Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

I obligation, petitioner argues, it uses the word "shall," which LDC 1.6.30 2 defines as "[e]xpressing what is mandatory." 3 We agree with petitioner that LDC 4.0.60.c.2 is not a "clear and 4 objective" standard, and therefore cannot be applied to deny needed housing, 5 consistent with ORS 197.307(4). In order to apply LDC 4.0.60.c.2 to the 6 proposal, the city council had to interpret that code provision in at least two 7 ways. First, the city (implicitly) determined that LDC 4.0.60.c.2 applies not 8 just to the design of proposed streets, but also to proposed development served 9 by already designed, approved and constructed streets. Second, the city 10 concluded that the terms of LDC 4.0.60.c.2 are mandatory approval standards 11 that must be satisfied to approve development, not merely design features that 12 "should" be considered (but need not be imposed). Record 22. The merits of 13 the latter interpretation are somewhat dubious. Even with full deference 14 accorded a governing body's interpretation of code provisions pursuant to ORS 15 197.829(1) and Siporen v. City of Medford, 349 Or 247, 243 P3 d 776 (2010), it 16 is a tall order to interpret "should" as that term is defined at LDC 1.6.30 to 17 mean a mandatory obligation, because LDC 1.6.30 expressly defines it as non- 18 mandatory. In its response brief, the city argues that the modal auxiliary verb 19 "should" modifies only the first clause of LDC 4.0.60.c.2 ("should not exceed 20 600 ft") and does not modify the second clause ("nor serve more than 18 21 dwelling units"). However, that reading does violence to the grammatical and 22 semantic structure of LDC 4.0.60.c.2. "Should," as a modal auxiliary, clearly 23 modifies the main verbs in both clauses ("exceed" and "serve"). As defined by 24 LDC 1.6.30, "should" means "expressing what is desired." Read in light of 25 that definition, LDC 4.0.60.c.2 expresses the desire that a cul-de-sac serve no Page 17