Tiny Houses and Standards

I ask you to read this without the emotional and perceived economical benefits of Tiny Homes and Tiny Home living. If I had time, I could likely convince you why the new Tiny House Appendix that is being considered for inclusion in the proposed MUBEC code is a real bad idea. I would first take the tiny house that would be stationary and on a permanent foundation, and explain to you all the current MUBEC standards and codes that they could not possibly meet, even with this Appendix giving some relief. Then I would take on the discussion of a portable, movable tiny house built on a trailer chassis, and explain all the standards and codes that RV trailers are built to. The majority of current Tiny Homes are not built to either of these standards.

It is simple really. Picture a house, and think about some of the standards and codes a builder used when he or she constructed a home. Now picture your average RV camper trailer and think of some of the standards and codes they were built to. Did you come up with quite a different list? If you took more than five minutes, I bet you did. One is built to go down the road; one is built to stay put. These structures are two different animals and should not be morphed together without the use of solid standards as houses and RV trailer are today. I am far from having issues with Tiny Homes and the Tiny Home movement. And I realize many Tiny Homes are solidly built with safety in mind. I just think we need way more standards in place before we leap forward.

Passage of this Appendix in the proposed MUBEC drives the burden of a new morphed undefined standard down to a local level. Simple research on the subject may quickly lead you to share my concerns. See http://www.maine.gov/dps/bbcs/

Russ Schmidt,
Pownal