Bluff planners to clarify zoning for tiny houses, launch broader code revision

Commissioners with the Bluff Planning and Zoning Commission spent the June 18 work session reviewing a public comment about code 6.40.10 (mobile/modular homes, tiny houses, mobile home parks and RV parks) and agreed to both an interim interpretation and a broader rewrite plan.

The public comment, submitted earlier by Steven Reel, argued that subsections (a) and (b) of 6.40.10 appeared to treat the same housing types inconsistently. The chair read the code and said the plain-language difference appears to be that subsection (a) permits "mobile homes, modular homes or tiny houses" as primary dwellings or ADUs where residential uses are allowed, while subsection (b) refers specifically to "tiny houses on wheels" and ties those units to RV-park standards. "Based on what I read, the difference between a and b is that while a mentions tiny houses and b mentions tiny houses on wheels," the chair said, "tiny houses are included in a because they were considered more of a mobile home/modular home, but in b a tiny house on wheels is more of an RV and follows the RV standards."

One commissioner urged the panel to treat tiny houses as a distinct category that can provide permanent, affordable housing, noting they are frequently built on wheels for transport but can become permanent homes once sited and hooked up to utilities. The commission generally agreed that the municipal code language needed cleanup to avoid unintentionally restricting tiny houses to RV parks. The panel resolved to tell the commenter that, after their discussion, staff would interpret the code to permit tiny houses as dwellings under subsection (a) where residential uses are allowed and would prepare clearer ordinance language in upcoming code edits.

Beyond the tiny-house question, commissioners reviewed a larger zoning-code revision outline, identifying priorities: a zones review (including whether to consolidate some commercial categories), setback and density standards, streamlining site-plan requirements to avoid undue costs for small businesses, clearer enforcement responsibilities (what the building inspector enforces vs. town-council actions), and a single pass to reconcile definitions with state and county codes. The chair proposed a public open house, likely in July or August, to display maps and solicit resident input before final drafting.

Commissioners discussed forming a small joint working group of two planning commissioners and two town-council members to work through enforcement and administrative details outside of formal quorum meetings. They also asked staff to reach out to the original commenter to explain the interim interpretation and next steps. No formal ordinance changes were adopted at the work session; commissioners directed staff to draft clarifying edits for future meetings.

Next procedural steps: staff will draft revised language to resolve the tiny-house ambiguity and other identified edits; commissioners plan a mapping-based public engagement session before finalizing major changes.