Home Builders Association of Lane County v. City of Eugene

Under ORS 197.312(5)(a), certain cities are required to allow in areas “that are zoned for detached single-family dwellings the development of at least one accessory dwelling unit [(ADU)] for each detached single-family dwelling [(SFD)], subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design.” Under ORS 197.312(5)(b)(A), an ADU is defined as “an interior, attached or detached residential structure that is used in connection with or that is accessory to a [SFD].” Under ORS 197.312(5)(b)(B), “’[r]easonable local regulations relating to siting and design’ does not include owner-occupancy requirements * * * or requirements to construct additional off-street parking.” In Kamps-Hughes v. City of Eugene, the Court of Appeals interpreted this legislation and concluded that regulations relate to “siting” if they relate “to where [ADUs] are sited on a lot, not where they are sited within areas zoned for detached [SFDs].” The city adopted an ordinance to implement the legislation. This appeal followed.

The city initially conceded that a number of regulations in the ordinance violated ORS 197.312(5) because they did not relate to siting and design, including minimum lot sizes, alley access lot prohibitions, minimum lot dimensions, maximum density, flag lot pole access restrictions, occupancy limits, and off-street parking requirements.

The city’s code provided a maximum lot coverage of 50% in certain single-family zones. Petitioner argued that maximum lot coverage standards do not relate to “siting or design” because they do not regulate where an ADU is located on a lot but, rather, preclude an ADU on a lot if the lot is too small or an existing SFD is too large. The city responded that, while maximum lot coverage standards might preclude the development of a detached or attached ADU in some cases, they do not preclude the development of interior ADUs on those lots. Because maximum lot coverage standards regulate how an ADU is sited on a lot, that is, the type of ADU that is allowed, and not whether an ADU is allowed at all, as with minimum lot sizes and maximum densities, LUBA agreed with the city that maximum lot coverage standards relate to siting.

Petitioner also argued that the 50% maximum lot coverage standard as not “reasonable” because it was adopted in response to livability and traffic concerns, which petitioner argued were contrary to statutory policy. Relying on the dictionary definition of “reasonable,” LUBA concluded that, because petitioners did not demonstrate that a 50% maximum lot coverage standard was not “within the bounds of reason,” “extreme,” “excessive,” or not “moderate,” petitioner did not demonstrate that that standard was not reasonable. LUBA noted, however, that a maximum lot coverage standard might be unreasonable if it was so restrictive that it made internal ADUs infeasible.

In most of the city’s single-family zones, ADUs were limited to the smaller of 10% of the total lot area or 800 square feet. In one single-family zone, ADUs were limited to 600 square feet on lots between 7,500 and 9,000 square feet or 800 square feet on lots at least 9,000 square feet. Petitioner argued that those maximum ADU sizes were unreasonable because they could discourage the conversion of some interior spaces to ADUs and because lot size is unrelated to the size of an existing SFD. In addition, petitioner argued that sloped setback and building height requirements were unreasonable because they would make it more expensive to convert existing space into an ADU. Because petitioner did not demonstrate that those standards were “unreasonable” under the dictionary definition, LUBA concluded that they were not. The assignments of error were therefore sustained, in part.

In a cross petition for review, intervenors-respondents argued that the definition of “Dwelling, Accessory” contained in the challenged ordinance was not “clear and objective,” as required by ORS 197.307(4). However, because the definition that the city adopted was the same definition as that which the legislature adopted in ORS 197.312(5)(b)(A), LUBA concluded that the definition could not violate ORS 197.307(4) or any other statute. The cross-assignment of error was therefore denied and the city’s decision was REMANDED.