Tiny House Code Compliance - 120 square feet exemption?

Recently I have been researching some alternative temporary housing for our land in Hotchkiss. I have somewhat intrigued by the so-called Tiny House movement. The proponents advocate living in little houses that are frequently less than 120sf in area. These houses provide full accommodation for living, sleeping, eating, and sanitation within a compact package. Many are constructed on dual axle flat bed trailers to permit portability. Don't like your neighbors? Hitch up and leave.

.

There is lot of information on these buildings on the web. Interspersed is a lot of BAD information about code compliance methodologies. This blog is intended to set the record straight.

.

The first question is determining if the building code is applicable to the structure or not. It is my opinion that any tiny house built and left on a trailer that is provided with tires and a license plate is not subject to building code oversight. If you are in Colorado, the legal precedent affirming this is Eason v. Town of Erie.

.

Trailers constitute the building code dead zone that caused HUD to establish requirements for these factory built "mobile homes" years ago. The feds determined that nobody was paying any attention to these type of structures and decided that rules needed to be made. The old "mobile homes" burned hard and fast. Something needed to be done. I am not sure how the HUD regulations affect owner built "tiny houses" and don't proclaim to be an expert. This is one regulatory agency I try to avoid due to their notorious record for convoluted regulations and interpretations. However, I do believe that the "mobile home" must be at least 40' in length and 320sf in area to fall under their jurisdiction.

.

If the house is sited on the ground (no trailer), then the building code comes into play. The International Residential Code regulates one and two family dwellings and their accessory structures. Many proponents cite the permit exclusion provisions for "sheds" that are less than 200sf (120 sf in the 2006 edition) in area. This is not a valid permit exclusion for the typical tiny house.

.

The key here is the word "shed". The code states, "One-story detached accessory structures used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses...". It is hard to argue that these are mere tool sheds or playhouses when they meet the entire definition of Dwelling and Dwelling Unit contained in the code.

.

2009 International Residential Code (IRC) Definitions:

DWELLING. Any building that contains one or two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be built, used, rented, leased, let or hired out to be occupied, or that are occupied for living purposes.

DWELLING UNIT. A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation.

.

One could easily argue that a lack of one of the "permanent provisions" would preclude meeting the definition of "dwelling unit". Substitution of the built-in permanent stove with a plug-in counter top microwave would be one example. Elimination of the bathroom facilities is another.

If it isn't a complete "dwelling unit", then what is it? One could then argue it is a nice playhouse...exempt from building code permit requirements.

.

Assuming that all permanent provisions are in place and the local code official makes the determination that the building is a "dwelling unit", the fun begins.

.

The IRC prescribes some minimum areas for the dwelling. At least one room must be 120sf in area. All other habitable rooms except the kitchen must be 70sf in area. Minimum room width must be 7'. Minimum ceiling headroom must be 7'-0". The list goes on...and as you can see, so will your tiny house... going on down the road to some locale with no building code. Traditional tiny houses simply cannot comply with the IRC if they are determined to be dwelling units.

.

A respondent stated the she thought that it would be possible to make the 120sf minimum area work. That may be possible. I will pick this idea up and explore it in a Part 2 post as a follow up to this discussion.

.

Some will wonder why the code has so many restrictive requirements. These provisions go back beyond any memory, probably having their roots in the "tenement codes" first promulgated in places like New York City in the mid-nineteenth century. The intent was to provide for minimum habitability standards for conventional houses. Slum lord provisions, if you will.

.

Truth be known, it is unlikely that any studies or analysis was conducted to ascertain that a building is safer or more habitable simply by having a single room with 120sf in area. Unfortunately, those that came up with these standards are no longer around to justify their existence. Old "tried and proven" code lore becomes absolute when the original basis for its inclusion is lost.

.

Here is the moral of the story: Always do your homework first. Know the rules before you build or purchase. Understand the loopholes provided by the code and local case law. Query your code official on the requirements prior to bringing your building on the site. Be prepared to surmount some hurdles before enjoying your new-found minimalist venture.

Sustainable Building Code

I have been negligent in keeping up with the blog due to the proliferation of life's demands. However, there comes a time when one must get back on the mission track. Whats was it, by the way? Oh... sustainable building and those darned building regulations.

My wife and I are back on track looking for retirement land. Our preference is to be in a location where we can build what we want without the encumbrances of excessive building regulation...or the excesses of building regulators. I note that periodical publications of proponents of alternative building construction have real estate ads stating, "no building codes". There is a reason for this endorsement. Most folks looking at "new" construction methods are simply fatigued by regulators who cannot dwell comfortably outside the norm.

.

Our current "area of preference" lies in the heart of Delta County, Colorado. This is one of 11 or so counties in the state with no adopted building code. It seems rather strange for me, an expert in the field of building regulation, to be seeking land in an area without regulation.

.

The more skilled I become in my craft, unfortunately the more frustrated I have become with SOME members of my profession. The fact that one can read a building code does not in itself make that person a competent building official. Blindly following the black and white letter of the code denies logic and the original code intent.

.

Many forget that International Residential Code Section R104.11 addressing alternate methods and materials is there for a very important and legitimate reason. It demands an enforcing official to assess and potentially approve methods of construction that are not prescriptively addressed in the code. It does NOT permit "no" as an answer. It makes the answer "maybe". Maybe the petitioner can provide adequate information to satisfy the burden of proof that the method proposed meets the intent of the code. This is not intended to an impossible task.

.

Increasingly, today's model building codes are becoming more urban-centric. The fact of the matter is that most of the folks doing code development come from big cities. They do a good job of representing their constituents and their associated expectations. They do NOT however, represent the needs of rural America. As the trend continues, rural communities are less likely to adopt these "restrictive and onerous" building regulations. Therefore, I have been advocating the creation of something entitled along the lines of Minimum Life Safety Standards for Developing Communities to fill the void between excess regulation and nothing at all.

.

Most rural areas that I am familiar with operate under the rules of self sufficiency. You are can do as you please as long as what you do doesn't adversely impact your neighbors. In rural areas, neighbors are far apart. More distance, less chance of one's action impacting another. Self sufficiency allows for less regulation. If you feel that you should be responsible for your environment and actions, then you don't need laws to tell you what to do.

.

In the city, it is hard not to be affected by a neighbor's actions due to close proximity. Therefore, more regulation of the neighbor's activities is warranted. If your suburban neighbor ignites his house while cooking 7 greasy T-Bone steaks on the outdoor BBQ, your house will likely have its plastic siding melted off also...if you are too close. Worse yet, your house will catch on fire and then in turn ignite somebody else's house.

.

The fire spread scenario was the historic basis for most US building codes. Communities would have a singular fire incident get out of hand, overwhelm the capabilities of the local fire authority, and subsequently burn an entire town down. This happened in Chicago in 1871 and Central City, Colorado in 1874. By 1875, both cities enacted new building codes intended to regulate construction such that fire could be confined to the building or building lot of origin. This was intended to protect the community as a whole and was never intended as an individual protective. Over time, that community protection basis of the building code has evolved to address individual protectives. This evolution comes, in my opinion, from the urban-centric mindset of the code development proponents.

.

And thus we have disparity. The communities of self sufficiency have chosen to have no regulation whatsoever. Meanwhile, the cities and suburbs continue to pile on the regulation. Pity the poor building inspector that thinks the code is gospel when encountering something like strawbale construction that is completely absent from the code. With so many regulations, a specific omission must be deliberate, right? Therefore, communities with strong emphasis of "build whatcha want" are not inclined to adopt a model building code. Therefore, no strawbale in the city, lots of it in the country...

.

I am told that everything is better in moderation. I believe that a little building regulation is a very good thing. On the other hand, I have seen that excess regulation can inhibit individual liberties, pursuit of happiness, and a better and much more sustainable existance for many Americans. Currently, communities have only one model residential building code to adopt and it leans toward the "heavy on regulation" side. It is time to write some alternate versions.

.

Most advocates of alternative construction tend to to be liberal (progressive) thinkers. They are the first to complain to me about the regulations that stop their ability to build their version of the "American dream". So why are these same folk promlogating current Federal policies that will interject more regulations in other areas of their lives? Time to step back and rethink the big picture, regardless of your political persuasion. Time to take back some of the responsibility and quit abrogating it to local, state, and federal enforcing officials. It is time to consider some moderation in building code regulations for locations that still value individual responsibility.