Holmberg v. Deschutes County

The term “in conjunction with” located in ORS 215.283 means that temporary hardship dwellings must be in close proximity to the existing dwelling on the property.

Petitioners appeal a county hearings officer decision that approves a temporary hardship dwelling on land zones for exclusive farm use. The subject parcel is a 20-acre property zoned for Exclusive Farm Use. The hardship dwelling is needed because the applicant is suffering from an ongoing medical condition. The applicant of the temporary hardship dwelling proposed to site the dwelling approximately 750 feet south of the existing dwelling. During proceedings before the hearings officer, petitioners identified four alternative sites, all of which are much closer to the existing dwelling. The hearings officer approved the temporary hardship dwelling at the location proposed by the applicant. Petitioners subsequently appealed.

On the first assignment of error, petitioners argue that the applicant’s proposal is inconsistent with ORS 215.283(2)’s requirement that the hardship dwelling’s location is not “in conjunction with” the existing dwelling because the hardship dwelling will be located far from the existing dwelling. Because the term “conjunction” is a term of ordinary usage, LUBA looks to a dictionary to discover the plain meaning of the word. Respondent argues that the term “conjunction” does not require that things be physically proximate to be “in conjunction” with the other. LUBA agrees with petitioners that the term “conjunction” requires the existing and temporary hardship dwellings to be located in close proximity to each other, thus limiting the need for new driveways, infrastructure, etc. Because petitioner proposed four alternative sites that were reasonably close to the existing dwelling, LUBA remands for the county to limit its consideration to sites that are reasonably close to the existing dwelling. REMANDED.