Legitimizing Tiny Homes
The terms “tiny home” and “tiny house” are largely colloquial and — due to the breadth of structures that are self-defined as tiny houses/homes — the lack of specificity has generated great confusion as to “what is ‘tiny?'”
I believe the “it really comes down to the builder” approach propagates an election for professionals to produce a mix of permit-ready housing, recreational vehicles, and “no code” units under the same marketable moniker of “tiny house” solutions.
The inference that a “tiny home” may be used as a domicile leads me to believe that the crux of the issue comes down to a need to classify a unit’s suitability for use by proving conformance to standards. Truth be told, even with standards, individuals can always build a home-built RV and entities may offer custom creations as “well secured loads resembling a house.”
Consumers, however, often buy/build “tiny houses” and then (after the fact) seek their acceptance as permissible housing. This obviously puts homeowners at odds with municipal housing authorities, and I believe we’ve seen the long-term futility in the proliferation of a “no code” (non-compliant) approach which has extremely limited reach as a truly viable, scalable, and widely accessible form of innovative housing.
I believe our goal through OSMC could be to define a path for compliance for those that wish to produce smaller dwelling units for use as residences. This may/should especially apply those entities engaged in the commercial manufacture, marketing, and sale of a work product clearly positioned as a housing solution.
Sadly, consumers (and many pros too) are unaware of the nuances of difference between NFPA 1192 and ANSI A119.5 RVs, Manufactured versus Modular homes, and Unregistered IBs as portable buildings converted to dwelling-like structures on skids. All are often termed “tiny homes,” and may even be presented as permissible residential structures.
Unfortunately, there isn’t a clearcut path of adoption and/or means of compliance for widespread permitting of “tiny homes” for residential use. I feel that OSMC offers a long sought solution for off-site built dwelling units intended for use as tiny sized residences.
Relocatable Residences
It remains my belief that we need a specification (most likely through OSMC) for units that may comprise a new class or — at least — a means of access and application of standards for relocatable structures built as permissible dwelling units.
For many reasons, relocatable commercial buildings and relocatable residential dwellings would likely adhere to many of the same structural and vehicular specifications. The only issue I can foresee is that some units may seek a means of conformance to DOT requirements with access to titling/licensing of units that allows RV-like transportability without special permit. This is a common desire for builders, buyers, and dwellers of “movable tiny homes.”
This widely advocated “movable” use case introduces the need to define the means of compliant manufacture, inspection, certification, and registration. This opens the door for states/provinces to establish a classification and process for permitting/licensure of relocatable residences as inherently vehicular structures.
To further extrapolate, if relocatable residential dwellings are within OSMC scope, we may need to address prospective impact/conflict with common definitions of “chattel” where state DOT and housing departments are concerned. Many states are grappling with a means of classification for the combined dwelling/vehicle. OSMC seems the right venue to address from a more global perspective.
From a classification and compliance standpoint, I don’t personally believe OSMC should mandate or uphold an either/or scenario for RV or Residence. A relocatable residential structure can prove its conformance to OSMC along with a meeting in parity of “code minimum” requirements for one or both RV specifications. In this way, a unit may be properly built, inspected, and certified as conforming to OSMC requirements for housing and RV specifications for temporary/seasonal use.
It’s been my long held belief that certification to standards (and maybe more than one) provides a clean path for flexible use of relocatable residential structures in scenarios for temporary, emergency, disaster, recreational, accessory, and primary dwelling unit scenarios without substantial redefinition in state/municipal codes.
Having specifications for a relocatable residence in OSMC would provide a means to quickly increase production, permitting, and placement of compliant housing inventory with an inherent flexibility for a single unit to meet multiple use case applications during its lifecycle.
For the sake of clarity, potential conflict, and projective correlation, I feel we’ll want to address if a relocatable residence (one that is not necessarily size dependent nor even termed a “tiny home”) is within the scope of OSMC standards development.
IRC Appendix Q
As I’m sure you’re aware, small homes and ADUs are of increasingly high demand from consumers, community developers, emergency management directors, and state/municipal administrators, all of whom may seek OSMC based housing units as placement-ready solutions.
In general, I believe there is great merit in providing appropriate guidance (and exceptions) for residences of different sizes. With regard to small space design, I also believe there is need to retain a path of exception for small footprint height-restricted dwelling units (which is the essence of A.Q.).
As mentioned earlier, there is existing application for IRC-based site-built/installed units as primary residences and — maybe more importantly — A.Q. addresses the unique needs of secondary/accessory dwelling units which are often subject to smaller-than-average size and height requirements via zoning ordinance.
Whether permanent/relocatable or site built/assembled/installed, Appendix Q offers a means to appropriately address small residential space design. Case in point, I observe and apply A.Q. provisions where appropriate (and permitted) on every small residence we design. For the same of safety, comfort, and usability, I rarely design to the minimum specifications, though it’s nice to have the relief from too-big-to-go-tiny standards.
States including Virginia and California specifically include A.Q. as “mandatory” provisions of their uniform statewide construction codes so there is application within their existing IB/FBH modular housing programs. Obviously, if this is deemed important for state administered modular housing programs, it bears consideration within our work on OSMC.
Here too regarding relocatable residential structures, A.Q. design specifications were primarily derived from the ANSI A119.5 for Recreational Park Trailers (park models). Therefore, A.Q. has immediate application for OSMC scoped relocatable residential structures as partially-built and turnkey closed construction units that are ready- made for transport (either as privately licensed vehicles or state-issued special permit where mandated per oversize width and height requirements).
I personally believe it would be appropriate to include a pointer to A.Q. in the OSMC as this appendix offers relief for items that will otherwise remain burdensome barriers for small sized sized dwelling units. Of course, there would be additional specifications and requirements for any relocatable residential structures (as they are outside the scope of IRC).
In the end…
Our opinions may vary, but scope provides direction and consensus implies agreement.
I certainly hope our collaborative efforts with OSMC can help eliminate the aspect of “Wild Wild West” that currently plagues designers, architects, engineers, builders, inspectors, certification bodies, and state/municipal housing authorities, not to mention the consumers and end users of building/manufacturing industry work product.
These comments merely represent my personal perspective as an Interested Party, “tiny home” product/industry advocate, and professional engaged in the design of small homes including those leveraging panelized materials, prefab assemblies, off-site construction, and permanent provisions for transportability.
All merely my opinions, and always happy to discuss.
Live Large — Go Tiny!
Thom Stanton
