## Facts

- Pima County adopted an “Inclusive Home Design” ordinance amending the county building code for new single-family homes in unincorporated areas.
- The ordinance incorporated selected ANSI A117.1 accessibility provisions, requiring features such as wider doorways, reachable outlets, and reinforced bathroom walls for future grab bars.
- Steven and Jeanette Washburn and related homebuilding entities sought a permit to build a single-family home that did not meet the ordinance’s accessibility requirements.
- The County denied the building permit for noncompliance.
- The Washburns sued for declaratory and special-action relief, asserting (1) the County lacked statutory authority and (2) the ordinance violated equal protection and privacy under the Arizona Constitution.
- The superior court granted summary judgment for Pima County, and the Washburns appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Arizona statutes authorized Pima County to adopt building-code requirements imposing specified accessibility features on new single-family homes, or instead preempted or limited such local regulation.
2. Whether the ordinance violated equal protection under the Arizona Constitution by irrationally burdening builders and owners of single-family homes.
3. Whether the ordinance violated privacy protections under the Arizona Constitution by improperly regulating the design of private homes.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Pima County.
- The court held the County had statutory authority to adopt the ordinance as an exercise of delegated police power through building and safety regulation.
- The court rejected the equal protection claim, applying rational-basis review and finding the ordinance reasonably related to legitimate governmental objectives concerning accessibility.
- The court rejected the privacy claim, holding the ordinance did not implicate a fundamental privacy right and was comparable to typical building-code regulation of private dwellings.

## Legal Principles

- Counties may adopt and amend building regulations under broadly delegated statutory police power to protect public health, safety, and welfare, including by incorporating accessibility standards into local building codes, absent clear statutory preemption or conflict.
- A local building ordinance is not preempted merely because the state regulates in the same general area; preemption requires a clear legislative intent to occupy the field or an actual conflict.
- Equal protection challenges to accessibility-oriented building requirements that do not involve a suspect classification or fundamental right are reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny; the ordinance is valid if reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest.
- Constitutional privacy protections do not generally bar structural requirements for new residential construction when the regulation concerns building specifications rather than intimate decisional autonomy.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Pima County’s accessibility requirements for new single-family homes, finding the ordinance within the County’s statutory authority and rationally related to legitimate public-welfare goals, and concluding it did not violate state constitutional equal protection or privacy guarantees.


Washburn v. Pima County, 81 P.3d 1030 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003)