![Let's take a look at the skeletons in Portland's code closet. [Image from the internet, unattributed, so if anyone can help me find the source, please let me know so I can credit it!] ](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/573a61214d088e8be78e2ef8/1508766482865-V6A1TTAZWR6WJKNWCS39/Skeletons+in+the+Closet.png)
Let's take a look at the skeletons in Portland's code closet. [Image from the internet, unattributed, so if anyone can help me find the source, please let me know so I can credit it!]
Editors Note: With Halloween just a couple weeks away and the recent news that Portland Declares a Stay on Tiny Home Evictions as well as the release of the Tiny House Eviction Stay Guidelines, it seems time to dig out and bring to light a paper I wrote a few years ago about tiny house regulation in Portland. Fortunately, with the recent stay, Portland has recently adopted the deregulatory approach I was hoping for years ago, but, of course, now we're looking into the regulatory path to shift tiny homes from "pre-legal" to "legal." Here's the printable version of Skeletons in the Code Closet.
This paper was originally written by Lina Menard of Niche Consulting LLC in June of 2012 as a term paper for a course she took as part of her Masters of Urban and Regional Planning Masters program at Portland State University. The course, USP 510: Planning & The Housing Market, taught by Dr. Lisa Bates, focused on the intersection between planning, regulation, and affordable housing. This version of the paper was updated in January 2015.
Introduction
In 2012 I began scrutinizing Portland’s City Code, seeking sections pertinent to the current tiny house craze. I was taking a course about regulation and the housing market for my urban planning masters degree, which provided an excellent opportunity to explore tiny houses as an affordable housing option. As I looked for regulations that would apply to small, mobile dwellings, I was startled to discover that right along with provisions for automobile trailer courts, the Health and Sanitation chapter outlined the following:
8.36.030 Hides, Curing and Keeping.
(Amended by Ord. No. 167943, July 27, 1994.) No person shall to keep or store uncured or green hides of any animal in any house, store building, or other place where the same shall cause or create a noisome or offensive smell or atmosphere, to persons traveling along the public streets or to the owners or occupants of premises adjacent thereto.
8.36.080 Spitting in Public Places.
(Amended by Ord. No. 197943, July 27, 1994.) It is unlawful for any person to expectorate on the floor or any other part of any public conveyance, or on the floor or walls of any public hall, building or office, or upon any sidewalk within the limits of the City, or on the floor or walls of any room where foodstuffs are prepared or kept for sale.
It is unlawful to scrape or clean the skeleton of any dead body in any burial ground within the City, except in a suitable building erected thereon. It is unlawful to deposit any scrapings or dead matter from any skeleton or dead body in any burial ground in said City in such manner as to expose the scrapings or dead matter to public view.
It seems whoever conducted the major amendments to the Health and Sanitation section in the summer of 1994 did not deem it necessary to address the skeletons in Portland’s code closet. Sections like 8.36.160 have lingered in Portland’s city code, likely for nearly a century. Meanwhile, there is not a single mention of tiny houses. The City of Portland has not yet formally addressed the radically simple shelter that thousands of Americans have chosen for economic, ecological, and social reasons.
Inspiration
The Tiny House Movement has gained momentum as Dee Williams and Jay Shafer’s pioneering efforts inspire Americans to reconsider small, simple shelter in the form of travel trailer homes. Within the road-legal limits of 8’6” by 13’6” by 42’ tiny house dwellers pare down to essential items and creative design solutions that suit them best (Williams 2012). Over the past three and a half years, I have lived in a travel trailer, a yurt, an accessory dwelling, and three tiny houses on wheels. At the time I started this research I was living in a rented 8’ x 13’-6” x 18’ house on wheels while I made plans to build my own tiny house. I now live in a 100 square foot vardo I built last year. I’m currently located in a tiny cohousing community, where I have a wee bit of space of my own but share with several other people a big kitchen, a dining room with games closet, a living room with a projector and screen for movie nights, a bathroom, a guest room, a wood shop, laundry, storage, and a bike shelter.
My dwelling choices over the past several years have complemented my urban planning studies and sustainable design work because they encourage public transit use and frequent shopping at local stores and markets, while simultaneously increasing density through urban infill and preserving existing neighborhood character. I love sitting on my porch chatting with neighbors walking their dogs, making tea and toast in the wee kitchen, curling up in the window seat with a good book, and watching the stars and rain through the skylight.
I believe living little is a practical, economically-sound, environmentally-friendly housing choice and I am not alone. I have connected with dozens of tiny house dwellers, builders, and designers here in Portland and hundreds more across the country. We have built community around our shared experiences and the benefits of the tiny house lifestyle. However, as I contact tiny homeowners about featuring their houses during the upcoming tiny house bike tour, I am reminded that our intentionally simple lifestyle is compromised by the legal ambiguity of our shelter. Tiny houses are not directly addressed by city, state, or national regulations, nor do they fit perfectly into existing classifications for manufactured housing, mobile homes, or recreational vehicles. Instead, tiny houses fall into alegal limbo – they are not legal and they are not illegal. Many of us working on advocacy, regulation, and legalization efforts call them “pre-legal,” a term Mark Lakeman introduced.
Like Portland’s antiquated health and sanitation ordinances, regulations pertaining to simple shelter have not yet caught up with economic and ecological realities of America’s housing needs. Some tiny home and recreational vehicle dwellers are comfortable flying under the radar because they believe what they are doing is right or necessary, whether or not it is legal. Civil disobedience has been a component of the Tiny House Movement since the beginning when Jay Shafer discovered that he could circumvent minimum size requirements by building a mobile structure (Janzen 2011). Shafer’s company has continued to help people navigate the legal loopholes ever since (Pino 2012). However, as Michael Janzen, editor of the popular Tiny House Design blog points out, “The number one question I hear is ‘Where can I live legally in a tiny house?’ People want an affordable and legal tiny house option” (Janzen 2011). Many people are hesitant to invest their life savings in a legally ambiguous housing type.
Simple, affordable, space-efficient homes will be a key component in creating dense, walkable, bikable neighborhoods while increasing homeownership, reusing salvaged materials, utilizing existing infrastructure, and promoting resource sharing and community building (Shafer 2009, Griswold 2010, Kahn 2012). Yet the push for space-efficient housing will not gain traction if inhabiting trailer homes is risky. The question is whether or not jurisdictions will keep up with the Tiny House Movement. Can Portland – the city known for embracing innovations like food carts, pop-up shops, and aspirin-coated donuts – support simple, affordable shelter?
The Case for Smaller Dwellings
Green building trends are driving the construction industry (GBS 2011) as we recognize that climate change and peak oil demand more efficient resource use. Although commercial buildings initially led the way, residential green building standards and certification programs such as Energy Star, Earth Advantage New Homes, Passive House, and LEED for Homes are becoming prevalent (“Residential Building Certification Programs” 2010). Meanwhile, new research indicates that green building’s focus on massive solar panels arrays is missing the mark. A 2010 report commissioned by the Department of Environmental Quality in collaboration with the Oregon Home Builders Association and Earth Advantage Institute demonstrates that “constructing smaller homes is among the best ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and waste generation from the residential construction sector” (Palmeri 2010). The report concludes: “of 30 different material reduction and reuse practices evaluated, reducing home size was the most beneficial” (Palmeri 2010). Smaller homes have a lower embodied energy as fewer resources are required for their construction, but the real energy and cost savings result from lower resource demand over the lifespan of the building (Palmeri 2010).
Tiny houses require less material for production and can utilize salvaged and leftover building materials. Additionally, small spaces discourage over-consumption of resources by limiting storage space. Tiny homes also increase residents’ awareness of resource consumption because occupants are more intimately involved with their home’s supply and waste systems.
Furthermore, the ongoing cost of maintaining a large home becomes more burdensome as our households shrink and our economy flounders. Jay Shafer notes: “Our houses are the biggest in the world – four times the international average. Since 1950, the median size of a new American house has more than doubled, even though the number of people per household shrank by more than 25 percent” (2009). The Urban Infill for the New Demography & Economy session at the 2012 National American Planning Association Conference included updated demographic statistics: the millennial generation is delaying marriage by five years; more people are living alone in every age group than twenty years ago and the number of seniors living alone has skyrocketed; 50% of seventeen year olds do not have a driver’s license (down from 75% thirty-five years ago), but demand for bikable, walkable routes continues to increase (Holan 2012). Meanwhile, the median household income of twenty-four to twenty-nine year olds is barely $31,000, which translates to less than $850 per month for rent (Holan 2012).
Along with these demographic shifts, we have experienced an economic crisis and housing affordability has become a concern for a much larger segment of the population. More than one million homes went into foreclosure between 2008 and 2010 (Collins 2010), in part because people took on larger mortgage loans than they could realistically afford. According to the National Association of Realtors, all real estate sectors experienced improvement in May 2012, with the largest increases in multi-family sector (Malony 2012). The rental market is booming and vacancy rates are low as many Americans are either unwilling or unable to purchase a home. The National Association of Realtors explains, “apartment vacancy rates below 5 percent generally are considered a landlord's market with demand justifying higher rents” (Malony 2012). National vacancy rates around 4.3 percent are anticipated for multi-family housing, but Portland’s 2.1% vacancy rate is the second lowest in the country after New York City (Malony 2012). Because square footage is the cheapest addition to a dwelling (Shafer 2009), studio and one-bedroom apartments are expensive. Studio apartments in Portland’s central city range from $500 to well over $1000 per month. At that rate, a single person might pay well over $20,000 for housing in just two years and many people are reconsidering how much space they really need or can actually afford.
Yet the demand for small spaces keeps pace with increasing rents. A 2009 market study by Martin Brown compared permitted accessory dwelling units to “practical ADUs” (units described as granny flats, mother-in-law apartments, or backyard cottages on RMLS listings). The study found that there is high demand for small, simple, flexible dwellings across all income levels and parts of the city, but only a fraction of practical ADUs are permitted because the process was confusing and costly (Brown 2009). Portland made dramatic changes to its ADU code in 2010, including waiving System Development Charges for ADUs and found that
Meanwhile, developers have been digging through the code, too, searching for sections that will enable innovation without regulation amendments. Several developers in Seattle have been experimenting with space-efficient housing models they have dubbed “micros,” “apodments,” “mini flats,” and “Gen Y flats,” which draw on old rooming house and board house codes. LMN Architects of Seattle created a model ordinance for Mini Flats, explaining their purpose is to “provide housing to meet the needs of people who constitute one or two person households, who are working but on modest incomes, and who depend upon modes of transportation other than the automobile” (Holan 2012). They recommend the use be allowed “within any district permitting commercial uses, multiple-family uses, or a mix of uses on parcels within 1200 feet of an express bus stop, BRT station, streetcar stop, light rail station, or commuter rail station.” These units are 500 square feet or less, usually have their own kitchenette and bathroom, and often come partially furnished with a bed and desk. Apodments, micros, and mini flats are an intriguing solution for housing a mobile creative class within dense urban environments, while trailer homes are probably better suited for infill in single-family home zones.
The Case for Tiny Houses
In addition to the novelty of their diminutive footprints, tiny houses have caught the attention of the blogosphere because trailer homes provide several advantages for one or two person households over other space-efficient housing options. First, the ability to move on without moving out is appealing. In 2009, 37.5 million people changed residences to follow work, school, or family (“Census Bureau” 2010). One out of four moves was housing-related and “people with incomes below the poverty line were more likely to move than those just above the poverty line” (“Census Bureau” 2010). Fortunately, a few thoughtful design considerations make moving a tiny house on wheels a fairly simple process, enabling tiny house dwellers to have a change of scenery without having to dismantle their households.
Second, tiny houses allow independence, autonomy, and privacy by providing people with a place of their own. People sensitive to the noises of others find it difficult to live in shared housing and, in some cases, even in a multi-unit building. Because they are single-family (and often single-person) houses, tiny houses allow more privacy than a multi-family dwelling. Even so, tiny homes can blend into existing residential neighborhoods, so they work well for individuals or couples who like the character of single-family home neighborhoods, but can get by with very little space of their own.
Finally, and most compellingly, tiny houses enable relatively inexpensive homeownership. Space-efficient rentals generate a continuous income stream for multi-unit property owner, but are not an investment mechanism for their residents. Despite the recent financial crisis the dream of homeownership is prevalent in America and housing is still considered a good investment. As Lloyd Kahn explains in Tiny Homes: Simple Shelter:
The mortgage crisis has devastated housing in North America. Huge homes along with huge mortgages were, in the end result, unsustainable… wages are down, jobs are increasingly scarce, and rents even higher. We’ve gone through a long period of over-consumption, of people living beyond their means, of houses too big and incomes too small. As we witness the end of a pie-in-the-sky housing boom, and enter an era of increasing costs for that most basic of human needs, shelter, there’s a grassroots movement to scale things back (2012: vi).
People wary of taking on six figure mortgages are also frustrated by spending a significant portion of each paycheck on rent. Homeownership is becoming more appealing to long-time renters as the rental vacancy market becomes tighter and rents increase (Malony 2012). A tiny house is a major investment, costing from under $10,000 for an owner-built house with salvaged materials to over $50,000 for a highly-crafted, custom-built house (Williams 2012, Shafer 2009). Yet, it is possible that by investing money in a tiny house instead of rent, the cost of a home could be amortized by a single person in one to five years – or twice as quickly by a couple with two incomes.
Tiny Houses & Code Compliance
Building codes in many jurisdictions require habitable structures to be at least 1,000 square feet and mandate minimum sizes and heights for each room.[1] Meanwhile, the construction of travel trailers is “governed by maximum – not minimum-size restrictions” (Shafer 2009). Furthermore, Dee Williams explains in Go House Go, “the permitting process only applies to dwellings of a certain size that are fixed in place. The permit process and Building Code do not apply to a structure that is built on wheels” (2012). Tiny houses usually range between 7’0” – 8’6” wide and 12’ – 24’ long for a footprint of 84-204 square feet, so they are usually smaller than Portland’s 10 x 20 limit for accessory structures. Therefore, a building permit is not required for the construction of a tiny structure on private property. Tiny houses that are built on and bolted to a flatbed utility trailer are not stationary and, therefore, do not fall into standard residential building code.
Because of their size and mobility, it is not illegal to build or own a custom travel trailer in Portland; whether or not someone can live in one is ambiguous. In The Small House Book Jay Shafer explains “I had managed to side-step building codes by constructing not a building, but a ‘travel trailer.’ With that stumbling block out of the way, I still faced a zoning problem” (Shafer 2009). Zoning codes often control the “nuisances” of mobile structures by limiting occupancy duration and restricting parking to recreational vehicle parks or manufactured home parks, which are themselves often relegated to commercial or light industrial areas at the periphery of residential neighborhoods.
Nevertheless, people often live in tiny houses and recreational vehicles outside designated manufactured housing parks. Many people disregard these laws out of necessity since recreational vehicles and manufactured housing provide more affordable housing options than standard construction. As long as they are discrete about it, trailer home dwellers are not likely to face legal trouble since code enforcement usually occurs on a by-complaint basis. Shafer discovered that most towns restrict trailer camping, but the regulations in Iowa City permit camping in one’s own backyard. So Shafer purchased a property with an existing fixer-upper home, parked his tiny house in the backyard, and rented out the main house (Shafer 2009). Portland City Code 14A.50.020 prohibits camping on public property and public rights of way, but PSF-3.04 regarding illegal camping explains that camping on private property falls under trespass regulations. So as long as the homeowner allows camping on their land, Portland seems to be another city where it is permissible to camp on private property. [2]
The Tumbleweed Tiny House Company blog suggests several other legal loopholes that people who want to build and occupy small shelters might consider including: “buildings of no consequence,” adult adoption, RV parks, desert sanctuaries, sovereign nations, the caregiver clause, including no bedroom, and Shafer’s personal favorite, the “unenforceability loophole” (Shafer 2012). Shafer explains, “As a researcher of this sort of stuff, I often have to ask more questions than many officials care to hear. Several have suggested that, if I want to live in a tiny house, I should just do it like everyone else… by not telling them I’m going to do it. So long as the structure is somewhat hidden and nosy neighbors aren’t prompted into tattling, plausible deniability is maintained” (2012).
So what does Portland City Code say about living in tiny houses on wheels? The short answer is: nothing. There is no mention of tiny houses anywhere in the code, so it becomes a matter of determining whether they fit into another classification. Let’s look to some of the other categories that might apply: automobile trailer coach, recreational vehicle, and manufactured housing.
Tiny Houses as Automobile Trailer Coaches
A chapter of antiquated code in the Health & Sanitation section of Portland City Code provides a description into which a tiny house on wheels could easily be shoehorned. Section 8.32.010 defines a trailer coach as “any vehicle used, or so constructed as to permit its being used, as a conveyance upon the public streets or highways and duly licensable as such, and constructed in such a manner as will permit occupancy thereof as a dwelling or sleeping place for one or more persons.” This seems like a fairly apt description of most tiny houses on wheels. Section 8.32.120: Parking in Court Required then states: “Any trailer coach used for sleeping or living purposes shall not be parked for any period of time exceeding 3 hours except in a trailer court, and no cooking shall be done in a trailer coach outside of a trailer court.” The code section lays out the guidelines for automobile trailer courts, which include 6 foot tall masonry walls, separate restrooms for men and women, and outdoor space for clothes drying. This snippet of code could be the death knell for tiny houses scattered throughout the city. However, when this section specifies the zones in which such automobile trailer courts can be located, neither of the zone designations described are still used by the city. Similarly, the language of manufactured housing has changed considerably over the past six decades and the phrase “automobile trailer court” is outdated and no longer in use. This antiquated section is clearly a leftover similar to Section 8.36.080 prohibiting spitting on public sidewalks within city limits and is due for deletion.
Tiny Houses as Recreational Vehicles
Portland City Building Code 24.90.030, which governs Manufactured Dwelling Installation and Accessory Structures, Manufactured Dwelling Parks, Recreational Parks, Park Trailer Installation and Accessory Structures, states that the City of Portland through the Bureau of Development Services adopts regulatory authority for the administration of manufactured dwellings and recreational vehicles, as well as the development and maintenance of manufactured dwelling parks and recreational vehicle parks. ORS 446.250 defines a recreational vehicle as “a vehicle with or without motive power, which is designed for human occupancy and to be used temporarily for recreational, seasonal or emergency purposes, and has a gross floor area not exceeding 400 square feet in the set-up mode.” The statute states: “No person may rent, lease or offer for rent or lease within this state a recreational vehicle built after January 1, 1990, unless it bears an insignia of compliance and contains: (a) Plumbing, mechanical and electrical equipment or installations that meet the minimum safety standards of the department; or(b) Thermal, fire and life safety equipment, material and installations that meet the minimum safety standards of the department. The other regulations within the section relate only to manufactured houses.
Title 16, which addresses vehicles and traffic, defines a recreational vehicle as “a vehicle which is designed for sport or recreational use, or which is designed for human occupancy on an intermittent basis.” The section goes on to explain that recreational vehicles are divided into two categories: a Motor Home is “a motor vehicle designed for human occupancy on an intermittent basis “ and an Accessory Recreational Vehicle is “a nonmotor vehicle designed for human occupancy on an intermittent basis such as vacation trailers and fifth-wheel trailers” (Recreational Vehicle 16.90.290). Most tiny houses on wheels are, of course, constructed for more permanent dwelling, so they don’t quite fit into Portland’s RV classification. Nevertheless, it seems under Portland’s definitions, a tiny house truck would most likely be considered a Motor Home while a tiny house built on a trailer would be an Accessory Recreational Vehicle.
Furthermore, Title 29, Portland’s Property Maintenance Regulations, Section 29.50.050, Illegal Residential Occupancy, states: “When a property has an illegal residential occupancy, including but not limited to occupancy of tents, campers, motor homes, recreational vehicles, or other structures or spaces not intended for permanent residential use or occupancy of spaces constructed or converted without permit, the use shall be abated or the structure brought into compliance with the present regulations for a building of the same occupancy.” Abatement of the use would likely involve either moving the recreational vehicle to another location or no longer occupying it. It’s a “move out or move on” policy. Most tiny house dwellers agree that structures should be safe and comfortable for their occupants, but would point out that they have constructed their homes in such a way that they are suitable for full-time occupancy. Generally speaking, tiny houses on wheels are constructed with better air sealing, insulation, materials, and appliances than typical recreational vehicles. Tiny houses may be mobile homes, but they are more home than mobile.
Although new construction is subject to current building code, much of the housing stock in the city of Portland is not subject to these standards. There are thousands of houses in Portland with windows, insulation, wall assemblies, heating systems, and electrical systems that would not meet today’s building code. However, these properties are subject to Title 29, the Property Maintenance Regulations. Maintenance Code was created to ensure that housing meets basic standards for health and safety and most people agree that homes for rent or sale in Portland should have basic amenities such as hot and cold running water, a sewer connection, and a heat source.
However, many of the Property Maintenance Code requirements cannot easily be met by a tiny house on wheels. For instance, maintenance code requires ceilings to be at least 7 feet tall, but most tiny houses use a sleeping loft to maximize interior space. In order to provide adequate sleeping space without going over the 13’-6” road legal limit, tiny house ceilings under a loft are often placed at 6’-3” and sometimes shorter. Additionally, maintenance code requires that a dwelling have a permanent heat source, but many tiny house residents opt to use space heaters because they can be packed away and stored when not in use. Furthermore, maintenance code requires each dwelling be equipped with hot and cold running water. However, many tiny housers forego plumbing connections and instead use a toilet, shower, and sink in the host house or at a nearby gym. Many tiny house residents do the majority of their cooking and eating outside their wee abode as well, so for some tiny house dwellers the trailer home functions primarily as a room of one’s own – a place to sleep and keep personal belongings.
Of course, it’s also important to review zoning code since tiny houses on wheels may be subject to regulations regarding the locations and durations for parking of recreational vehicles on public right of way. Section 16.20.120: Prohibited Parking or Stopping of a Vehicle restricts the parking of recreational vehicles “in the public right-of-way adjacent to or directly across from residential, public park, church, or school property, except when loading/unloading property belonging to the occupants of or performing a service on the adjacent residence, for a period not to exceed 8 hours.” Zoning regulations pertaining to parking of recreational vehicles include the following:
33.26.120.E.2.b: Utility trailers and non-motorized accessory recreational vehicles may be stored on unpaved surfaces. A gravel surface is not required.
33.266.150.E: Utility trailers and accessory recreational vehicles may not be parked or stored in required parking spaces. Utility trailers and accessory recreational vehicles may be parked in other allowed parking areas, except they may not be parked or stored between the front lot line and the building line.
33.570.030.G: Outdoor storage and parking of recreational vehicles and utility trailers, including motor homes, campers, and boats, is not allowed if visible at any time of the year from NE Rocky Butte Road or the top of Rocky Butte.
Title 33, Portland’s Zoning Code includes a separate section on manufactured housing, but no separate section on recreational vehicles. Zoning code defines a Recreational Vehicle Park as “a commercial use providing space and facilities for motor homes or other recreational vehicles for recreational use or transient lodging. There is no minimum required stay in a recreational vehicle park.” No maximum length is specified either, though the use is again considered recreational and transient, rather than permanent. Sale or lease of recreational vehicles is also limited in certain districts, though sales offices are often allowed as long as the vehicles are stored elsewhere.
Tiny Houses as Manufactured Housing
Meanwhile, Portland City Code Title 29, which includes the Property Maintenance Regulations described above, defines a manufactured home under the Dwelling Classifications section as “a structure constructed for movement on the public highways that has sleeping, cooking, and plumbing facilities, that is intended for human occupancy, that is being used for, or is intended to be used for, residential purposes, and that was constructed in accordance with federal manufactured housing construction and safety standards and regulations” (29.10.020.T.7). While it might initially appear that a tiny house might more accurately fit this description than either of the others because they are often designed for more permanent use, there is a major catch: tiny houses on wheels are often too small to be classified as manufactured housing! National manufactured home standards specify that a manufactured homes must be at least 8 feet wide, or 40 feet long, for a footprint of at least 320 square feet (“Chapter 70” 42.70.5401). Furthermore, Portland City Code specifies that “Manufactured Dwelling does not include any unit identified as a recreational vehicle by the manufacturer” (29.10.020.T.7)
Manufactured housing is governed by a national set of standards overseen by Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This set of regulations is unlikely to be followed precisely by do-it-yourself tiny house builders, but it may be the best set of standards to look to because most municipalities have a way to address manufactured housing (even of the approach in many places is to prohibit this housing type or relegate it to the periphery where services are not available.) Manufactured homes are allowed by right in many neighborhoods throughout Portland, though historic districts and design overlay zones often prohibit manufactured housing. Additionally, in some places throughout the country, a manufactured home, when attached to a foundation and connected to services becomes a piece of real property, which may be seen as both a benefit and a drawback for tiny house dwellers.
Tiny Houses & Other Regulations
Since tiny houses do not easily fit into the classifications for automobile trailer coaches, recreational vehicles, or manufactured homes, it seems that the regulatory issues pertaining to tiny houses might result not from the construction method of the structures themselves, nor their siting on private property (as long as the tiny house is not in front of the main house nor visible from Mt. Tabor), but by the way day-to-day activities are managed. It is possible, of course, that noise from the construction of a tiny house could also attract the attention of code enforcement via a nuisance complaint, but it is more likely that a complaint would be lodged under Title 29, Maintenance Code.
Code violations might also be cited under health and sanitation regulations if the occupants are not managing their waste properly. Tiny houses are occasionally designed and built with no running water or toilet facilities so their residents are dependent upon a host house for these needs (Shafer 2009, Williams 2012). However, most tiny houses are equipped like recreational vehicles with a fresh water supply inlet and a graywater discharge. Similarly, many tiny house residents use a 5-gallon bucket for a “compost toilet.” Until recently humanure composting was not permissible in Portland, so the contents of a bucket toilet system were disposed of in the trash just as diapers are. Fortunately, 2011 REACH codes provide standards for graywater systems and composting toilets, which will provide guidance for tiny house dwellers and all other residents interested in simple living and closed-loop permaculture “waste” management systems.
Tiny Houses & Housing Justice: Legalize or Deregulate?
In March of 2012 Alex Pino, editor of Tiny House Talk, sponsored a campaign to legalize tiny houses in America. His mission was to submit a petition with 25,000 signatures to President Obama, demanding that the federal government require states to remove the minimum house size requirement of at least 1,000 square feet. Unfortunately, the petition seems shortsighted as jurisdictions could simply lower their minimum size to a smaller number such as 900 square feet. This approach also does not address the restrictions on where trailer homes can be parked. It is likely that thousands of travel trailer homes are now tucked in backyards, gardens, and driveways across America, though it is difficult to get exact figures since so many of them are purposely hidden. While some of these are certainly commercially manufactured recreational vehicles, an increasing number are stick-built tiny houses on wheels. These tiny houses usually blend into the surrounding neighborhoods, increasing density and creating community while utilizing existing infrastructure and preserving neighborhood character.
Despite the increasing prevalence of tiny houses and the ubiquitous media attention they generate, most jurisdictions have looked the other way, ignoring the Tiny House Movement and dealing with trailer homes only through their code enforcement division. The notable exception is Saint John in New Brunswick, Canada where Councilor Donnie Snook is encouraging city staff in the process of re-writing zoning code to allow tiny houses in certain areas (Southwick 2012). Increased density is a major focus of Saint John’s new municipal plan and Snook recognizes the role tiny houses can play in urban development. He states: "What is important is allowing for that kind of diversity, and who could argue with that kind of an option that is environmentally friendly and affordable? How cool would it be to say this is something we may allow within the city limits? It would just be the kind of creative and innovative stuff that I think would really attract anybody" (Southwick 2012). Many tiny house residents agree that small homes should be addressed by planning departments, not just code enforcers.
For some tiny house dwellers and builders the ability to legally inhabit simple, affordable shelter such as tiny homes has become a housing justice issue. Recently low-income trailer home and shack residents facing eviction have found allies among people who might not have rallied to the cause were it not for their increased awareness through the Tiny House Movement of the restrictiveness of zoning code (Diedricksen 2011, Griswold 2010).
Some tiny house advocates have been pushing for a set of tiny house standards that could be used to demonstrate that a tiny house meets particular criteria. The effort here is to legalize tiny houses on wheels by creating a category between recreational vehicle and manufactured housing – a structure that is fairly mobile and smaller than 320 square feet, but designed for full-time habitation. However, this work has also received push back from the strong DIY contingent of tiny house builders who argue that creating a new set of regulations will reduce innovation and increase complexity and costs.
So at this point, many tiny house dwellers are looking to cities with progressive or lenient zoning codes. In many parts of the country zoning regulations prohibit people from occupying travel trailers unless they are located in recreational vehicle parks in peripheral locations. Portland’s automobile trailer courts regulation does the same, but this section of code is clearly obsolete. Meanwhile, Portland’s vehicle and zoning regulations provide few restrictions for recreational vehicles and its progressive new REACH code provides guidance for properly managing waste streams.
Portland has certainly not gone so far as to specifically approve tiny houses, but the city is supporting housing justice and affordable, simple shelter options by not restricting travel trailers any more than it has and by supporting progressive new code. As the Tiny House Movement gains momentum, we hope that cities like Portland will modify their regulations as necessary to support tiny homes as an affordable, environmentally-friendly housing choice that increases density, promotes homeownership, and builds community, while preserving the character of existing neighborhoods.
Works Cited
Belofsky, Nathan. “A city of laws: Portland has many obscure laws that can entrap even the most upstanding of citizens.” Oregon Live. April 01, 2011. Accessed from http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/04/a_city_of_laws.html.
Brown, Martin. “People in Portland Want & Build ADUs – With or Without Permits.” October 13, 2009. Accessed from portland-adus-permitted-and-not-2009-10-13-1.pdf.
“Census Bureau Reports Housing is Top Reason People Moved Between 2009 and 2010.” United States Census Bureau Newsroom. May 23, 2011. Accessed from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/mobility_of_the_population/cb11-91.html.
Collins, Jeff. “1 Million U.S. Homes Lost to Foreclosure Since 2008.” The Orange County Register. March 8th, 2010. Accessed from http://mortgage.ocregister.com/2010/03/08/1-million-u-s-homes-lost-to-foreclosure-since-2008/28179/.
Diedricksen, Derek "Deek." “An Amazing Beachside Squatter Shack/Tiny House....Its inhabitant facing eviction.” Relax Shacks. June 11, 2011. Accessed from http://relaxshacks.blogspot.com/2011/06/amazing-beachside-squatter-shacktiny.html
“GBS’s Top 10 Green Building Trends for 2012.” Green Building Services. December 15, 2011. Accessed from http://blog.greenbuildingservices.com/2011/12/gbs-top-10-green-building-trends-for-2012/.
Griswold, Kent. "Advice to People Who Want to Build a Small Home for Less Than 20 Grand." The Tiny House Blog. 2010. Accessed from http://tinyhouseblog.com/small-house-book/.
Griswold, Kent. “Man to be Evicted from Camper.” The Tiny House Blog. December 2, 2010. Accesssed from http://tinyhouseblog.com/tiny-house/man-to-be-evicted-from-camper.
Holan, Brianna. “Rooming House Redux.” Presentation in Urban Infill for the New Demography & Economy session. National American Planning Association Conference, 2012.
Janzen, Michael. “The Legality of Tiny Houses.” Tiny House Design. March 24, 2011. Accessed from http://www.tinyhousedesign.com/2011/03/24/the-legality-of-tiny-houses/.
Kahn, Lloyd. Tiny Homes: Simple Shelter. Shelter Publications. Bolinas, CA: 2012.
Kelten & Johnson. “Micros.” Presentation in Urban Infill for the New Demography & Economy session. National American Planning Association Conference, 2012.
Klinenberg, Eric. “One’s A Crowd.” The New York Times. February 4, 2012.
Malony, Walter. “All Commercial Real Estate Sectors Continue to Improve, Multifamily Strong.” National Association of Realtors. May 24, 2012. Accessed from http://www.realtor.org/news-releases/2012/05/all-commercial-real-estate-sectors-continue-to-improve-multifamily-strong.
“Mobile/Manufactured Home Construction Standards.” Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. Accessed from http://www.flhsmv.gov/mobilehome/mhconstructionandsafetystandards.pdf.
Odom, Andrew. “The Laws Surrounding Tiny House Living.” Tiny r(E)volution. April 1, 2011. Accessed from http://tinyrevolution.us/2011/04/01/the-laws-surrounding-tiny-house-living/
Oregon Reach Code. 2011. Accessed from http://www.cbs.state.or.us/bcd/committees/11reachcode/Oregon_Reach_Code_Residential.pdf.
Palmeri, Jordan. “Smaller Homes, Smaller Footprint, DEQ-Commissioned Report Shows.” State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. October 26, 2010. Accessed from http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/prDisplay.asp?docID=3466.
Palmeri, Jordan. “City of Portland ADU Permit Trends.” AccessoryDwellings.org. March 12, 2014. Accessed from https://accessorydwellings.org/2014/03/12/city-of-portland-adu-permit-trends/.
Pino, Alex. “How to Get Around Building Codes & Zoning for Tiny House Living.” Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. June 5, 2012. Accessed from http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/blogs/tumbleweed/6123320-how-to-get-around-building-codes-and-zoning-for-tiny-house-living.
Pino, Alex. “How You Can Help Get Tiny Houses Legalized for US Zoning Codes: Petition.” Tiny House Talk. March 28, 2012. Accessed from http://www.tinyhousetalk.com/tiny-house-petition/.
Pino, Alex. “Tiny House Legalized As an Observation Tower.” Tiny House Talk. May 2012. Accessed from http://www.tinyhousetalk.com/tiny-house-legalized-as-observation-tower/.
Pino, Alex. Plans to Build Your Own Tiny House. Accessed from https://s3.amazonaws.com/tinyhouseplans/tiny-house-plans-ebook.pdf.
Portland City Code. Auditor’s Office. City of Portland. Accessed from http://www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=28148.
Pryne, Eric. “Modern Rooming House Offers Cable-Ready, Furnished Rooms – The Size of a Parking Spot.” The Seattle Times. July 23, 2009.
Pyatok, Michael. “Small Homes for a Small Planet.” Presentation in Urban Infill for the New Demography & Economy session. National American Planning Association Conference, 2012.
“Recreational Vehicle.” Wikipedia. Accessed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recreational_vehicle.
“Residential Building Certification Programs.” Earth Advantage Institute. 2010. Accessed from http://www.earthadvantage.org/programs/homes/.
Shafer, Jay. The Small House Book. Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. Sebastapol, CA: 2009.
Shafer, Jay. “House Party Fail – Part 1.” Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. May 21, 2012. Accessed from http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/blogs/tumbleweed/6073704-house-party-fail-part-1.
Shafer, Jay. “House Party Fail – Part 3.” Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. May 23, 2012. Accessed from http://www.tumbleweedhouses.com/blogs/tumbleweed/6082134-house-party-fail-part-3.
Southwick, Reid. “Could You Squeeze into a Tiny Home?” New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal. March 16, 2012. Accessed from http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Could+squeeze+into+tiny+home/6312554/story.html
Stiles, Marc. “Real Estate Buzz: Lenders – and Tenants – Like ‘Apodments.’” Daily Journal of Commerce. February 11, 2010. Accessed from http://www.djc.com/news/re/12014853.html?action=get&id=12014853&printmode=true.
Williams, Dee. Go House Go 2. Portland Alternative Dwellings. Portland, OR: 2012.
[1] In accordance with the International Residential Code, current laws mandate that all newly constructed residential structures have no less than one habitable room of at least 120 square feet (§303.3); Every kitchen must be no less than 50 square feet (§303.4); Other habitable rooms shall be no less than 70 square feet (§304.2,3); Rooms shall maintain a minimum ceiling height of 7 feet. The required height shall be measured from the finish floor to the lowest projection from the ceiling (§303.6). Habitable space is defined as: Any space intended for living, sleeping, eating or cooking (Shafter 2012).
[2] Portland City Code Title 29 regarding property maintenance includes a section that seems to address “squatting” on property that is not owned or rented by the inhabitants. Section 29.50.050 states: “When a property has an illegal residential occupancy, including but not limited to occupancy of tents, campers, motor homes, recreational vehicles, or other structures or spaces not intended for permanent residential use or occupancy of spaces constructed or converted without permit, the use shall be abated or the structure brought into compliance with the present regulations for a building of the same occupancy.” However, there is no further description of what constitutes illegal occupancy nor how a structure could be brought into compliance with the present regulations for a building of the same occupancy.