Appeal Materials 2024-09-17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Eugene Hearing Official August 14, 2024 Page 13 Warren, 296 Or. App. at 600, 439 P.3d 581 (emphasis added).7 “Given that the general purpose of the legislation was to promote housing development (including denser housing development) and that the specific purpose of ORS 197.312(5) was to permit more ADU development, we agree with LUBA that the city’s “wide ranging definition of a siting regulation as one that determines where in areas of the city zoned for residential development ADUs can be developed is not consistent with the legislature’s intent to create more housing and more housing types, including more ADUs, because a city could effectively prohibit development of ADUs in most areas of a city through adoption or application of minimum lot sizes” and the like. Although a modified version of the city’s proposed construction—adopting the city’s interpretation of “siting” but giving effect to the one-to-one allowance ratio—would be consistent with the legislative purpose, its impracticality leads us to believe that the legislature did not intend that construction. “To put it another way, in enacting ORS 197.312(5)(a), the legislature made a statewide policy decision that, in cities and counties over a certain size, it is desirable as a matter of urban planning to allow one ADU per single-family dwelling in areas within a UGB that are zoned for detached single-family dwellings, thus increasing the density of housing development in those areas. The considerations underlying the four Eugene Code standards at issue in this appeal—minimizing density and thereby limiting traffic, increasing livability, and preserving neighborhood character—are essentially policy arguments against ADU development in existing residential neighborhoods. The city’s proposed construction of ORS 197.312(5)(a) would effectively disregard the legislature’s own statewide policy determination in the guise of “siting” regulations.” 305 Or App at 235-236. (Footnotes omitted) That Kamps-Hughes rationale applies here as well. The Middle Housing statute is the “big brother” of the ADU statute, and both are part of the larger “needed housing” statutory package. The legislative policy decision with the ADU statute was to allow one for each existing dwelling on a property. The legislative policy decision for the Middle Housing Statute was to allow Middle Housing wherever single-family detached housing is allowed under the base zoning, subject only to the exceptions listed in the statute. The applicant hopes that counsel and staff, upon reflection, will concur with this reading, and that the Hearings Official, in the exercise of her own independent judgment, will do the same. In summary, the straightforward reading presented by the applicant is consistent with text, context, legislative history, rules of construction, ordinary dictionary meaning, workability, clarity, predictability, legislative purpose, and, not incidentally, the applicant's property rights. The strained alternative reading is a table exercise in nullification by interpretation, a game normally associated with other cities and other states. The choice is obvious. Middle Housing