Kamps-Hughes II (2019): <br /> <br />Same site, same proposal, same people. <br />LUBA: <br />“This case is petitioner’s second attempt to obtain confirmation that direct application of state <br />law entitles him to build an additional, detached dwelling on his property.” <br />Director determined unit would not meet statute definition of “accessory dwelling unit” <br />because no showing it will be “used in connection with” or “is accessory to” the existing <br />dwelling. <br />Requires interpreting the definition of ADU in the statute. <br />LUBA applied PGE Rule for construing statutes: <br />• “[W]e examine text, context, and legislative history with the goal of discerning the <br />intent of the governing body that enacted the law.” <br />• Looking to legislative history, the intent was to set a very low bar for “used in <br />connection with.” <br />• LUBA: Proposed use of the dwelling as a rental on same lot as existing rental is enough <br />to meet “used in connection with” test. <br />• No need for owner occupancy. <br />• Director misconstrued ORS 197.312(5). <br />Point: City did interpret the ADU statute, but they misinterpreted it by not looking at legislative <br />intent. Here the City has not looked at legislative history at all. <br /> <br />Kamps-Hughes III (2019), affirmed (2020): <br /> <br />Same site, same proposal, same people. <br />LUBA looked at text, context and legislative history of the ADU statute to determine whether 11 <br />development standards were “relating to siting and design” in the meaning of the statute. <br />Four city code standards were found to violate the statute meaning of “siting” and could not be <br />applied. <br /> <br />Court Appeals affirmed LUBA, interpreting the statute by applying the PGE rules for construing <br />statute. <br />Court looked at text, context and legislative history of ADU statute to define “siting.” <br /> <br />Key points to draw from Kamps-Hughes decisions: <br /> <br />• The MHS applies directly to this decision. <br /> <br />• The statute needs to be construed by applying the rules stated in PGE and related cases. <br />The City has not done that here. Only the applicant. <br /> <br />• “Existing zoning” can’t include Overlay zones because that allows the City to defeat the <br />MHS anywhere it wants with overlay zones. <br />Appeal Testimony (PDT 24-01 & ST 24-03) - Batch #1 Page 18 of 43