Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many towns have minimum S.F. requirements for houses. My town in the Monadnock region has a minimum of 700 s.f.
Looking around, I do see minimums of around 700 in several towns. I've lived in a 700 sq ft apartment, I wouldn't choose one as a long-term home situation; my basement workshop alone is close to 700.
If I were to go small, I'd build a "core" conditioned space at around 1000 sf, and surround it with a garage, 3-season porch, workshop, etc. Save on heating and cooling costs now, keep the option to extend "conditioned" space later without changing the "envelope".
Same here... maybe abit larger. I would also build a 12x16 separate cabin to use as a get-a-way-from-spouse spot / guest cabin... also considering a tree house (serious tree house). Country setting of course...
I live in an area of mostly 960 to 1250 sq ft homes with a value of $200,000+ many families have 2 to 4 kids so 700 -800 isn't bad for 2, Built on a south slope a cellar would allow for great shop. I have a concept for a house basically built inside a three season room in central Maine. The house built had no heating and never got below 60 during tests. What do you think it would cost to have the minimum temp raised to 68?
The front 30 x 12 (3 season room) was used to grow veg's, which I am sure saved more than the heating bill would cost. The house was built about 1970. The first passive I know of.
Small homes can be interesting. Land can be a problem. The land available at a reasonable price usually requires well and septic. The cheapest good land I have seen was 10k for 4.5 acres. A SIP home would be the best and with a little work be close to passive house standards. I am putting together a web site for my residential design business and will have a down loadable pfd for a 640 sq ft 2 bedroom 1 bath house. If you learn the skills building your own house really reduces the price. There are several good books for doing just that.
I will post a message about a month when I finish the web site and get it on line
I'd like to hear exactly what really happened. I have heard of towns not letting people move a trailer onto a lot and live in it (in violation of zoning) because "the house is being built" and then just never actually finish building the house, live in the trailer indefinitely. Many towns in NH restrict trailer living and have a minimum LOT size for new construction, but there are still many towns with no or minimal zoning, never heard of NH towns with a minimum floor space requirement for traditional (non-trailer-park) homes.
Of course, even if your town/zoning/HOA/deed/etc is fine with building a small house, it is much more difficult to get a construction loan for a non-standard dwelling.
Many towns in New England have minimum floor space requirements. 700, 750, and 950 are common. The irony is that back in the fifties many, many homes built around here were under that size! Small houses are not uncommon, you just have to start thinking terms like starter home and cottage, not house. 700 is quite a workable size for one or two people.
The justification usually runs along the line of some kind of safety issue about space to move around and such, but the underlying motivation is tax revenues. In most cases I think they can be challenged successfully though, because like I said houses that small have existed quite happily for many, many years.
Before reviving a long-dead thread, at least read it through to the end!
As I stated back in 2013, with further research I found minimums of around 700 in several towns. I've lived in a 700 sq ft apartment, I wouldn't choose "tiny" for my long-term living situation. While "tiny" was a trending fad in certain circles, I don't see any legitimate need for such housing in New Hampshire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship
The justification usually runs along the line of some kind of safety issue about space to move around and such, but the underlying motivation is tax revenues. In most cases I think they can be challenged successfully though, because like I said houses that small have existed quite happily for many, many years.
Even if a builder were successfully able to challenge modern building codes with 700sqft minimums, towns would just adjust their tax formula to add a "coziness multiplier", just like the infamous "view tax".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Before reviving a long-dead thread, at least read it through to the end!
