Page - 3 <br />5. The Middle Housing grants jurisdictions only limited authority to adopt 1 <br />supplementary measures to protect resources. In so doing, it does not create a 2 <br />wormhole back to the complex substantive and procedural universe that it is 3 <br />designed to escape. 4 <br /> C. Summary of Material Facts 5 <br /> Intervenor-Respondent accepts Petitioner’s statement of material 6 <br />facts except as supplemented by Respondent and other Intervenor -7 <br />Respondents. 8 <br />JURISDICTION 9 <br />Intervenor-Respondent accepts Petitioner’s statement of jurisdiction. 10 <br />III. RESPONSES TO ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR 11 <br /> As with Oregon’s appellate courts this Board’s "paramount goal" 12 <br />in construing a statute is to discern the intention of the legislature. State v. Gaines, 13 <br />346 Or. 160, 171, 206 P.3d 1042 (2009) ; ORS 174.020(1)(a). In pursuing that 14 <br />goal the Board and courts must give primary weight to the text and context of the 15 <br />disputed statutory terms. Citizens for Responsible Dev. in the Dalles v. Wal-Mart 16 <br />Stores, Inc., 366 Or. 272, 461 P.3d 956 (2020) 17 <br /> Accordingly, the Middle Housing statutes must be read in context 18 <br />and must prevail to the extent of any conflicts with LCDC Goals, LCDC rules, 19