As a state, Florida has been grappling with Tiny Homes for some time through state definitions and municipal government land use allowance. Below is an example of how one locality is seeking to provide a path for tiny homes through adaptation of local ordinance while adhering to state building requirements.
While many in the tiny home movement cling to zoning changes that would allow “no code” (non compliant) Tiny Houses on Wheels as homes and ADUs, I remain focused on meeting end user needs for affordable housing by leveraging the most applicable uniform means and personally believe OSMC offers the best short- and long-term viability for mass production of compliant housing units and manufacturing of custom homes in dedicated project shops.
State adoption of Appendix Q (A.Q.) provides a means of building “limited size, height restricted, low volume” Tiny Homes as residences, as ADUs, and in SPUDs (love that term).
Likewise, while the municipality may resist adoption of the stigmatized THOW as an official housing class, Off-Site Modular Construction (OSMC) offers a path for delivery of units on a temporary carrier or integrated chassis. OSMC is likely encouraged at the state level (maybe even a mandatory path) where site-built construction is allowed even if zoning ordinance precludes HUD Code based Manufactured Homes or Recreational Vehicles (as is the case for ADUs as cited in the document).
OSMC appears to be the path we’ve sought as an industry, though it means suppressing the mention of wheels for more than relocation.
Since a state-rostered Third Party Inspection Agency (TPIA) is proxy for the local Authority Having Jurisdiction, a “box” that arrives as compliant for closed (concealed) construction merely needs to meet municipal plan reviews for placement (setbacks, easements, utility access) and inspections of localized activities (like site prep, footings/foundations, ground anchors, removal of tongue/axles, skirting, and permanent connection to utilities).
In my opinion, the OSMC route currently offers the most hassle-free means for Tiny Home builders to meet state and municipal housing requirements.
Extra cost for TPIA plan review and inspection aside, the biggest difference in methodology is design/planning that meets state building code (hopefully with allowance of A.Q. exceptions for space savings) with engineering that illustrates a means of meeting minimums for bearing loads (structure and foundation) and resisting uplift (hold downs, H-clips, straps, and ground anchors) that are proven by calculation to meet wind zone requirements at the site.
I suspect many top Tiny Home builders/manufacturers are already targeting OSMC as a route for expanding their production. If not, it’s certainly worth consideration as OSMC is likely the “next big thing” for Tiny Homes.
Live Large — Go Tiny!
Thom Stanton
