The Small Residential Unit : Was Opposed At The CAH # 1 Hearing
A new code proposal, with the title RB42-25 was a code proposal submitted through ICC cdpACCESS as an I-Code change for the 2027 IRC. The CAH # 1 Group B hearing is actually happening now and the code proposal was heard on Monday, April 28, 2025. RB42-25 included the referencing of the ICC/THIA 1215-202x, Design, Construction, Inspection and Regulation of Tiny Houses for Permanent Occupancy standard.
The Plans For The Submission Of The Standard in RB42-25 Was Kept Secret
A group of interested parties almost spent thousands of dollars to travel to the first ICC CAH hearing in Orlando, Florida that started on April 27, 2025. We were also paying a professional code expert to testify as an opponent to RB42-25, a code proposal that also referenced ICC/THIA Standard 1215, Design, Construction, Inspection and Regulation of Tiny Houses for Permanent Occupancy developed by OSMTH 1215. We are mainly opposing the Small Residential Unit that has hijacked the standard. See related blog posts below for more context of the issue at hand.
A few days ago, we were lucky to be told that Jonathan Paradine, the chair of OSMTH1215 was asked to testify and ask for disapproval of RB42-25 at CAH # 1.
We were also told it would be considered bad form, if opponents testified after they asked for disapproval and that no one from the Tiny Home Industry Association ( THIA ) will be there, and no other testimony is anticipated for or against.
I just listened to the hearing and it ended up being Joshua Harmon, who spoke on behalf of the OSMTH 1215 committee.
Joshua asked for disapproval because the standard is still being developed. Joshua is not a listed proponent of the standard and he used the term ‘’we’ in the discussion, obviously on behalf of OSMTH1215 as a committee decision.
The OSMTH 1215 committee, including Karl, the ICC Director Of Standards, failed to be open in their plan for the standard to be submitted as a code proposal to a few OSMTH 1215 voting committee members, interested parties and the public.
We canceled our plans.
RB42-25 Code Proposal
The proponents of RB42-25 includes several voting members of OSMTH 1215, and the main proponent is Brad Weisman, the CEO of THIA and the co-chair of OSMTH1215. There was only one proponent that is not a voting member of the committee, but she works for the same company that is a voting member, that is associated with another person that works for the same company, and is also on the board of THIA.
We were puzzled that the code proposal did not include the chassis, or correlate well with the standard, and the definitions were in conflict with each other.
March 19, 2025 OSMTH 1215 Meeting
I asked about RB42-25 at the March 19th meeting, and it was the appropriate time, because there was a big debate about definitions of the Small Residential Unit and Tiny Houses.
Jonathan Paradine told me the committee did not submit the code proposal and that it could be the same people, but that the committee did not submit it.
There was no more discussion about the code proposal.
April 2, 2025 OSMTH 1215 Meeting
In the April 2, 2025 meeting, Brad Weisman brought up the code proposal and the ICC staff analysis, and right after I started to ask questions, and both Jonathan, the chair of the committee and Karl Aittaniemi, the Director of Standards told me the committee did not submit the code proposal and perhaps I should seek out the advice from the ICC code development team, and they tried to block me from speaking about it.
It is disturbing that they would allow Brad to bring up the code proposal, but not me.
I reached out to Beth Tubbs regarding RB42-25, but she did not reply. I do understand she is quite busy at this time and she was probably instructed not to answer me.
As respectfully as I could, I stated that I must insist they let me ask questions, because we were trying to make travel plans for the code hearings. They finally let me speak. I and several others were completely confused. Was there a different code proposal for the submission of the standard that the committee submitted?
An interested party spoke up and stated he thought that RB42-25 would be heard on Monday, April 28, 2025. Finally they let me speak.
No One Would Answer Our Inquiries Regarding RB42-25
The Proponents Will Not Answer
OSMTH 1215 Has Tried To Block The Discussion Of The Code Proposal On The By Weekly Calls
Beth Tubbs Failed To Answer
Complaints To The ICC Board Of Directors Are Not Answered
The OSMTH 1215 Did Not Disclose The Submittal Of The Standard To The IRC
Where is an interested party supposed to receive accurate information regarding the submission of the standard to the IRC if no one answers us?
Hierarchy Within The Committee
The OSMTH 1215 committee has not been forthcoming regarding the plans for the code proposal, their strategy for the submission of the standard to the IRC, and the committee is fractured into a hierarchy, leaving even committee voting members in the dark, and interested parties, with only a few privy to the plan, violating an open consensus process for transparency.
See My ICC Complaint Below
My Official Complaint Regarding The Secret Strategy Of The Code Proposal To ICC
RB42-25 Code Proposal
The Next CAH Hearing Is In October In Ohio
It is not uncommon for a proponent to ask for disapproval at the first hearing when a standard is still in draft form, so they can submit the standard to the next hearing. They were no proponents there speaking up for the standard, built there was a line of opponents that spoke in opposition to the standard, and especially the Small Residential Unit.
David Eisenberg and Martin Hammer, co-authors Of Appendix Q Tiny Houses spoke at the hearing and they both urged for the tiny house industry to come together and find consensus. Martin is still making up his mind about the proposal, but David sought disapproval and spoke out for preserving the success of Appendix Q Tiny Houses and supporting a path for owner builders and small builders without the requirements of the large modular builders, because it would be too expensive or impossible for them to comply with.
David and Martin reached out to me while they where at the code hearings to hear my perspective and I feel we are blessed to have their support.
I have been sounding the alarm for years, and I have fought hard for the owner builders and small manufacturers. I felt the Small Residential Unit was a plan to squeeze out small manufacturers and over burden the tiny house industry with expensive certification requirements such as 100% in plant inspection, which most small manufacturers cannot afford.
NAHB Opposed RB42-25
Gary Ehrlich, Director Of Codes And Standards with the National Home Builders Association ( NAHB) And Dan Booth , Structural Engineer with NAHB both were opponents. They were concerned about structural bracing, how this would effect all houses that were 1200 square feet, and stated that DOT requirements were beyond the scope of the building officials approval, and voiced a lot more concerns.
Related Blog Posts
What's Next?
I know the ICC Board Of Directors are meeting during the CAH hearing and there are big decisions that need to be made. Stay tuned. When the video of the hearing is up on the ICC website, I will post again with instructions on how to find the hearing. For now, I am hopeful that positive change is coming and we protected the interests of owner builders, small manufacturers, and for the sake of much needed housing, and preserving the great progress of Appendix Q Tiny Houses that was the first step to bringing uniformity to manufacturers, building officials, legislators, third parties, and consumers.
Just yesterday, I saw an amazing article on Appendix Q Tiny Houses in Washington state.
Excerpt From The Article
” Saul Hansen, an intern architect working on large commercial structures with McCarthy Building Companies, Inc., loves working on tiny houses as his weekend passion project. Last week, he presented the history of Appendix Q to the Spokane Chapter of the American Institute of Architects.
Tiny house living first came on the scene as a countercultural lifestyle and moved into the mainstream as part of the solution to housing affordability. The smaller size is also attractive to retirees ready to downsize to a simpler lifestyle and less time on housework.
Hansen described how the smaller price works for first-time buyers looking for starter homes. According to Hansen’s documentation, a well-appointed tiny house with high-quality finishes and fixtures can be built for less than $50,000.
Ironically, the low price can become a barrier to finding financing. Banks often balk at tiny houses as threatening the standard mortgage model and decline to finance projects. ”
Tiny House Alliance USA Editor
May 1, 2025
The Future Of Tiny Is Now!
Janet Thome Founder And President
ja***@******************sa.org
509 345 2013
