Court of Appeals Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

I 9.2751(1)(c)(1).3 2 Having concluded that EC 9.2751(1)(b) must be given effect as the 3 definition of "net density" for purposes of the code section at issue--and that it is not 4 simply an inverse statement of subparagraph (1)(c)(1)--we must grapple with what it 5 means for acreage to be "in actual residential use and reserved for the exclusive use of the 6 residents in the development." None of those words are expressly defined in the Eugene 7 Code, but they are words of common usage, so we understand them to have their "plain, 8 natural, and ordinary meaning." PGE, 317 Or at 611. We therefore look to dictionaries 9 of common usage, keeping in mind that, when a word has more than one common 10 definition, we must "examine word usage in context to determine which among 11 competing definitions is the one that the [lawmaking body] more likely intended." 12 Kohring v. Ballard, 355 Or 297, 304, 325 P3d 717 (2014). 13 "Residential use" has two potential meanings of relevance here. The 14 narrower definition of "residential" is "used, serving, or designed as a residence or for 15 occupation by residents." Webster's Third New Intl Dictionary 1931 (unabridged ed 3 In construing EC 9.2751(1) as it did, LUBA relied in part on its prior decision in Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors v. City of Eugene, 70 Or LUBA 132 (2014), rev'd on other grounds, 269 Or App 176, 344 P3d 503 (2015). The primary issue in that case was whether acreage encumbered by sewer and water line easements had to be excluded from the net-density calculation, as "other public facilities" under EC 9.2751(1)(c)(1), or whether the acreage could be included so long as there were no above-ground structures for the utilities. Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors, 70 Or LUBA at *4-6. The proposition for which LUBA cited Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors in this case is not one that we reviewed in that case, and we express no opinion as to whether Oakleigh-McClure Neighbors is reconcilable with our decision in this case. 8