Category Archives: Multifamily Dwellings & Density

POSITION PAPER of the Hawaii Sustainable Community Alliance

WHAT ARE THE KEY FEATURES OF A “SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITY?

A sustainable community (SC) consists of one or more households that share a location and the conscious intention to be self-reliant, resilient, resource-conserving, equitable, and ecologically restorative—while providing a good quality of life for community members and future generations.

(A household is here defined as two or more people who share a shelter system that includes facilities for eating, sleeping, bathing, and gathering.)

The members of an SC

  • cooperate with each other and with neighbors, for the accomplishment of shared purposes.
  • are responsible and accountable to each other, to neighbors, and to the larger world for the consequences of how they live.
  • steward valuable resources for the benefit of future as well as present generations.

A Sustainable Community:

  • provides many of its basic/subsistence needs (water, food, clothing, shelter, energy, waste management) on site, using primarily local resources (human/natural/financial).
  • reuses or recycles almost all of its “wastes.”
  • is prepared for natural and other emergencies.
  • promotes and aims for income, gender, and intergenerational equity.
  • restores and regenerates degraded eco-systems, while ensuring that land use, building, transportation and other systems are minimally damaging to the biosphere.
  • offers learning opportunities to all ages about the challenges and technologies of living sustainably.
  • is part of a global community: Most SCs have and utilize access to the internet, hence to neighbors, each other, the world, and the global information base.

Why do people choose sustainable community?

The sustainable community movement is leading the way to a new era of more productive, innovative, resource conserving, energy efficient living systems.

Most creators and members of Sustainable Communities (SCs) are motivated, at least partly, by discontent with the standard modern consumerist lifestyle.

Large, complex, centralized, 20th century industrial systems continue to become less functional and less reliable, climate change continues, food (along with water) is becoming the “new gold,” and energy is becoming more and more scarce and expensive.

SC members seek something that is more communal, more ecologically restorative, less auto dependent, less money-oriented, more democratic and equitable, closer to nature, cleaner, healthier, and more spiritually fulfilling.

Most SC members seek economic independence through self-reliance that gives insulation from unreliable financial/labor markets and from the decisions of distant corporations and governments—meanwhile inventing and building alternative local provisioning systems and cultures.

SC’s want to leave our children with an inheritance of functioning, multi-purpose living systems that are capable of surviving and thriving in the 21st century.

SC’s provide friendship and support, and are an answer to the isolation and loneliness of a modern culture built of broken families and traditions.

SC’s support a network of people competent in the operation of alternative, appropriate technologies.

SCs build wealth in the form of functional, productive, efficient and equitable living systems that are strong foundational units of healthy, vibrant neighborhoods, towns, and regions.

This includes

* human/social resources (health, knowledge, skills, relationships, organization, education);

* built resources (appropriately-scaled subsistence infrastructure and technologies for energy and water harvesting, food production, waste recycling, etc.);

* and natural resources of their local ecosystems (soil fertility, vegetation, wildlife).

Summary of the BENEFITS  provided by SC living systems

Food security

External security

On-site productivity

Resource conservation (water, energy, materials)

Employment opportunities

Educational opportunities/outcomes/potential

Recreation

Healthy environment for children and elderly

Help with child raising

Health care/maintenance

Internal communication

Internal sharing

Communication/cooperation with neighbors

Sharing with neighbors

Saving money by pooling resources

Sharing tools and buildings

Caring for the environment- soil, water, air

Share

Sustainable Living Resolution, October 2nd

The Hawaii Sustainable Community Alliance is working towards amending current laws to allow more eco-friendly practices, communities and buildings.

This resolution (302-12) urges the Hawaii State Legislature enact legislation to establish Sustainable Living Research Sites on parcels less than 15 acres that are designated “agricultural” under state law in Hawaii. It would allow applicants to request exemptions from County Codes for approved sustainable living research activities.

This would provide a way for people to come into compliance, and be able to learn about new ways of living that are ecological. They could work on how to: conserve and harvest fresh water; conserve and improve topsoil without expensive or toxic inputs; increase local food quality and security using organic methods and local materials; increase biodiversity and protect wildlife; provide onsite waste treatment and recycling with minimal or zero air and surface or ground water pollution, and many other techniques.

Why did the Hawaii Sustainable Community Alliance propose the Sustainable Living test sites on parcels up to 15 acres? A number of you have asked us this. We put that in our resolution because the County council only has jurisdiction over parcels of up to 15 acres. Over that size, the State Land Use Bureau in Oahu has to make the decisions. So our resolution is only for the county level. Please email or come and testify that you like this proposal, but you would rather have it apply to larger parcels. We would like to change the wording to be “parcels more than one acre”. We need your help to ask for that change. Thanks ! Amara

Share

Sustainable Living Research Resolution proposal

PROPOSAL FOR A RESOLUTION

BY THE HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL

Concerning Sustainable Living Research Sites in the State of Hawaii

7/1/12

 

The purpose of this Resolution is to support the worldwide transition to a livable, just, and sustainable civilization, by requesting and urging the Government of the State of Hawaii to enact legislation that would allow Hawaii’s County governments to permit the establishment and operation of “Sustainable Living Research Sites” on lands designated “agricultural” under state law [when the land involved is less than fifteen acres in size?].

 

A Sustainable Living Research Site is an area of land on which the legal owners and/or occupants are permitted to engage in activities and erect structures that might not otherwise be permitted under state and/or county law.

 

THE RESOLUTION

 

WHEREAS it is widely recognized that increases in human population, declining natural resources (topsoil, forests, fisheries, minerals, and fuels), rising levels of air and water pollution, climate change, unemployment, poverty, and other dangerously disruptive trends require immediate and creative responses by private and governmental entities of all sizes, at all levels; and

 

WHEREAS the “Hawaii 2050” plan calls upon all sectors and individuals to take action for the sustainability of the state’s economy, resources, environment, and quality of life; and

 

WHEREAS the County of Hawaii Resolution 249-09 adopted the “Sustainability Primer” which recognizes that there are “structural barriers that actually prevent people from being able to meet their own needs;” and

 

WHEREAS many citizens, families, organizations, and communities of Hawaii are ready, willing, and able to develop, test, refine, and implement a wide range of innovative methods, technologies, and holistic systems that increase the productivity, resilience, health, and sustainability of Hawaii’s economy, ecosystems, people, and culture; and

 

WHEREAS truly sustainable living frequently involves new and innovative methods, technologies, and holistic systems that conserve, harvest, and produce energy; increase net-negative CO2 output (“forests versus fires”); conserve and harvest fresh water; conserve and improve topsoil without expensive or toxic inputs; increase local food quality and security using organic methods and local materials; increase biodiversity and protect wildlife; provide onsite waste treatment and recycling with minimal or zero air and surface or ground water pollution; increase the supply of affordable housing by using on-site timber and re-using/recycling discarded/”waste” lumber, windows, plumbing supplies, and other manufactured goods; reduce the need for and use of imports from distant places while increasing the use and employment of local materials, labor, skills, and products; enrich neighborhood educational, vocational, and cultural opportunities for all ages while enhancing their experience of place and community; reduce the need for expensive public infrastructure and services; stimulate private investments in sustainable development; and

 

WHEREAS the development, testing, and refining of the aforesaid methods, technologies, and holistic systems for sustainable living frequently requires activities and structures that Hawaii’s County Governments might not be authorized to permit on lands designated “agricultural” under state law; and

 

WHEREAS a Sustainable Living Research Site is an area of land on which the legal owners and/or occupants are permitted to engage in activities and erect structures that might otherwise be prohibited or unduly constrained by state and/or county law;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Hawaii County Council supports the establishment of Sustainable Living Research Sites in Hawaii and hereby requests and urges the Government of the State of Hawaii to enact legislation which authorizes Hawaii’s County Governments to permit Sustainable Living Research Sites [on areas of less than fifteen acres?] on land designated “agricultural” under state law; and

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Hawaii County Council will work with state officials to prepare and promote such legislation.

 

 

Share

Oregon Ecovillage links

In Oregon in general, Recode Oregon is a great resource, with relevant activities re code issues in diverse parts of the state:
http://www.recodeoregon.org/

Portland is buzzing with related activity. At least seven Cohousing groups listed in the CohoUS directory, find them here by scrolling down to Oregon:
https://www.cohousing.org/directory

The FIC site has a directory of intentional communities, here’s Oregon’s listing:
http://directory.ic.org/intentional_communities_in_Oregon

Some particular ones I know of include Tryon Community:
http://tryonfarm-org.cftvgy.org/share/

Columbia Ecovillage:
http://columbiaecovillage.org/

Kailash Ecovillage in SE:
http://www.kailashecovillage.com/

City repair (founded and still headquartered in Portland) may have info on ecovillage activities as well, plus being a live example of reclaiming the commons and asking for forgiveness rather than permission:
http://cityrepair.org/

Share

Planning and Zoning for Ecovillages

The best article l’ve found on Planning and Zoning for Ecovillages is

<http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/articles/ecoville.shtml>

and be sure to check out our sister organization on Maui and their excellent power point presentation on ecovillage zoning
<http://mauisustainablecommunities.wikispaces.com/>

Share

Legality of the Complaint Driven Process of Building and Land Usage Inspections

The Complaint Driven Process of Building and Land Usage Inspections

Are these processes or action themselves illegal (under County, State or Federal constitution and/or other applicable laws relating to due process and similar)?

Points are:

* No criteria or process at county level for determining validity of complaint. Might the county be setting itself up for liability/legal action by prosecuting a fraudulent or otherwise invalid “complaint”?

* Anonymity of accuser. Is this permissible in civil or criminal court? That the accused not be allowed to know who the accuser is? If not, then how can it be allowable in this context?

* Accused is presumed guilty. This is in direct contradiction to our civil and criminal legal systems where accused is presumed innocent pending attempts to prove guilt.

* No formal procedure to respond to complaints. Again this is not allowed in our civil or criminal legal system. Could this be grounds for a civil lawsuit against the county?

I’m NOT advocating lawsuits against the county pre-emptively.
I’m suggesting that IF such lawsuits would have firm legal ground, the county needs to be aware of this and be aware that by doing what they’re doing WRT their current complaint process, they are putting themselves at risk of such lawsuits.

cheers,
John S.

Share

Zoning, Population Density

11/24/2010
Should we limit our HSCA goals to cover only properties of 2 acres or greater?
Recommends for us to make a specific area of land that these changes would apply to, since larger land area makes it easier to have less impact on neighbors.  Would be good to have some formula about density of people per acre.
John:
* Need for people/dwelling density on a piece of land can potentially be addressed via zoning type changes. For example, there are basically zero acres in all of Puna district zoned multifamily residential. Yet multifamily residential zoning categories already exist in county zoning code. And there is a process for requesting a change of zoning type.
Townhomes, condos, apartments are typical multifamily building patterns; co-housing is a more people-community-eco-focused recent evolution. It is a long shot to rezone Puna ag land to multifamily, and, it really needs to happen in particular in and around existing village centers and/or intended future village centers. Nothing sustainable about low density auto-based sprawl as we know it, regardless of how otherwise “alternative” it may be.
Share

Multifamily dwellings/ density

From HSCA Minutes: Multifamily dwellings/density

11/12/2010

Question to consider: Should we either push for a legislative change or an exemption to increase density to more than 5 unrelated people. ( California Supreme Court defined “family” as people who eat together.)

Answer:

We need to propose a change of that code to our county council members. The county code is vague. If he gets 22 people living in a house that are all related, it is legal.  Yet if there are 6 college students living together, that is not legal.  “Individual” is defined as one family unit.  So there might be five couples, and they are counted as five “individuals”.

Multiple dwellings on one land Parcel

-there is no code that permits several houses on one property for an extended family.  Nothing says that there has to be 50 feet between outbuildings and the main building, but the county tries to enforce that.  Can’t have an ohana on ag land anymore.

11/24/2010

John:

* Need for people/dwelling density on a piece of land can potentially be addressed via zoning type changes. For example, there are basically zero acres in all of Puna district zoned multifamily residential. Yet multifamily residential zoning categories already exist in county zoning code. And there is a process for requesting a change of zoning type.

Townhomes, condos, apartments are typical multifamily building patterns; co-housing is a more people-community-eco-focused recent evolution. It is a long shot to rezone Puna ag land to multifamily, and, it really needs to happen in particular in and around existing village centers and/or intended future village centers. Nothing sustainable about low density auto-based sprawl as we know it, regardless of how otherwise “alternative” it may be.

Share