Tiny Houses Stranded On The Road Again Spinning Our Wheels
Yesterday, proponents for an I-Code change to Appendix BB Tiny Houses presented comments that would have added chassis provisions to the tiny house code at the International Code Council PCH in Connecticut yesterday. The new code was earmarked for the 2027 IRC, but once again, it was turned down. Proponents have tried unsuccessfully for 3 code cycles ( 10 years) to add provisions for movable tiny homes, otherwise known as tiny houses on wheels, or relocatable tiny houses. In two weeks, I will post the video of the hearing.
I also received a reply from ICC to a second preemption inquiry yesterday as well that is ignoring my complaints in regards to the ICC 1215 standard.
The Testimonies Were Solid
The proponents were solid in their testimonies and they even overturned the disapproval at the previous hearing, so their comments could be heard, which is an accomplishment in itself. Opponents spoke in favor of the ICC 1215 standard being developed and want that be completed instead. The standard will NOT progress the industry forward because of the Small Residential hijacking of the standard. Learn more.
The Irony
The irony is that the opponents against their public comments were arguing that a relocatable tiny house is a vehicle and should not be regulated by building officials or inclusive in the IRC, while the ICC 1215 committee is denying the motor vehicle path and they are trying to find a work around federal law and preemption. Avoiding motor vehicle law is fully supported by the ICC board. Learn more.
Uniting The Motor Vehicle Path With The Structure Path Is The Road To Legal Dwellings
For almost two years I have tried to get the ICC 1215 committee to recognize motor vehicle law. The duo nature of tiny houses on wheels must be recognized to create a legal dwelling to obtain a mortgage and to be accepted in jurisdictions. The path to compliance for tiny houses on wheels is to integrate the motor vehicle compliance path with requirements of a structure, so it meets both the requirements of the road, and for legal placement and for the structure to be recognized as real property. We also need to create provisions that allow tiny houses on wheels to be legally placed on leased land where the unit remains personal property.
The ICC 1215 committee is blocking the very steps needed. Learn more.
First ICC Disapproval The Backstory Of Appendix Q Tiny Houses
Tiny Houses have been held captive by the executives of ICC for over 6 years for their desired outcome that benefits ICC and their services. Appendix Q Tiny Houses, that was adopted into the 2018 IRC, originally had provisions for movable structures, but the head of the ICC code approval process said that he would not accept the proposal as written because he believed it was what they call in the industry a “hijack” of the original proposal.
Image Courtesy Of Tiny House Expedition. The Image Is From The First ICC Hearing When Tiny Houses Were Adopted In The IRC As Appendix Q Tiny Houses And The Tiny House Industry Was There In Full Support.
February 24th, 2018: The International Residential Code Has A Big Vision For Tiny Houses
The inclusion of a new appendix in the 2018 International Residential Code (IRC) addressing standards for dwellings that are 400 square feet in area or less—commonly called “tiny houses”—represents an important milestone not just for advocates of simpler living, but also for the International Code Council.
Appendix Q Tiny Houses is the first set of building standards for dwellings ever incorporated into a model code. The story of how the appendix came to be is a great example of how the Code Council works together with stakeholders and industry professionals to develop model code standards for new and innovative technologies as they emerge.
Tiny-house advocates and code enforcement officials alike have long recognized the need to establish code authority over tiny houses, but it wasn’t until April 2016 that the process to codify requirements for them kicked off in earnest. That’s when the IRC Building Code Action Committee, meeting in Kentucky, heard a proposal submitted by Richard Davidson, a retired building official from Oregon, to create exemptions for design elements that are specific to tiny houses such as minimum floor areas, ceiling heights, door sizes, and hallway widths, and for safety features such as guard rails and automatic fire sprinklers.
Although the committee voted to disapprove Davidson’s proposed changes, it agreed that a more comprehensive approach to tiny houses was certainly needed in the code and suggested that the issue might be better addressed in an appendix.
At the hearing, however, one person had testified in “friendly opposition” to the proposal: Martin Hammer, an architect who had co-authored the IRC’s straw-bale construction appendix. Following the hearing, Hammer received a call from his friend Andrew Morrison of TinyHouseBuild.com, a builder and educator who had helped Hammer write the appendix. “Andrew asked if I thought we could submit a different proposal,” Hammer recalled.
“Andrew asked if I thought we could submit a different proposal,” Hammer recalled. “My first response was yes, but in two and a half years, because the code development cycle was already underway. But after I thought about it some more, I called him back and said he could try submitting a public comment on the disapproved proposal, which would get it in the code cycle right now.”
With Hammer’s help and supported by a volunteer team of designers, engineers and architects, and with the unflagging support of his wife Gabriella, Morrison set out to craft an appendix for tiny house standards in time to submit it to the follow-up round of hearings and public comment reviews scheduled for late October 2016 in Kansas City.
Throughout the process, Hammer tried to manage everyone’s expectations. “Public comments are less likely to be approved than an actual proposal,” Hammer said. “It’s also unusual for a code change proposal that covers new territory to be approved in the first cycle. But I encouraged them to try anyway, because even if it was disapproved, we would learn something for the next time.”
Code Hearing RB196-16 Martin Hammer
An Oral History of Better Building Codes with Martin Hammer
Martin attended the ICC session where 2016 updates to those appendices were approved unanimously for the 2018 IRC, and while there he also testified in friendly opposition to an IRC proposal for ‘Small Houses’, which was then unanimously disapproved. “I saw the potential of the proposal, but wanted to help improve the code language…the subject of tiny houses was and continues to be so widespread. It’s on everyone’s radar,” said Martin. In 2016 he joined forces with tiny house (and straw bale) leader Andrew Morrison to propose IRC Appendix Q – Tiny Houses. With spirited testimony in Kansas City from the tiny house industry and advocates, as well as numerous building officials grappling with code-compliance issues for tiny houses (≤ 400 sf) for ceiling heights, lofts, and their access/egress, the proposal was narrowly approved. The remaining challenges of tiny houses on wheels and chassis standards are now being worked out by the industry with proposed changes to Appendix Q and with a new ASTM standard that is expected to be more applicable worldwide.
Second Disapproval At ICC
Originally when ICC/MBI 1200 and 1205 were developed, tiny homes were excluded, then included, but after the 2024 IBC hearing, when the standards were turned down, they removed all the terms relating to tiny houses from the committee description, scope of the standards, and the body of the standards, with the ‘notion’ that tiny homes were inclusive, and there was no need to call them out.
ICC Off-Site And Modular Construction Standards Committee
The Off-Site and Modular Construction Committee (IS-OSMC) held its first in-person, public meeting on Nov. 19–20, 2019, in the Chicago, Ill., area to begin the development of two new standards to address the challenges currently faced by the industry and to offer a path for compliance on the regulatory side. The meeting organized workgroups and developed initial drafts of the standards for eventual posting for initial public input. The committee is made up of representatives from several different interest categories to develop consensus documents for eventual submittal to the American National Standards Institute as American National Standards.
Originally tiny homes were excluded.
Related Blog Posts
The Regulatory Capture Of Tiny Houses By ICC
Learn More
ICC 1215 Hides Legal Path For Tiny Houses On Wheels
I have written extensively about ICC/THIA 1215 -Design, Construction and Regulation of Small Residential Units and Tiny Houses for Permanent Occupancy standard and the hijack of the standard by the Small Residential Unit ( SRU) an arbitrary, unconstitutional term that ICC has cooked up to rebrand the tiny house industry for the regulatory capture of the tiny house industry for their control. The SRU is not needed for the structural integrity, fire safety of tiny houses or any reason at all, it is a whim of ICC.
To understand the objections regarding the Small Residential Unit, please read and sign my petition.
Short Summary Of The Small Residential Unit Issue
There has been a great debate in the OSMTH 1215 committee regarding the Small Residential Unit takeover of the standard which is the agenda of ICC.
They want to position the Small Residential Unit, a made up term that is not used by anyone and is not enforceable over Tiny Houses, a codified term in the IRC, making Tiny Houses a subcategory under the Small Residential Unit.
SMALL RESIDENTIAL UNIT (SRU). A dwelling that is 1200 square feet (111 m2) or less excluding lofts and is constructed as a permanent residential structure with or without a permanent chassis.
Note: There has been discussion about changing the size down to 600 square feet but that has not been reflected in meeting notes that I have seen. That changes nothing.
Learn more.
April 23, 2026
