Stealth Cob House within a Greenhouse...can you all help me keep a secret?

Rob Lineberger wrote:I am in a similar situation to you.  I've passed up tract after tract of land within the city limits because of code.  It's not that I want to skirt safety concerns, but its because a round home simply does not fit into code.  "Are your floor joists 16" on center?"  No.  No, they aren't.  I don't have any floor joists.  I don't have any framing studs or drywall.

I just know that the conversation is gonna go something like "can I Live here?"  "No.  No, you can't."

If you build your home there in secret, then you are building your homestead on fear and secrecy.  You will always have in the back of your mind, what if someone finds out, or something crazy like a fire or sewage leak happens, and then you're evicted and your house torn down.  

By the way, here they use Google satellite to detect changes in a property for tax assessment purposes.  So if your home can see the sky in any way, they can see your home.

There are two routes I am exploring.  One is, buy light industrial land or agricultural as you have done, then set up a corporation.  That's very easy to do. This corporation is about, say, permaculture studies and education. Nothing you buy belongs to you, it belongs to the corporation.  The point of the land is not a residence, it is a caretaker or an education center. Then all you need to do is get an occupancy permit for one of the buildings.  I recommend you make the bathroom look very familar to them.  Getting an occupancy permit is easier than getting your house inspected.  Technically they are the same criteria but you'll get different inspectors, or the same inspectors who are expecting something out of the ordinary. Your home will receive a "Maximum occupancy" designation but you don't care about that, right?  As long as the number is as big as your family size.

The second route is an architect's stamp.  If you draw up detailed plans, either by yourself or with the architect's help, and the home meets the architect's standards, she might stamp your plans as verified.  I've heard mixed things but where I am the general rule is an architect's stamp supercedes a standard city inspection. Architects vary but I'm expecting to pay about $15,000 for this.

I'm doing what I can to minimize that cost by researching as thoroughly as possible and making scale models of what I intend to build so that concerns can be addressed head on.

Good luck!

Atomo Paz wrote:  I am a massage therapist who specializes in pain therapy and holistic remedies. it would work. If I built a building as a part of an LLC business, or CORP., would that building need to meet the same requirements as a traditional home? Even if I tell them I'm not occupying it as a residence, is it still going to get hit by building codes? Or does that mean that they just have to be sure the building is safe enough to occupy, and not "live" in which might take more steps?

S Bengi wrote:I recommend building a earth sheltered house, live in it for 10yrs (120months) and take the money that you saved from not paying rent (100,000) and build a city legalhouse.

If possible before you start get a permit for a greenhouse and shed, that way when they look on google maps and see a park car, few solar panels, etc. It will not be too suspicious. And with a permit for the greenhouse you can get a water connection and without a matching sewer connection. Likewise when you get a electricity/cable/tv, it will not raise any flags, you could even get a mailbox.

You could just build a greenhouse and the put a tent/yurt inside of it, but doing that for 10yrs seems very hard.

S Bengi wrote:You mentioned that you want a cob house with 24 inch exterior wall and huge roof overhangs. What will the following parts be built from:
Foundation: Concrete?
Floor: Concrete Slab, Plywood+Lumber?
Stem Wall: Concrete?
Roof Bond Beam: Lumber?
Roof: Lumber + Plywood + ?
Insulation: Foam, Hay?
Interior Walls: Lumber and Drywall?

There are house use strawbale for insulation and then add cob on the exterior of the walls.

They still require you to have electric and water hook ups before you are granted the ability to "occupy" your home.

S Bengi wrote:I would build the following things
A shed that is 10ft by 20ft with a loft - bed area or even a RV (a plausible answer as to why you were onsite all night)
A regular address in the city, for your tax return, banking, drivers license. (Probably a friend, cousin, partner home, that you sleep at, say once a month, this will 'prove' that you don't live onsite)
And finally your earth-sheltered house on the 1 acres. (on the outside it will be ugly/hidden aka not beautiful cob, but on the inside you can make it as cozy as you want)

You aren't just hiding your house from folks driving on the road but also from drones/satellites.  And also the sweet grandma that you met, her son-in-law works for the permit office, and guess what she innocently mentioned at the family BBQ on Sunday (I met a nice youngster who is living off the land in a hut next door).

Jan White wrote:We dont have permits for anything we've done on our land. We wouldn't have been able to afford to do anything if we'd gone that route. My husband just noticed that Google Earth has finally updated and we're now visible.

We did make sure to build to code or better and take pictures as we built in case we need to deal with officials later on.

We also accept the fact that our place might be demolished. If that's the case, we'll peacefully leave...and then come back and build a stealth house, invisible from above. I'd really like to have one started already, but there's always so much else to do.

bruce Fine wrote:you say you found the land. I'm guessing you have not bought it yet. one thing to think about, you say it looked like a scrap yard, well in that case theres no telling what kind of contaminants might be in soil. how much oil and grease, glycol radiator fluid and whatnot has been dumped there.

I hate building codes for personal property. I understand if insurance companies won’t cover it, and understand if it can’t be re-sold if not to code, because those things affect others. But telling me I can’t build what I want on my land for me to sleep in is a bridge too far.

Jay Angler wrote:S Greyzoll wrote:

I hate building codes for personal property. I understand if insurance companies won’t cover it, and understand if it can’t be re-sold if not to code, because those things affect others. But telling me I can’t build what I want on my land for me to sleep in is a bridge too far.

There is no code in my province that says you can't pitch a tent and sleep in it. In fact that's what a young man was doing when a tree fell on it and he's now in intensive care.

It's *not* about bridges and being told what to do - it's about safety. There are plenty of ways to discretely build experimental, alternative shelters, but codes contain valuable information about what will improve your odds if something bad happens. Rules like "always have two possible exits from a bedroom" (usually a door and a window) have been proven to increase the odds of surviving a fire, which a local lady experienced when she had to toss her baby out that window to a good samaritan who passed it off and then helped break her fall - they'd have died before the fire department could reach them otherwise. So please try to change the wording in your head to - "what parts of this code are possible and intelligent to follow while I build myself a "nature retreat" hidden in my forest".  We have too few people who see the permaculture lifestyle as beneficial and sustainable - I want to keep all our members alive as long as possible!

S Bengi wrote:Built to code means bare minimum required to legally sell this to my enemy, and for the 'banking folks' to underwrite it and insure it. So it is always a good idea to build even better than code. The problem that really pops up is when the gov start charging impact fees of $16,000. Utility connection cost of $30,000. And force 3rd party labor/signature/stamps because other folks have abused the system and so now they have extra rules.

The code book that government officials use allow strawbale and just like lumber, they dont rot and last along time in a house. I would use words like natural plaster/natural stucco vs cob/dirt.

And yes they will know that you have something on the property the trick is to have a permit on file for a greenhouse or a compose area(earth berm house), or a pergola.

Andy John wrote:

Example: what are the size requirements for needing an occupy certification and or zoning permit? Understood that "tiny" homes are not allowed, but what about mobile?  

They basically 100% blocked people from parking a tiny home trailer on their land because in Tennessee, mobile homes must have a foundation under them, and be "secured to the ground in methods that adhere to building code".

Atomo Paz wrote:

Rob Lineberger wrote:

There are two routes I am exploring.  One is, buy light industrial land or agricultural as you have done, then set up a corporation.  That's very easy to do. This corporation is about, say, permaculture studies and education. Nothing you buy belongs to you, it belongs to the corporation.  The point of the land is not a residence, it is a caretaker or an education center. Then all you need to do is get an occupancy permit for one of the buildings.  I recommend you make the bathroom look very familar to them.  Getting an occupancy permit is easier than getting your house inspected.  Technically they are the same criteria but you'll get different inspectors, or the same inspectors who are expecting something out of the ordinary. Your home will receive a "Maximum occupancy" designation but you don't care about that, right?  As long as the number is as big as your family size.

We seem to have really similar ideas! My secondary idea was to start a small "retreat" center, since I am really close to a lot of yoga instructors and healing arts centers here in town. In fact, I am a massage therapist who specializes in pain therapy and holistic remedies.. it would work. If I built a building as a part of an LLC business, or CORP., would that building need to meet the same requirements as a traditional home? Even if I tell them I'm not occupying it as a residence, is it still going to get hit by building codes? Or does that mean that they just have to be sure the building is safe enough to occupy, and not "live" in which might take more steps?

I really agree with what you said about living in fear on your own land. I don't want to do that at all, and I know it gets hairy when it comes to actually putting plans into reality rather than just dreaming them up. I think of it like trying to get creative with this local government while joyfully refusing to pay to play their game on certain things. I don't think I could afford an architect's stamp sadly. I'd like to build on this land legitimately even if they don't immediately say "YES" to cob/natural building. Honestly, I am just dreading the fees that might come with it. I can't even get the county to answer my phone calls or messages regarding it.

Atomo Paz wrote:

Andy John wrote:


You said you passed up your land.. what did the building board tell you? I know for a fact that the utility board here will not reach water out to our land so our options are rainwater or well water. And well water isn't all that possible either, because our land is sloped and more than likely dry since there aren't really any large trees on the property. We can take our offer on the land back if the utility board tells us something bad. If I can't get the building board to answer us on the solar system/rain water system.. that would stop any house being build there, regardless of if it was cob or "regular".

I understand you're issues, and empathize.  

I owned a Strawbale when I lived in AZ, and had a doozy of a time trying to purchase an off-grid home via conventional means, in NM.


Just make certain in a moist/humid climate like TN that you take every safeguard that the straw is dry, and fully compacted. Traditional strawbales in the SW are left for several months or more with just the roof in place to compact the straw and ensure all the air is out. Obviously, moisture isn't an issue in southern AZ.

There has been some progress but not enough.  I'm in the CO mountains, now.  A state where water rights are a huge issue, meaning you don't own the water that flows through your lands or even the rain/snow that comes off your roof, so a well is a must. (Almost didn't move to CO because of the water rights laws, the dessert for all it's scarcity has better legislation then CO - in my off-grid minded opinion) The property I was interested in was at over 9,700 ft, had a perennial creek running through it at two points, and was mostly sloped. I knew a well was going to be a huge expense and had planned to haul mater in to start.

The regulation change that ultimately made me decide not to move forward had to do with septic. Personally I dislike septic, especially with the modern innovations around composting toilets and or incinerator toilets ( if you have the power), and definitely don't believe in septic in such a pristine and precarious environment.  I am very environmentally conscious and wanted to make sure I built to my ethics and life-philosophy. The regs would not budge on the septic, and in that rocky mountain landscape and with the distance required to safely be away from water sources, the cost of engineers and excavation in such a remote area, if it was even possible, would have been more then the whole build I had planned.

Since I've lived in the area for several years I did some more digging with neighbors and friends and found that the newly passed changes were more about "stopping" people from building at all outside of the "town- proper", and when building is allowed/approved, when outside the town limits it effectively has to be a million-dollar Mc Mansion in order to jump through all the hoops.

The community is a vacation area, has housing issues with most of it's economy based on tourism. Unfortunately for the locals, the changes in the regulations were designed to sure-up the economy by favoring wealthy, out-of-state second homers.

Sad that so many of the reg's are missing the spirit of the law - to ensure safe functional shelter and are instead about supporting only old and or out-dated systems and techniques. It's my belief that the communities that get on board first with allowing, tested alternative building practices and provide for rural highspeed internet access are going to be the next San Francisco's during the gold rush.


My spidey sense tells me there are some things about the Agri designation that can be exploited to your benefit, worker housing, land trust designation, something. Go in humbly, enthusiastic for the possibilities and ready to educate the people making the decisions. Have several real-world examples to help set precedence (much like a court case).

Thanks for sharing your maverick spirit! It's appreciated and what's ultimately needed if things are going to change in a way that makes housing truly accessible for the masses. I'm looking forward to following your journey!

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:
One thing I think I should address is the ongoing notion that things not displayed on Google Earth are not visible. Please be clear on this: Google Earth is a joke.

S Bengi wrote:Built to code means bare minimum required to legally sell this to my enemy, and for the 'banking folks' to underwrite it and insure it. So it is always a good idea to build even better than code. The problem that really pops up is when the gov start charging impact fees of $16,000. Utility connection cost of $30,000. And force 3rd party labor/signature/stamps because other folks have abused the system and so now they have extra rules.  

Andy John wrote:

"Hiding" is not something you can likely do forever, and if found out could leave you homeless.

Jan White wrote:

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:


As far as issues when selling the property, that's an important consideration, too. Again, I think it's good to look at what you're building, though. Anyone who's buying this property to build a conventional, permitted home is going to be spending all that money we didn't on septic, road upgrades, etc. They don't want our any plumbing, no wiring, $12,000 12x16' house. It's going to be bulldozed anyway.

Building to "resell" is an interesting issue. My take is to build the home I want, not the home an unknown future buyer might want, thus I consider "resale value" the value of the land, only. The design of the house I want to live in might suit others but it might not.

There are plenty of people who would love to own a home without electricity, plumbing ect, YET,  unless they can pay full price in cash, and or you as the seller can offer owner financing the property won't sell. Then there is the issue of grandfathered -in-issue,  depending on the laws in your area, if the property changes hands, for it to be occupied by new owners it might need to be brought up to code, even if the previous owner had been living in the residence before, as-is.

Atomo Paz wrote: We can take our offer on the land back

Pearl Sutton wrote:

Atomo Paz wrote: We can take our offer on the land back

Personally, I'd classify all the toxins in the soil as a deal breaker. I bought land so I can grow food, and was careful to get non-toxic soil.

Douglas Alpenstock wrote:

Pearl Sutton wrote:

Atomo Paz wrote: We can take our offer on the land back

Personally, I'd classify all the toxins in the soil as a deal breaker. I bought land so I can grow food, and was careful to get non-toxic soil.

That's a valid point. In the "good old days" people burned anything and everything because "that made it all go away" and it was in the back 40 anyway, so who cares. Well, depending on what they burned, it's possbile that some of it didn't go away. I would ask some pointed questions about that.