• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Tiny Homes

J

jwilly3879

Sawhorse
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
171
Location
Olmstedville NY
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...


Does your city have a minimum lot size or building size, by chance???
 
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.
 
Good luck with the application..........see all of the above..........and it depends on your support from above.........
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Min&Max said:
The dwellings being proposed actually are licensed as a RV
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
fatboy said:
Because zoning cares about appearances..........that is the function.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.).
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

We had one person polka dot the house, in protest

Looked nice to me
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Reviving conversation, has anyone permitted a Tiny Home under 2018 Appendix Q or any other alternative section or code.?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top