An expensive way to save money
In the small Ontario community of South River, the dream of tiny homes as an affordable housing solution has met the quiet resistance of regulatory reality. Town officials, after fielding repeated inquiries from residents, examined the idea seriously and found that the very smallness that makes tiny homes appealing cannot exempt them from the full weight of the Ontario Building Code — making them costly to build despite their modest footprint. With zoning bylaws requiring a minimum of 900 square feet and council showing no desire to rewrite those rules, South River's answer to the tiny home question reflects a tension many small municipalities face: the gap between the promise of simple solutions and the complexity of the systems that govern how we build and live together.
- Residents keep arriving at town hall with the same hopeful question — can I build a tiny home here? — and officials have finally felt compelled to answer it formally.
- The hidden cost of regulation threatens to collapse the tiny home's central appeal: every structure, no matter how small, must still satisfy the full Ontario Building Code for plumbing, heating, foundations, and design.
- Municipal finances add another layer of resistance, as officials worry that tiny homes on large lots would shrink the tax base and potentially drag down neighboring property values.
- Deputy Mayor Doug Sewell dismissed the concept as 'an expensive way to save money,' arguing that four-plexes offer more practical and financially sound modest housing for the community.
- South River's zoning bylaws currently prohibit any home under 900 square feet, and council has shown no willingness to rewrite those rules — leaving the answer, for now, a firm no.
South River is unlikely to welcome tiny homes, despite the steady stream of residents curious about them as an affordable housing option. Brian Dumas, who oversees building services across seven Almaguin-region communities, brought a report to council explaining why the idea is harder than it looks.
Tiny homes — structures under 600 square feet — carry an intuitive appeal: build small, spend less. But Dumas's report exposed the regulatory architecture underneath. Every tiny home must still meet the Ontario Building Code in full, covering plumbing, heating and cooling, foundations, room dimensions, ceiling heights, and framing. If the home sits on a foundation, a qualified designer or engineer must be hired for the plans. The small footprint that makes a tiny home attractive becomes almost beside the point once those requirements are factored in.
There are also municipal concerns. A developer who places a single tiny home on a large lot generates less property tax than a more substantial build would — a calculation that weighs heavily in small towns watching their tax base. The potential effect on neighboring property values adds further caution.
Deputy Mayor Doug Sewell was direct in his skepticism, calling tiny homes 'an expensive way to save money.' Design fees, and potentially off-grid infrastructure like holding tanks, erode whatever savings the small size might offer. Sewell would rather see more four-plexes — around 600 square feet per unit — as a more practical path to modest housing. He acknowledged tiny homes might serve as seasonal retreats, but not as permanent community housing stock.
The zoning rules reinforce the position. South River currently requires a minimum home size of roughly 900 square feet, and clerk administrator Don McArthur was plain about the consequence: people simply cannot buy a lot in South River and put up a tiny home under existing rules. Changing that would require rewriting the bylaws — a step council has no appetite for. For now, the town's answer remains no, and the broader lesson for other communities weighing the same question is clear: the regulatory burden and tax implications may outweigh the affordable housing gains.
South River is unlikely to open its doors to tiny homes, despite the appeal they hold for people seeking affordable housing. The question has been arriving at town hall with enough frequency that officials felt compelled to examine it seriously. Brian Dumas, who oversees building services and enforcement across seven communities in the Almaguin region—South River, Burk's Falls, Joly, Machar, Strong, Ryerson, and Sundridge—brought a report to council laying out why the math doesn't work.
Tiny homes, defined as structures under 600 square feet, sound like a straightforward solution to the housing crunch. Build small, spend less, own a home. But Dumas's report reveals the hidden architecture of regulation. Every tiny home, regardless of its footprint, must still satisfy the Ontario Building Code in full. The plumbing has to meet code. The heating and cooling system has to meet code. The foundation, the room dimensions, the window sizes, the ceiling height, the framing—all of it. If the home sits on a foundation, a qualified designer or professional engineer must do the design work, and that costs money. The small size that makes a tiny home attractive becomes almost irrelevant once you factor in what the law demands.
Then there is the question of what a municipality loses. Dumas flagged a concern that resonates in small towns watching their tax base: if a developer uses a large lot to build a single tiny home instead of something more substantial, the municipality collects less property tax. There is also the question of spillover—whether tiny homes would depress the value of neighboring properties, a calculation that keeps many communities cautious.
South River's Deputy Mayor Doug Sewell was blunt about his skepticism. He called tiny homes "an expensive way to save money." The design work alone requires payment. If the home isn't connected to municipal water, the owner needs holding tanks, and that infrastructure isn't cheap either. Sewell doesn't see them as a long-term housing solution for the community. He would rather see more four-plexes, which at around 600 square feet per unit still offer modest living space but with more flexibility. "I can't imagine living in a 10-by-10 foot home," he said, conjuring the spatial reality. "It's going to be crowded and you need to have a bathroom in there somewhere and a bedroom and a kitchen sink." Sewell did allow that tiny homes might have a seasonal role—a summer retreat in a wooded area—but not as permanent housing stock.
The regulatory barrier is equally firm. South River's current zoning bylaws set a minimum home size of 80 square metres, or roughly 900 square feet. Don McArthur, the clerk administrator, explained the practical consequence: "People just can't buy a lot in South River and put up a tiny home. They are not permitted under our current zoning." To change that would require the municipality to rewrite its rules, a step council has shown no appetite for taking. The town receives regular inquiries from residents curious about tiny homes, but the answer, for now, remains no. For communities elsewhere considering the same question, Dumas's implicit message is clear: weigh whether the regulatory burden and the tax implications justify the effort.
Notable Quotes
People just can't buy a lot in South River and put up a tiny home. They are not permitted under our current zoning.— Don McArthur, South River clerk administrator
I can't imagine living in a 10-by-10 foot home. It's going to be crowded and you need to have a bathroom in there somewhere and a bedroom and a kitchen sink.— Deputy Mayor Doug Sewell
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why do tiny homes cost so much to build if they're, well, tiny?
Because the Ontario Building Code doesn't scale down with square footage. A tiny home still needs a full plumbing system, a full HVAC system, a proper foundation. And if it's on a foundation, you need a professional engineer to design it. That's thousands of dollars right there, which eats into any savings from the smaller footprint.
So the regulations are the real problem, not the concept itself?
Exactly. The concept is sound—people want affordable housing. But the regulatory framework was built for conventional homes. Tiny homes don't get a regulatory discount.
What about the tax revenue concern? Does that actually matter for a small town?
It does if you're South River. If someone buys a large lot and builds a 600-square-foot home instead of a 2,000-square-foot home, the assessed value drops. Over time, that adds up. For a municipality already watching its budget, that's real.
The deputy mayor mentioned four-plexes instead. Why is that better?
Because you get more units on the same land. Four-plexes are also small—around 600 square feet per unit—but you're housing four families instead of one. From a municipal perspective, that's more tax revenue and more housing supply.
Is there any scenario where South River might reconsider?
Sewell left a crack in the door for seasonal use—summer homes in rural areas. But for permanent housing? The council would have to change zoning bylaws, and right now there's no political will to do that. The barriers are too high and the benefits too unclear.