“Tiny Homes”…we have seen them advertised on numerous sites, and who can’t help but love them?! With so many designs to choose from one could get lost for hours picking, choosing, and dreaming of which one to own. Some wish to, one day, down-size and leave that big house with all the upkeep and cleaning behind, while others ponder on investment scenarios when contemplating a purchase. Regardless of the reasons, the options are limitless in this age of “side-hustles”.
One thing to agree upon is the lack of affordable housing, and the lack of housing in general, especially in rural Nevada. Each state has different rules, and some have laws that change by the county, so it’s important to educate yourself before making a “tiny home” decision and/or purchase.
At the January 11, 2024 Ely City Council meeting, “Tiny Homes” was up for Discussion/For Possible Action – Designation for at least one zoning district within the city in which a tiny house (1) may be located and classified as an accessory dwelling unit, (2) is allowed to be located and classified as a single-family residential unit, or (3) may be located in a “tiny house park.”
City Attorney Cahoon stated that this was brought to the Council’s attention sometime last year. “This was a Statute that was passed by the Nevada State Legislature requiring some action obycounties and municipalities. It was effective Jan. 1st, but essentially requires that we adopt an ordinance establishing a zone for tiny homes within the city. My understanding is that it can be a specific area or that we do have other zones that span the entire city. We can kind of set a blanket zone where they could be placed anywhere in the city, or we could designate this very specific area within the city that these tiny homes can be placed. The statute also requires that we pick one of those three options that I laid out in the language.”
Mayor Robertson stated “I’d like to just offer this; that per the code, at the moment, you can build a tiny home which is defined as anything under four-hundred square feet in any residential zoned area within the City of Ely. I’m not exactly sure what we allow as far as accessory dwelling units. In the residential code a tiny home is anything under four-hundred sq. feet. Now, if it’s on a trailer or something else it’s an RV and our code already addresses RV’s; you can’t just park an RV on a lot and call it a house.”
City Attorney Cahoon stated “that’s where I was hoping that the Council, if they designate a zone, require that any tiny home have a foundation.” Councilman Alworth stated “I’d personally like “Citywide”, and the reason I say that is we have an abundance of vacant lots. People don’t want to clean them up, and complain they can’t sell them. This would be their chance to clean them up, and be able to put tiny homes on them.”
Note: The downside of requiring a foundation would be the added cost of concrete. Tiny homes may be tiny, but the cost along with all the accessories might cut into that tiny home dream. It would be nice to have the option of either leaving the home on wheels, cinder blocks, etc. or if one chooses to have it on a foundation then so-be-it. We are guessing that the decision regarding a foundation will fall under statutes, ordinances, building codes, and if it comes down to it….votes by council members. Let’s hope that the owner of a property will get to make his/her own decision when it comes to wanting or not wanting a foundation if they chose the “Tiny Home” route. Times are tough, interest rates are high, and if there is a way to save money, sometimes ordinances and/or laws must be challenged to help cut the cost of providing much needed housing. Something to consider.
Councilman Trask moved to direct the City Attorney to draft an ordinance designating zoning within the city in which a tiny house is allowed to be located citywide and classified as a single-family residential unit with consideration of any other requirements for tiny homes deemed necessary by the city building official (option 2). Councilman Alworth seconded the motion. The motion was carried unanimously.
Leave a Reply