Kamps-Hughes v. City of Eugene

Once certain factors have been met, ORS 197.312(5)(a) requires “the development of at least one [ADU] for each detached single family dwelling,” hindered only by sitting and design specific regulations.

The City appealed a final order from LUBA which held the city imposed impermissible restrictions which hampered the ADU development that Kamps-Hughes sought. The City assigned error to LUBA’s reading of ORS 197.312(5) and argued their four standards asserted to LUBA relate to “sitting” as described in ORS 197.312(5)(a) because they consider “traffic, livability, and existing density.” Kamps-Hughes countered the city’s argument and asserted “sitting” describes the area of an ADU “on a site,” a much more specific view of  “sitting.” Once certain factors have been met, ORS 197.312(5)(a) requires “the development of at least one [ADU] for each detached single family dwelling,” hindered only by sitting and design specific regulations. The Court held that even though the text of “sitting” can be read in either the City or Kamps-Hughes’ favor, the context only supports the conclusion that LUBA was correct. Because the whole purpose of ORS 197.312 and similar statutes was to promote housing development, if “sitting” meant the more expansive view proposed by the city, then less ADU’s could be developed, hindering the intent of ORS 197.312. Affirmed.