Kamps-Hughes v. City of Eugene

Under ORS 197.312(5)(a), (1) local governments have some regulatory discretion that could have the effect of prohibiting an ADU on a particular property, so long as the regulation is reasonable and related to siting and design; (2) “siting” regulations are those which specify the location of an ADU on a site, rather than where ADUs are allowed in an entire zone based on factors such as traffic, livability, and existing density; and (3) while regulations prohibiting ADUs on alley access lots, requiring a minimum lot size for ADUs in certain neighborhoods, requiring minimum lot dimensions for ADUs, and limiting ADU occupancy in certain zones do not relate to siting or design, regulations limiting vehicle use areas, limiting the number of covered parking areas, and setting maximum dimensions and minimum setbacks for garages and driveways on alley access lots in certain areas relate to both siting and design.

Petitioner submitted a zone verification request to verify whether an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is allowed on the subject property, which is zoned for single-family dwellings and accessible only via an alleyway. The city identified 11 standards in the Eugene Code (EC) that would apply to the proposal, including standards which (1) prohibit ADUs on alley access lots, (2) require a minimum lot size for ADUs in certain neighborhoods, (3) require minimum lot dimensions for ADUs, (4) limit ADU occupancy in certain zones, (5) limit vehicle use areas, and (6) limit the number of covered parking areas and set maximum dimensions and minimum setbacks for garages and driveways on alley access lots in certain areas. This appeal followed.

Under ORS 197.312(5)(a), certain cities “shall allow” in single-family zones “the development of at least one [ADU] for each detached single-family dwelling, subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design.” In the first assignment of error, petitioner argues that, under ORS 197.312(5)(a), while the city may in some circumstances apply reasonable regulations relating to siting and design, it may not do so if those regulations would prohibit an ADU on any lot in a single-family zone. LUBA agrees with the city that the text of ORS 197.312(5)(a), as well as context provided by other statutes demonstrating that the legislature knows how to clearly eliminate local government discretion to deny certain uses, indicate that ORS 197.312(5)(a) does not create an outright, unqualified entitlement to develop an ADU on every property with a single-family dwelling. Instead, LUBA agrees with the city that the statute gives local governments some regulatory discretion that could have the effect of prohibiting an ADU on a particular property, so long as the regulation is reasonable and related to siting and design. The first assignment of error is denied.

In the second assignment of error, petitioner argues the 6 EC standards listed above do not relate to “siting” because they do not specify the location of an ADU on a site. The city responds that “siting” regulations are those which regulate where ADUs are allowed in an entire zone based on factors such as traffic, livability, and existing density. Because the dictionary definition of “site” is property-specific rather than area-wide, because the purpose of ORS 197.312 was to create more ADUs, and because the city’s interpretation would enable the city to prohibit ADUs in most areas by applying the EC standards, LUBA agrees with petitioners’ interpretation. In turn, because the alley access lot prohibition, minimum lot size, minimum lot dimensions, and occupancy limits do not regulate the location of an ADU on a property or the ADU’s physical attributes, LUBA concludes the city erred in concluding it could apply them. However, because the vehicle use area limits and alley access parking area regulations influence the location or development of the ADU on the property by regulating the area that can be used for parking, and because petitioners have not established that those standards are unreasonable, LUBA agrees with the city that it did not err in concluding it could apply them. The second assignment of error is sustained, in part, and the city’s decision is REMANDED.