Town begins zoning discussion to classify tiny houses

By BILL CHAISSON
[email protected]
WILMOT — On July 1 the Wilmot Planning Board decided that it would pursue integrating tiny houses into the town zoning ordinance. Selectboard Chair Gary Palumbo introduced the topic and the discussion was informed by comments by Adam Ricker, a planning consultant from the Upper Valley Regional Planning Commission. In the end the board decided to learn more about tiny houses and press forward toward a new ordinance.

In May 2018 in nearby Warner, the zoning board of adjustment turned down a request for a variance that would have allowed a “tiny house park,” a cluster of 13 transportable dwellings of 320 square feet each. A majority of the Warner board decided that tiny houses were significantly different from manufactured housing as defined in their ordinance. Therefore they had no definition for them and could not grant a variance without one.

Palumbo began by asking the board members where in the town tiny houses could or could not be located. “We could say only on the state roads,” he said, “because they are supposed to be close to amenities.” The tiny house movement is part of the larger push for sustainable living and reducing the carbon footprint.

Tiny houses are ostensibly part of the effort to build affordable housing as well. Joe Mendola, the developer with NAI Norwood Group, had planned to sell his Warner tiny houses for between $121,000 and $129,000. The median price for homes in Merrimack County in May 2018 was $259,450.

Ricker mentioned that New Hampshire Housing, a nonprofit that promotes affordable housing, is working on a model ordinance and that a legislative bill that would allow tiny houses in all residential districts was recently sent back to committee for more research. He suggested it might be a mistake to spend time thinking about where to put tiny houses if the state decides to allow them in all residential zones.

There was much discussion about the definition of a tiny house. Whereas in Warner they were considered a variety of manufactured home, the discussion in Wilmot grouped them with recreational vehicles (RVs) because they are both potentially mobile dwellings. It is common to build tiny houses on what is essentially a flatbed trailer.

In Wilmot the existing zoning ordinance allows for multiple auxiliary units on a single parcel if there is one main unit. A shared hook-up to septic is required. The planning board explored the criteria that would designate the main unit as distinct from the auxiliary units, but it seemed an area that would need to be further discussed in the context of tiny house as compared to RVs.

Planning board members wondered what kind of people would be drawn to living in tiny houses. Palumbo offered the example of a nurse who is working in one place for a year and then moves on to a new location. This is presently common in the nursing profession and others in the “gig economy.”

“How many people can live in a tiny house?” someone asked. Ricker responded that the Wilmot ordinance did not count inhabitants, but bedrooms. There seemed to be a general concern that too many people would crowd into this relatively inexpensive housing and that septic systems may be strained.

Ricker suggested tiny houses be considered in the context of the town’s cluster housing ordinance. The difficulty with the existing language, he noted, is that it required a minimum lot size of 20 acres. “We’ll need to take a look at that,” he said.

Palumbo addressed the board as a group, asking them to consider what sort of features they would want to identify in a future ordinance in order to specifically regulate those features. Planning board member Scott McCullough agreed this was important. “When we put this to town meeting,” he said, “there would be concerns about appearance.” Many public discussions of clustered tiny houses have equated them with trailer parks with all the pejorative connotations.

Ricker suggested that the proposed ordinance clearly distinguish between “stick-built” tiny houses, which are not readily moved, and an “RV style,” which are mobile. Palumbo noted that this was important when it came to assessing valuation and assigning taxes.

“If they are registered as an RV,” said Ricker, “they can’t be assessed property tax.” He said that tiny house owners elsewhere generally chose whichever option was less expensive, which varies by jurisdiction.

The impact on police and fire protection was also brought up, and it was decided that the Wilmot chiefs should be invited to a future meeting so that their perspectives could be shared.

“If we had a conceptual plan,” Palumbo said, “that made it not like a trailer park, but a source of tax income [it might be accepted.]” He suggested that two ordinances be written up, one for stick-built tiny houses, which would definitely add to the tax base and were less associated with trailer parks, and another for the “RV style” mobile type of tiny house.

“People want more tax revenue,” said board member Pat Brown, “but they don’t want someone building next to them. [Tiny houses] address that.”