Rural Sensibility

During the past couple of months, I have been engaged in a program where I have to meet face to face with Colorado town and county governments and discuss whether they have adopted building codes...or not. Among the half dozen members of my firm, we have divided the work within areas of interest or specialty. In my case, I am assigned the rural locales with no adopted building codes. The house libertarian gets the recalcitrant.

I am enjoying the task. It has taken me to places off the interstate within the northeastern portion of the state. Most of the towns are suffering from the economy. Downtown areas are assessed by vacancy rate. I have been in more than one where the ENTIRE downtown area is completely deserted. It can be a little depressing.

Conversely, I have found thriving locations in unexpected places. My favorite so far is Wray. It is green via apparently abundant water, commerce appears to thrive, and its residential neighborhoods are well kept and nicely manicured. Mayberry on the plains.

Regardless of prosperity, each seems to be driven by resolve. They cannot control big agri-business and the consolidation of the small family farm, the vacuum created by big box retail, or the influences of an electronically connected world. What they can control is their own destiny.


When asked about the possibility of adopting a building code, I usually find a concerned and somewhat confused expression followed by the question, "Why?" The discussion usually leads into a "why do I need to have government (the code) to tell me what I really already know?" I am responsible for the safety of my family and I will happily accept that duty.

I call this "rural sensibility". As I interview these folk, I deduce that they are of hardy and intelligent stock. They have chosen to live in remote locations, absent of government services and conveniences. They are tough by attrition. You cannot survive here if you cannot think and do for yourself. The conditions can be harsh and these folk must surmount any obstacle that arises.

This process has affirmed some of my thoughts on the progression of building code regulations in the United States. The codes have increasingly become more restrictive and detailed. I have previously stated that the codes are becoming much more urban centric, catering to a populace that usually isn't required to constantly contemplate daily survival. When one is not thinking, one needs to be directed through comprehensive code requirements. On the other hand, the rural areas either don't adopt codes or essentially ignore them through marginal enforcement. They don't need to be told what they already know.




My wife and I have just returned from a several day camping trip on our land in Hotchkiss. We were schooled by our neighbors on the nuances of taking "free" irrigation water from the large run-off prior to the ditch company switching to allocation only. We observed the meadow turn green as the furrows were flooded one section at a time. We marveled at the land's fragility and fertility simultaneously. Most importantly, we witnessed proper stewardship that isn't directed by a government overseer. You either act and thrive...or perish. That is invigorating.

Tiny House Building Code Compliance Part 2

This post is intended to explore the requirements for tiny houses that are placed on foundations on the ground (not placed on a trailer with wheels). These are likely to meet the dwelling criteria used by the International Residential Code and subject to permit requirements.

If you haven't already, I suggest reading the first installment of this series before heading into this "advanced" discussion.

As I stated in the first post, the International Residential Code (IRC) requires a number of minimum criteria for "dwelling units". The first is a requirement for at least one minimum habitable room that is 120sf in "gross floor area". Lacking a definition for "gross floor area" in the IRC, the user is directed to "other publications of the International Code Council". Chapter 10 of the International Building Code establishes "gross floor area" as "the floor area within the inside perimeter of the exterior walls of the building...".

If your tiny house house uses thick walls such as the cob house shown in the photo, you will not be given credit toward the 120sf for the wall thickness. Your building footprint will have to be expanded to include the room area in addition to the area comprised of the wall thickness. The 7 foot minimum habitable room dimension required by IRC Section R304.3 will also be measured from interior face of wall to opposite interior face of wall.

Once the code minimum area and dimension requirements for the this room are satisfied, the remainding code hurdles are initiated based upon what is provided within the dwelling.

Additional "habitable rooms" must have a minimum area of 70sf with the 7 foot minimum dimension and provided with a minimum ceiling of 7 feet in height. This can work to your advantage. The typical tiny houses I see on the net use a sleeping loft configuration that is pretty compact.

In order to be a habitable room, one must have the minimum 70sf room area. Frequently these spaces are designed to less than the minimum. As such, they are not "habitable" by the code definition. This allows the use of a ladder or other non-compliant vertical egress method to be employed for access since the IRC's stair and ramp provisions only apply to access to habitable spaces.

If you are ever challenged on the use of a ladder for non-habitable loft, be assured that the code allows it by default. Intentionally, there are no requirements for non-habitable loft access. I know this as I am the one that wrote this code section as it is currently provided for in the 2009 IRC. Fresh from the horse's mouth...not its posterior.

Assuming that the minimum habitable room area is provided within the loft, the next test of habitability is ceiling headroom. The IRC requires 7 feet vertical clearance except when the ceiling is sloped. When the ceiling is sloped, only one half of the required room area must be provided with the 7 foot headroom clearance. If the room is required to be 70sf in area, then 35sf of the room must have 7 feet of clearance. Additionally, all the remaining required area must have a minimum of 5 feet of clearance. If this isn't provided, the room or loft cannot be deemed habitable.

This takes us back to the definition for "dwelling unit". In order to be considered a "dwelling unit", permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation must be provided. If you are asserting that your tiny house is a dwelling, the code official is unlikely to allow you to use your non-habitable loft for compliance with permanent provision for sleeping. Best to figure out a way to put a bed (fold out or otherwise) on the lower level. If you insist upon calling your loft the sleeping area, you are sure to be forced to comply with the minimum habitability requirements...including provision of those large and space consuming code-compliant stairs.

Kitchens are deeded habitable, but are exempt from the minimum room area. Earlier editions of the code required 50sf for this location. The current exception was also one of my code changes. If was quite a battle to get the ICC membership to delete this requirement. However, we prevailed. Based on this experience, it may be quite difficult to delete the 120sf and 70sf minimums in future codes. However, I think that a proposal to do so is certainly worth consideration for the 2015 edition.

Bathrooms are not deemed habitable, but still have some minimum clearances. "Bathrooms" and "toilet rooms" must have the 7 foot minimum ceiling height. Minimum area and dimensions are not stipulated aside from plumbing fixture "usability" clearances.

Toilets must have 15" of side clearance measured from either side to the centerline of the fixture. Toilets, lavatories, bathtubs and showers must have 21" clearance in front for access to the fixture. Showers must be provided with a minimum 30" by 30" shower pan. The room configuration must be such to allow for the fixture clearances. Doors may swing into any of the clearances. This is not clearly stated in the code, but it is the intent.

Hopefully this discussion is beneficial if you are trying to justify your minimum dwelling. This discussion applies only to the building code. Always be aware that zoning regulations or restrictive covenants may preclude the construction of these minimalist structures.

Photos of the cob buildings used by permission by Ziggy Liloia. His "Year of Mud" blog is an interesting and informative read if you are interested in owner built, minimal cob structures. Sustainable construction in its purest form.

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.

Top 25 Sustainable Building Code Blogs

If you are interested in Sustainable Building, this Top 25 list of Sustainable Building blogs may be of interest:

http://www.environmentalsciencedegrees.net/blog/2010/25-best-blogs-at-the-forefront-of-sustainable-building/

I am happy to report that this blog is among the 25! With that kind of recognition, I better get to work!

Tom

Hotchkiss, Colorado - Home Free!

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


We finally did it! My wife and I purchased 20 acres in Hotchkiss, Colorado. That's me in the photo standing next to our stream that supplies irrigation water to our land and our neighbors. Happy landowner...soon (hopefully) to be happy homebuilder.

The land is located in the small, libertarian enclave of Hotchkiss located in the heart of Delta County. Delta county is one of several in Colorado without benefit of an adopted building code. Our land is within the unincorporated county area. We are therefore HOME FREE as far as building code oversight is concerned.

However, the state of Colorado has a statewide adoption of an electrical and plumbing code. We will have to pull permits for those trades when we eventually build. It will be interesting to have inspections only on those items, but not on the rest of the house. At that point, why bother?

We learned a lot in the purchase of the land. The first thing we learned was to buy land without any buildings on it whatsoever. The lack of building codes has resulted in the construction of some very marginal structures. Owners ascribe values that represent quality construction. Unfortunately, they were so bad that demolition was the only viable way to fix them. It is hard to pay money for something that you have no choice but tear down...not to mention that junk construction is NOT sustainable in the first place.

We also learned that restrictive covenants can be a bigger burden than locally adopted and enforced regulations. In an effort to control bad construction, proliferation of junk cars, and operation of smelly cattle feed lots, folks around these parts write very restrictive covenants to provided for local control. Unfortunately, these are usually so poorly crafted that they become very exclusionary as to the type of buildings and uses that are permitted. We rejected many properties simply because we could not build using the alternative construction or because some of the small scale production agriculture and animal husbandry we would like to try was prohibited. Crazy overreaction best describes the circumstances.

Water is extremely important in Colorado. We are have a dry, arid climate. Irrigation water from a quality source is essential to ensure successful cultivation of the land. A lot of the value of our land is in irrigation water rights that came with it. A majority of ours are pre-1922 water pact rights. This will be beneficial when bigger, thirstier states decide their expanding urban populations need more of Colorado's water to keep their bluegrass and petunias healthy. Guess whose water they will be looking to take? Not looking forward to that fight, so have protected ourselves as best we can.

So...being in an area without building codes is not utopia. There are a lot of factors besides regulatory oversight to consider. Be an informed consumer. Don't rush into anything until you do a lot of research.

No Building Codes??

No building codes?

I have been asked about locations where there are no building codes in the US. If you read my profile, you probably know that I have more than passing knowledge about building codes, particularly the one that regulates residential construction.

The International Residential Code is a good code...if you feel that it is very important that your local government closely regulates building construction. If you are a proponent of natural "alternative" building methods, you may think that the building code does nothing but impede the achievement of your American dream. It would be my preference that regulators make full use of their obligations under the Alternates provisions in IRC Section R104.11. With better training and understanding of alternate construction methods, the code can be used in conjunction with strawbale, cob, container, earthship, cordwood, and a myriad of other unconventional methods. Unfortunately, the informed regulator is a rare commodity.

.

Still want a location without building codes? Here is your resource:

http://nobuildingcodes.com/

I am not necessarily an advocate of no building code whatsoever. I still believe that a more minimum standard applicable to any residential product can be produced with oversight more appropriate to areas with rural sensibilities. However, that document remains unwritten at this date. Still looking for a sponsor...hint, hint!

I also believe that a lot of the regulatory hurdles come from planning and zoning regulations, not building codes. These are designed to be exclusionary and are often insurmountable. The building code is not intended to be exclusionary (Section R104.11) and has versatility to keep it from being insurmountable (but may cost some money in the surmounting effort).

Finding property in an area without building codes does not give you license to build anything you want. More likely than not, you will find other regulations from other sources that will stop you dead in your tracks. More on that later.

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.