the city's auxiliary dwelling unit definition) and return site‑design responsibility to licensed professionals.
"So, this proposal conforms with the minimum size of an ADU that we already have established ... and my suggestion is that we put that responsibility back in the hands of the design professionals," Leone said, urging flexibility for small additions and non‑structural porches that he said are currently delayed by mandatory testing.
Committee members pressed on cost and timing: Leone and others noted a typical soil boring runs about $1,500 plus another $500–$1,500 for laboratory analysis, and participants said reports can take roughly six to eight weeks to return—an outcome Leone called onerous for small homeowner projects. Members and staff also discussed that the chief building official retains discretionary authority under the code to require site‑specific testing on higher‑risk sites and that a soils report is a recommendation used by design professionals.
The discussion also flagged state law implications. Committee members raised House Bill 221362 as a possible trigger point: changes to local codes or ordinances can force adoption of updated energy‑code provisions (the committee asked for an attorney opinion to clarify whether revoking a local amendment would require adopting a newer energy code). No formal decision was made; members asked for legal counsel and additional information before acting.
AI generated
The text on this page is AI generated. Summaries, highlights, analysis, and video transcripts are all produced from the original source material.
AI can make mistakes, so if you spot one, and we will fix it for everyone.
Note: the source content is unaltered by us. Any content source we link to, be it a video, an audio recording, or a document, is presented exactly as its publisher released it. That publisher is usually a government body, sometimes an individual official or another organisation.

