# Tiny Homes



## jwilly3879 (Feb 8, 2018)

How do you deal with tiny homes in your jurisdictions?

The tiny home being proposed is on a foundation but does not meet the minimum room sizes.


----------



## FLSTF01 (Feb 8, 2018)

In Connecticut, I would have them apply for a modification from the state.  They could ask to use Appendix Q from the 2018 IRC.  I'm not sure if I would support the issuance of a modification, but at this time, I wouldn't necessarily say no.


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Feb 8, 2018)

Tiny Houses is now in the 2018 IRC Appendix Q

The 2015 IRC reduced minimum room to 70 sf. from 120.

But if you have to enforce the IPMC kept the 120 sf.


----------



## cda (Feb 8, 2018)

jwilly3879 said:


> How do you deal with tiny homes in your jurisdictions?
> 
> The tiny home being proposed is on a foundation but does not meet the minimum room sizes.




Does your city have a minimum lot size or building size, by chance???


----------



## Francis Vineyard (Feb 8, 2018)

Where zoning permits granny pods, and similarly with small Yurts as accessory structure and seasonal cabins.


----------



## jwilly3879 (Feb 8, 2018)

We have minimum lot sizes but no minimum structure size. What has been done before is to issue a permit for a shed, which magically become cabins.
The issue is the applicant wants a C of O which I just can't see, a C of C maybe.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 8, 2018)

Good luck with the application..........see all of the above..........and it depends on your support from above.........


----------



## JCraver (Feb 9, 2018)

We don't have anything in our zoning other than a few aesthetic requirements that apply to all new dwelling units (must have a porch, must have a min. 6/12 roof pitch, must have at least 1 dormer, etc.).  If they meet the sq. footage required by the IRC and IPMC then I don't care how big/small it is, and I'm happy to issue a permit.

I see this as way more of a zoning issue than a code issue, and I believe that if your town/city/county wants to regulate them, then they should do so through a/the zoning code(s).  I can't understand the argument that this should be a building code issue.


----------



## conarb (Feb 9, 2018)

JCraver said:


> We don't have anything in our zoning other than a few aesthetic requirements that apply to all new dwelling units (must have a porch, must have a min. 6/12 roof pitch, must have at least 1 dormer, etc.).  If they meet the sq. footage required by the IRC and IPMC then I don't care how big/small it is, and I'm happy to issue a permit.
> 
> I see this as way more of a zoning issue than a code issue, and I believe that if your town/city/county wants to regulate them, then they should do so through a/the zoning code(s).  I can't understand the argument that this should be a building code issue.



What in the world does the pitch of the roof, a porch, and a dormer have to do with codes which are supposed to be minimum health and safety standards?  I can see minimum room sizes, like minimum window sizes, providing air and light being code requirements.


----------



## Min&Max (Feb 9, 2018)

We are considering them at this point. The dwellings being proposed actually are licensed as a RV. My thought has been to allow them in mobile home parks by providing a definition/exception to our current zoning regs. This would crack the door open but not fling it wide open to anything and everything imaginable.


----------



## mtlogcabin (Feb 9, 2018)

Min&Max said:


> The dwellings being proposed actually are licensed as a RV



You you want to keep them out of your jurisdiction it is pretty easy since it is in the ANSI regs for RV's that they are built under that they are not constructed for permanent residence. this would include park models and basically anything under 490 sq ft. HUD regulations start with 500 sq ft units


----------



## JCraver (Feb 9, 2018)

conarb said:


> What in the world does the pitch of the roof, a porch, and a dormer have to do with codes which are supposed to be minimum health and safety standards?  I can see minimum room sizes, like minimum window sizes, providing air and light being code requirements.



Did you read my post at all?  Those requirements are in our ZONING regulations, they don't have anything to do with the building code(s).


----------



## conarb (Feb 9, 2018)

JCraver said:


> Did you read my post at all?  Those requirements are in our ZONING regulations, they don't have anything to do with the building code(s).


Sorry, I read that but it didn't sink in, but why would even zoning care about roof pitches, porches, and/or dormers?


----------



## fatboy (Feb 9, 2018)

conarb said:


> Sorry, I read that but it didn't sink in, but why would even zoning care about roof pitches, porches, and/or dormers?



Because zoning cares about appearances..........that is the function.


----------



## conarb (Feb 10, 2018)

fatboy said:


> Because zoning cares about appearances..........that is the function.


In the  early 80s the lone building inspector in Piedmont asked me to apply for an open position on the Design Review board because he didn't want a "housewife" on the panel, after several months I resigned because I couldn't bear sitting  on a panel debating until midnight which color we were going to mandate a home be painted.  In Pleasanton several years ago they mandated a La Habra stucco color on a home, in the end the owner changed the color *by one shade*, the building department refused to final the home because of the color change, the local newspaper published articles about it including pictures of the mandated color and the owner's choice side-by-side, you could barely tell the difference and there was such an uproar that the city finally relented and allowed the owner to occupy the house.  There are good reasons for zoning regulations, like separating single family from commerical occupancies that I agree with that are unfortunately breaking down, but mandating dormers, porches, or roof pitches are not good reasons and do nothing but take people's freedoms away from them.


----------



## fatboy (Feb 10, 2018)

I wasn't defending it.....merely stating a fact.

I doubt it was actually the Building Department holding up the C.O., but rather the P & Z Department. 

I make that crystal clear to permit holders, I am not enforcing P & Z requirements, it is P & Z is holding the CO hostage for their requirements, not mine.


----------



## ICE (Feb 10, 2018)

JCraver said:


> all new dwelling units (must have a porch, must have a min. 6/12 roof pitch, must have at least 1 dormer, etc.).


The houses must look alike.  Such rules constrain creativity.  Especially the minimum 6" in 12" roof pitch.  A 6/12 versus a 3/12 could be a 100% ***** in cost. This all sounds akin to association CC&Rs.  It must come as an unwelcome surprise to a bunch of people.  What about additions?


----------



## JCraver (Feb 12, 2018)

I didn't say I agreed with any of it either, I just said that that was what I have to enforce.  In real life I think they're mostly useless rules, but that's what my Council passed, so it is what it is.

ICE- additions to existing houses don't have those rules.  Dumb, I know.


----------



## conarb (Feb 12, 2018)

fatboy said:


> I wasn't defending it.....merely stating a fact.
> 
> I doubt it was actually the Building Department holding up the C.O., but rather the P & Z Department.
> 
> I make that crystal clear to permit holders, I am not enforcing P & Z requirements, it is P & Z is holding the CO hostage for their requirements, not mine.


Fatboy:

We don't have  C.O.s here for single family homes, we only have final inspections, it was the building department withholding the final because the final building did not conform to the approved plans, the stucco color requirements were imposed by the Design Review Commission and issuance of the final by the building department is the only way they have of enforcing it.

In the case above where I couldn't live with myself telling people what color to paint their houses I quit, but I had mixed emotions because if someone painted their house florescent pink it would negatively affect neighbors, but the libertarian side of me won and I thought that in a free country people should have ther right to paint their hosues any coloir they want and if neighbors don't like it they can move, but I still wrestle with that conflict.

I knew a really good inspector who quit because he couldn't enforce the Green Code, were I an inpsector I couldn't enforce the Green Code, Energy Code, or ADA and would quit rather than take people's rights away from them.


----------



## cda (Feb 12, 2018)

conarb said:


> Fatboy:
> 
> We don't have  C.O.s here for single family homes, we only have final inspections, it was the building department withholding the final because the final building did not conform to the approved plans, the stucco color requirements were imposed by the Design Review Commission and issuance of the final by the building department is the only way they have of enforcing it.
> 
> ...



We had one person polka dot the house, in protest

Looked nice to me


----------



## conarb (Feb 12, 2018)

cda said:


> We had one person polka dot the house, in protest
> 
> Looked nice to me


Yeah, I guess in a free country a person has a right to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others.


----------



## tmurray (Feb 12, 2018)

We had a similar problem where the Planning Advisory Committee allow a size variance on an accessory structure, but placed a requirement that the building be clad to match the house. I noted the installation of cedar siding when the guys were about 6-7 rows up and told them to hold off because the house was clad in vinyl. I went back to speak to the committee and they indicated that they didn't care what kind of siding was used, as long as it has some siding on it. The building department now writes the recommendations for building variances to ensure they are worded properly; The building must be clad using an acceptable product to the National Building Code of Canada, current adopted edition.

For tiny homes, the ones I've seen have a loft area and have issues with headroom, stairs and guards. There is really no way around this here. From the zoning standpoint, they are too small for our minimum size. We could look at variance to that though.


----------



## my250r11 (Feb 12, 2018)

We allow RV's in Mobile home parks or zoning districts only. No Acc. structure without main dwelling. If to be lived in must meet ALL min. requirements of the code. The state here sent a flyer out which i posted on another thread not to long ago.


----------



## Keystone (Jul 12, 2020)

FLSTF01 said:


> In Connecticut, I would have them apply for a modification from the state.  They could ask to use Appendix Q from the 2018 IRC.  I'm not sure if I would support the issuance of a modification, but at this time, I wouldn't necessarily say no.



Reviving conversation, has anyone permitted a Tiny Home under 2018 Appendix Q or any other alternative section or code.?


----------



## Mark K (Jul 13, 2020)

California law provides for relaxation of many building code provisions for residences in remote locations.  Also California has provisions for Accessory Dwelling Units Or ADUs which are small residences located on aa lot with  another building.  Because of the need to build more affordable housing the State has preempted much of the issues related to the ADUs preventing them from impose more restrictive requirements.


----------



## Keystone (Jul 13, 2020)

Interesting read on “Tiny Homes”

https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/...not fall within the,the concept of tiny homes.


----------



## ADAguy (Jul 13, 2020)

conarb said:


> In the  early 80s the lone building inspector in Piedmont asked me to apply for an open position on the Design Review board because he didn't want a "housewife" on the panel, after several months I resigned because I couldn't bear sitting  on a panel debating until midnight which color we were going to mandate a home be painted.  In Pleasanton several years ago they mandated a La Habra stucco color on a home, in the end the owner changed the color *by one shade*, the building department refused to final the home because of the color change, the local newspaper published articles about it including pictures of the mandated color and the owner's choice side-by-side, you could barely tell the difference and there was such an uproar that the city finally relented and allowed the owner to occupy the house.  There are good reasons for zoning regulations, like separating single family from commerical occupancies that I agree with that are unfortunately breaking down, but mandating dormers, porches, or roof pitches are not good reasons and do nothing but take people's freedoms away from them.



Urban blight as in Russia comes from lack of eye candy, think Santa Barbara and other communities mandating common appearance features.


----------



## tmurray (Jul 13, 2020)

ADAguy said:


> Urban blight as in Russia comes from lack of eye candy, think Santa Barbara and other communities mandating common appearance features.


I'm of two minds on this one.

I don't feel it is the place of the government to regulate aesthetic items this closely. I can get behind setbacks, accessory structure restricting, etc. But what colours are acceptable? I understand if the community is trying to maintain some architectural elements and commonality in historic areas, but I see this in newer communities as well.

On the other hand, laws are passed by those who are democratically elected and if restrictive laws such as these are not struck down at the next election, I would have to assume the populace was in favour of these regulations.


----------



## Flexo (Jul 13, 2020)

I mention to our local nonconformists that they should visit Mogadishu to experience what it is to live without government intrusion.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 13, 2020)

Keystone said:


> Interesting read on “Tiny Homes”
> 
> https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/Codes-and-standards/Building-Code-Development-Committee/BCDC_WhitePaper_TinyHome_5_12_17.ashx?la=en#:~:text=Recreational vehicles and manufactured homes do not fall within the,the concept of tiny homes.



Here's one about the IRC Appendix Q...  

https://www.finehomebuilding.com/2018/09/12/tiny-homes-get-big-recognition


----------

