HUD Regulations...Tiny Houses vs. RV Fulltimers

[Uplander]

The government and therefore taxes are involved in everything we touch.
Thanks to the RVIA we as owners of travel trailers have been given a special classification. Our units are not considered permanent structures and therefore circumvent building codes, property taxes as dwelling units etc.etc.
When you park your travel trailer on your property it is not taxed as a dwelling unit. The agreement between HUD and our guardian angel (RVIA) insulated us from that type of taxation.
The Tiny House movement threatened to end all that. Most of their units were built on wheels and it was evident that they might be trying to avoid taxation and be considered as part of the RV class. This gets complicated but since they were designed as an alternative to standard housing that inclusion in the RV class was not allowed. HUD then imposed building codes (far more specific than the code established thru the RVIA) that governed the building of travel trailers etc.
This allowed the state's and towns to tax Tiny Houses as permanent housing even though they were on wheels. The goal of the Tiny House movement was to save money by downsizing...not just in size but too often in minimum building standards as to electrical codes, sanitation and general construction.
What HUD did was two fold...first they let the Tiny House movement know they had to answer to higher standard and couldn't have it both ways and secondly
(Important to us) reaffirmed the special RV class as for "recreation" and not permanent housing.....to date the status of Fulltimers living in RVs is safe.

Fulltimers have it both ways for now. They can "follow the sun" while establishing residency for things like driver's licenses, taxes (especially state income taxes) while not actually living in that state. It is no wonder that most Fulltimers are "residents of Florida" a tax friendly state. They avoid real property taxes by not owning any real property.

The subject is very complex yet simple...and .....it is not political but it does involve many government regulations....and...IMHO does not violate any of the rules of this form....it is all about our life style and RVs in general.
It is a subject vital to our interests.

My last point is this....any town, through local codes, can restrict both the storage of RVs on private property and restrict the placement of Tiny Houses based on their square footage...and many have established minimum square footage regulations long before the advent of the Tiny House Fad.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Carol H

The term favouritism is the practice of giving unfair preferential treatment to one person or group at the expense of another.

Which is totally not what the community board I volunteer on does. In fact it does the opposite. Any home owner can apply to the board for a relaxation of the building by laws and have an open public hearing of their application. One of the most common reasons a homeowner may not be granted a relaxation on set backs or building heights etc is if the board majority feels the request comes at the expense of a neighbours property - for reasons such as loss of view, loss of privacy etc. and it is possible for the homeowner to build on the lot without negatively impacting the neighbours. Neighbours are all invited to have their say in the application and what they have to say about the application is given a fairly high level of weight when the time comes for a board vote. It is BTW just as common to hear all the neighbours say they are in favour of an application as it is to hear the majority say they are opposed. Basically the process puts the development of the neighbourhood back into the hands of all the people who live in the neighbourhood.

As far as the reason the board is needed is not actually due to the zoning being to restrictive it is simple impossable to write zoning bylaws that cover all shapes, sizes and sloops of property. Basically they are written to cover a nice flat even rectangular property. As we all know not everyone has that type of lot especially in the area that I live. In this area it is pretty common as a result of the slopped and odd shaped lots for a home to have at least one building variance on it.

Where I live, in order to avoid favouritism, we leave "u" out of it!

[RogerDat]

With a lot of these "new" ideas such as tiny house or full timing there is a period of things being a little fuzzy in terms of what is ok and what is not. At least in terms of laws or codes. As Carol pointed out rules that cover every circumstance are unwieldy and impractical.

Sometimes the restrictions are based on known problems that have come up before and are well worth heading. Other times they reflect out of date information or situations and need to be re-examined.

Most times laws, rules and regulations reflect some issue that has arisen or can be foreseen to be a potential problem. Waste disposal is a classic example. Many older cottages were built on lakes with the most rudimentary of septic systems. Some as primitive as a 55 gallon drum of pea gravel with the bottom full of holes. Worked fine when the family came out on weekends during the summer, or for a week at a time off and on. Over time sprawl and more people retiring many of these cottages ended up as family homes being lived in full time. That waste load was not anticipated in some cases leading to lake and streams being heavily contaminated with sewage. People learn from that, several area lake communities acted to install sewer lines or community septic systems OR in some cases condemn the existing septic systems and insist new modern systems were installed.

All of the "solutions" tended to be enforced on the people living there by consent of the majority. Not because they liked telling people what to do but in order that all might enjoy water front property not living next to a sewage pond property.

Tiny houses are really new phenomena that is sort of recycled from what were called park models back in the day. Those were nominally trailers but so large as to be difficult to tow. Intended to be left in a single location, typically in a camper park. There is considerable difference between building a house (even a very small one) and building a camper. Having done both I would have to say you would not really like the school bus camper parked forever in the lot next door. Heck wife doesn't want it parked in our back yard and we are on acreage. Stays out on a relatives farm.

People have rights but they also have matching responsibilities that go with any rights. That goes for camping, full timing, and even small house moving into the neighborhood. One responsibility is to find a way to fit into the community rather than expect any and all communities to welcome a small house on wheels. Sometimes asking why there is a problem with some activity can lead to a solution or path to mutual accommodation.

I like the tiny house idea but not the idea of my having to climb into a loft bed, been there, done that, not again unless there is reincarnation. In some ways the ones I have seen on that TV show on Tiny House hunters they are really nothing but a complete modular house built on the transport frame for one side of a typical modular. Even with wheels sometimes the size makes towing a job for a professional.

Locally we have had issues with mobile homes dropped on lots during construction that when money got tight the houses did not get finished. Mobile home is not helping single family home values around it, and no one wants to put someone out of their house. Regulations against mobile homes on construction lots were passed to avoid having that conflict becoming a possibility. I think it might have involved a bond on removal in some communities, an outright ban in others but sometimes allowing a truly mobile RV to be lived in on the site during construction. Folks generally try to find a way that works. The fellow telling you the rule may have had nothing to do with it being created.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by RogerDat

As Carol pointed out rules that cover every circumstance are unwieldy and impractical.

Every reasonable protection could be covered with legislated codes and laws. Total control of every possible circumstance would of course be unwieldy and impractical without variances which I insist amount to favoritism.
This is not sour grapes on my part, since I have pretty much always been able to do what I desired with my own property without variances, though I have on occasion had to "explain" codes to those who wished to obstruct my progress.
I have seen permits contingent on the use of certain local contractors, and in one case an insistence on the use of a particular landscaper with a free hand and specified budget.

The key to a successful negotiation is often a clear vision of the motives of the opposition. That can sometimes mean you must smile and pretend that they only wish to protect you and your neighbors from misery and financial ruin while keeping the truth in mind.
BTW; I contend that favoritism is the application of preferential treatment to one person or group. The requirement to be unfair or cause harm to a another is not necessary.

Favoritism is favoritism, even when ostensibly justified.
For example... A variance which allows the violation of a 10 ft easement contingent on the acquiescence of the offended neighbor merely shifts the responsibility for the perceived destruction of property values onto the shoulders of that neighbor while exculpating the one receiving the favor.
I do understand that the burden of such responsibility can clearly be unwieldy and impractical, but if you are charged with determining and imposing the corporate will and vision then do so proudly and without rationalizing. (for the corporate good of course)

[Henry Smith]

Interestingly, a column was just published that includes a discussion of tiny houses. It says in part as follows

I discovered something else very interesting. I heard about people building what they term “tiny houses”, that is, houses that make Thoreau’s Walden cabin look like a McMansion. Ok, now I dig what these folks are doing. They’re building something to live in, not something to pay on for the next thirty years. Guess what? Local governments in many states actually have laws that say you cannot build houses under 500 square feet! Say what?! Now, I think I know why that is. Some local governments probably base property tax on the square footage of the house. So if it’s a tiny house, the regime can’t extort a lot of money from the owner.

The Tiny Housers have gotten around that by building the tiny houses on trailers, so it’s technically a camper/trailer and not a “house”. In other words, they have to use wheels as the cover story. But I give them credit for finding a way to give their local governments the high hat. However, why should anyone have to go to these lengths just to build a dwelling to live in? Is there anything more basic to human beings than building dwellings to live in, besides eating and drinking water? It’s pretty much right up there with making fire, also, but you need permits to do that, too.

The entire piece can be read HERE.

[Henry Smith]

Originally Posted by RogerDat

I would have to say you would not really like the school bus camper parked forever in the lot next door. Heck wife doesn't want it parked in our back yard and we are on acreage. Stays out on a relatives farm.

People have rights but they also have matching responsibilities that go with any rights. That goes for camping, full timing, and even small house moving into the neighborhood.

What is said above is true, but doesn't mention the most important responsibility of all: The duty to leave people alone if they're not directly harming you. That's not a popular idea these days, as everyone leaps to use government to implement their own ideas of what is "acceptable" or what is "harmful".

Why not leave people alone? If they want to live in a tiny home, what business is it of ours? If they want to put a trailer on their land and live in it, what should we care? I've lived in trailer parks filled with junky trailers and shacks. In one was a poet and novelist. In another a geneticist working on his Ph.D. In another a family raising 5 kids, 4 of whom became medical doctors when they grew up. In yet another trashy trailer was a young woman attending law school. Terrible neighbors because they lived in relatively run-down places? I beg to differ.

[RogerDat]

I agree some folks are too willing to have the government or society enforce "their" version of appropriate. I don't think the quality of accommodation has anything to do with the quality of the people living in that accommodation. Not really relevant to the issue of would my school bus camper or a run down mobile home on a lot enhance or hurt the value of my neighbors property. Not about who lives in the dwelling at all, it is about the dwelling or land use having an impact on those around it.

One has to consider they already live there, it is a community, that community has a chance to weigh in through local government if they so desire (no one goes to township meeting most of the time but that is a choice)

There is an old saying that bears directly on leaving folks alone. My right to swing my fist must stop before reaching someone else's nose. But that works both ways. I have a nose too so if someone wishes to open an auto salvage yard next door I would be very glad that zoning laws prevent it.

If zoning laws require houses be more than 500 sq. ft. then build one that is 510 sq. ft. or work to change the zoning laws. Convince people that already live there that this is not a shack or a shack on wheels that will lower the value of the property that they already own. Having purchased their home based on the current use and profile of the community no one has an inherit right to come in and change it. The common good has weight and merit because everyone has a nose that limits the swing of the individual. Unless said individual wants to live far away from everyone else.

Typical shotgun house was only 320 sq. ft. add a hump second story loft and you can hit the 500+ sq. ft. While this does not exactly match the 400 sq. ft. standard for a "true" tiny house it would probably meet zoning and be much smaller than many typical homes that run better than 1000 sq. ft.

[RogerDat]

This info graphic on average sized homes by country is sort of interesting. Don't know exactly how accurate it is. How Big Is The Average House Size Around The World?


Guess it is sort of like campers, some like a compact 13 ft. and others want 17 or 19 ft. for a bit more room or amenities. Others want a 35 ft. with a basement, which is what makes camping in a campground so interesting. My little 13 ft. parked next to other campers that may have a tiny backpacking tent or a giant motor home, and we all end up swapping camping stories around a campfire.

[Darwin Maring]

Back in the 60s my mother owned and lived in a New Moon house trailer and had to have a license plate tax paid every year and the plate was attached to the rear. The trailer was up on blocks and the tires were off the ground. I think the tires had to remain on the unit for it to be classified as a trailer.

[Henry Smith]

That's fascinating, Roger. I had no idea that the Aussies had bigger homes on average than us Americans (or that Hong Kong residents lived in 500 square foot homes, for that matter). Interesting! Thanks for posting it. I agree that the monumentally different RV-sizes are "what makes camping in a campground so interesting." Dollars to donuts, the same thing would happen in neighborhoods if people were allowed to build and live in tiny houses, campers or mobile homes as well as big houses (i.e. in the absence of the ubiquitous zoning laws that prohibit such salutary things from happening, of course).

[Uplander]

Henry Smith, The article you re-published is interesting in that the author saw that the Tiny House Movement had elected to build their creations on wheels in an effort to circumvent building codes, taxes and regulations.

That was in fact what brought HUD back into the issue and HUD then felt it necessary to reaffirm the special RIVA negotiated RV status while letting the new Tiny House folks know that they were not campers, or RV owners but we're in fact builders of housing intended for Permanent Residential use. That put them in the same regulatory venue as "modular housing", Mobile Homes, single and double wides etc., requiring certificates of occupancy after complying with all building and sanitation codes.

Result: Tiny Houses are residential housing not campers.
Tiny Houses are subject to real estate taxes and regulations.

[wessonjoe]

i could not find the article that the missing link from the original post on this thread refers to.
i did find a snopes article that tried to explain how that the new hud rules don't "ban" tiny houses or full-timing.
but given as how similar laws, i mean rules, have tended to drive such things out of existence in the past i see no reason to doubt the eventual outcome.
as has been exemplified by the tv show tiny house nation though, most tiny builders and modifiers do try to meet or exceed any potentially applicable regulations.
maybe this will give us more clarification.
or maybe it will only lead to further persecution.
only respectful logical discussion over time will be able to tell us which outcome is most likely.
so please let us continue the discussion of laws pertaining to tiny living such as fiberglass rv full-timing.


.

[RogerDat]

Those New Moon campers and the three axle Air Streams are classic examples of park trailers I mentioned earlier. You could tow them as in the Lucy comedy the Long Trailer but many reached sizes that made that very difficult.


This picture is a classic. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_i_AovfzNXg...3-IMG_7912.jpg


Or this one. I passed on like it doing 50 mph on the freeway, even with the speed difference it took a loooong time to pass it. http://www.airstreamclassifieds.com/.../02/450612.jpg

[wessonjoe]

but those are actual trailers ostensibly manufactured according to RVIA standards.
they would be ok for the new rules, right?
it's DIY and rebult models that are being targeted now, right?


.

[Uplander]

Wessonjoe, Please note that HUD got involved because the Tiny House Movement was constructing their residential structures on wheels seeking in many cases to obtain RV status.(based on their small square footage alone).
RVs are in a separate building class separate from RVs. This status is the result of the hard work of the RVIA with federal agencies (HUD in this case) to maintain our special status.
HUD let the Tiny House folks know they were not RVs but rather full time residential structures no matter how small,they were built.
That placed them in the same category as modular homes, manufactured homes...a.k.a. Double wides etc.
That made them taxable as real estate property no matter where they we parked.

Summary: RVs remain in a protected class...no change for Fulltimers living in actual RVs....all is well...for now.
Stay informed...this topic is being covered by ... rvtravel.com. Subscription to their weekly newsletter is free.

Happy Camping.

[vintageracer]

Originally Posted by wessonjoe

but those are actual trailers ostensibly manufactured according to RVIA standards.
they would be ok for the new rules, right?
it's DIY and rebult models that are being targeted now, right?


.

The 2 pictured above are both RV's. One real old and the Airstream 80's-90's vintage. Both built originally as recreational camper trailers and would meet RVIA standards if in place at time of their manufacture.

Yes it is the DIY, trailer structures and none trailer based "Tiny" homes that are being built for the purpose of permanent housing that do not meet national and local building codes for permanent housing that is required for mobile homes, park homes, manufactured housing, modular housing and permanent housing structures that are being targeted.

[Carol H]

Originally Posted by floyd

Where I live, in order to avoid favouritism, we leave "u" out of it!

Floyd I totally understand that, which is why in this area about 15 years ago the homeowners started to kick back and started to lobby the local government to but the "U" back into it and allow "U" to actually have a big say in what happens in your own neighbourhood.

As I said previously the process of putting the "U" back in the decisions made as to what bylaws would apply to each neighbourhood was not a fast or easy thing to achieve - as you can imagine all the "U"'s living in the area had to have their say. But on reflection it was a process that I strongly suspect most would agree was worth the time to take as complaints regarding what so and so is building next door have dropped dramatically at the local government level or well as from neighbour to neighbour, since the neighbourhood zonings came to be. A number of communities both in the Canada and the US have since used the model this District took to follow in an attempt to reduce the conflicts/anger amongst homeowners so commonly found in areas that are seeing increased development or large pockets of redevelopment.

Bottom line is if people do not like the laws the local government has put in place the only way it will ever change is if the "U"'s step up and actually put some time and effort into changing it to something they can live happier with.

I like many in the fibreglass community wish that the rules governing where and when I can park my trailer in the driveway were not in place but I also understand that not everyone takes care of their trailers. To be honest I really do not want the view out my front window to be that of a trailer or boat that has not moved in years covered in tarps or a portable garbage that itself is failing down. So I can appreciate the reasons for the District wide rule of no boats or trailers in the driveway during winter months.

[RogerDat]

Funny thing about laws and rules. They almost always exist because someone wants to do something and someone else thinks it is a bad idea that should not be allowed.


When enough people think something is a bad idea and agree with "there ought to be a law" then one happens. Sometimes it can be a case not of the number of people but the passion on one side or the other.

[Carol H]

Originally Posted by Henry Smith

What is said above is true, but doesn't mention the most important responsibility of all: The duty to leave people alone if they're not directly harming you. That's not a popular idea these days, as everyone leaps to use government to implement their own ideas of what is "acceptable" or what is "harmful".

Why not leave people alone? If they want to live in a tiny home, what business is it of ours? If they want to put a trailer on their land and live in it, what should we care? I've lived in trailer parks filled with junky trailers and shacks. In one was a poet and novelist. In another a geneticist working on his Ph.D. In another a family raising 5 kids, 4 of whom became medical doctors when they grew up. In yet another trashy trailer was a young woman attending law school. Terrible neighbors because they lived in relatively run-down places? I beg to differ.

The BIG issue is not whether or not good people/kids can come out of messy neighbourhoods - they sure can! The issue as I see it is that not everyone has the common sense to know what is or is not harming their neighbour.

For example I was reading an newspaper article a few years go that suggested your neighbours messy yard can impact the value of your property by as much as 25%. Depending on where you live & the value of housing that may not equate to a great deal of harm - your example of a trailer park where all the yards are messy is a good example but in areas such as in Vancouver, BC where currently a 55 year old 3 bedroom house are selling for over 2.2 million the level of harm due to the neighbours messy yard or old trailer hoarding can be high.

[Jon in AZ]

Originally Posted by RogerDat

...Sometimes it can be a case not of the number of people but the passion on one side or the other.

…or more often the power (political, social, economic) of one side or the other.