It has been my long-standing belief that we can and should bring building officials a solution that leverages the codes they are familiar with in a manner and process that parallels their own.
The more we begin to expand our knowledge base through the Uniform Compliance Initiative, the more certain I feel that we will be able to create an “interim protocol” based on IRC and Appendix Q, with just enough reference to manufactured/modular housing (mainly frame/chassis that is compliant to residential floor system standards), with a bit of “relief” from ANSI 119.5 where mobile space restrictions can borrow a bit from the most stringent RV standard (the same was done for elements in IRC 2018 Appendix Q — see its reasoning statements).
This interim protocol can be voted on by consensus committees and adopted by the tiny home industry. Voluntary use by builders can be confirmed through a uniform inspection process, including factory QA compliance as performed by services like Pacific West and/or individual unit inspection used by Bildsworth. The protocol would then be brought forward for standardization through the ANSI Accreditation process for formalization as a codified standard. This path provides an option for residential compliance in a Movable Tiny House (aka: Portable Dwelling Unit) using an industry specific 50-state standard approach. While some municipalities may have specific modifications to increase minimums to meet statutory/municipal requirements, the “core codes” provide both a means of providing residential compliance along with potential to “grandfather in” older units that were built to the interim protocol.
Learning more about modular housing — which I believe is more aligned with state/municipal codes than the uniform HUD Code for manufactured housing — the more it feels that our tiny home code will need to look more like the familiar residential standard than the recreational one. On-frame modular retains its chassis, and therefore a means of move- ability/portability. DOT specs will need to be maintained where having a unit remain road ready is concerned.
Allowance of RVs as homes is the crux of the issue building officials seem to have, in that an allowance of use of the ANSI A119.5 (recreational park trailer) usher in the potential for “code minimum” recreational units — those built to the baseline for recreational compliance. Even the most relaxed residential codes illustrate how clearly insufficient code minimum RVs are where criteria for residential housing is concerned. In this way, I completely align with building officials adverse to allowing RVs to be used as permissible dwelling units.
However, the smaller size of our “industry standard” homes may fill the void left between conventional construction, factory home manufacturing, and recreational vehicle production (and this statement comes from someone living as a full- timer in and 18 foot RV… complete with big vinyl stickers all over the side — don’t go hatin’ cuz we haven’t yet built our own tiny home).
Most professional tiny home builders, and many DIYers, already build to “most of the codes,” but that’s the concern building officials have: They just don’t know which codes were used, which ones were skipped over, and which ones seemed “eh… close enough.” Again, this is where uniform codes and inspection processes will aid our cause, and the absence of this uniformity stymies our progress.
Additionally, the code we develop could be unique in that the tiny home industry upholds the rights of homeowner/builders as well as custom homebuilders and manufactured home facilities. This is a trifecta of opportunity is absent in other accepted forms of construct.
Our many thanks to all of you and the hard work and long hours you all put in in this effort. For my part, I am fighting for the rights of the homeowner/builder and small volume custom home builder engaged in tiny house construction, though believe a factory option should be available, especially as we have a housing crisis that only high-volume manufacturing can meet. That said, there should always be a home for custom construction, as well as a DIY path for construction compliance.
Here’s hoping we see success with the efforts in Oregon, and a broadening sense of unity within the tiny home industry.
Live Large — Go Tiny!
Thom Stanton
