Agenda Packet 9-24-18 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 As Councilor Zelenka helpfully clarified, the codified use at issue in this claim is precisely "One- Family Dwelling." 2. Staff member Dan Lawler confirmed that the "use" allowed for the subject property has not been restricted. Perhaps unintentionally, Dan Lawler stated in precise terms the situation in this claim: "Where we see the restriction of use is her desired residential use was to build a 1,200 square foot primary dwelling, single-family home. Now her use is restricted to only a 462 square foot home." Lawler has confirmed that: a) Moore's desired "use" is to build a primary dwelling (i.e., one-family dwelling); and b) her currently permitted use is a "home" (i.e., one-family dwelling). There can be no question that both before and after the cited 2014 regulation was adopted, the code allowed "One-Family Dwelling" as a use of Moore's property. It's worth reminding councilors that you have adopted a definition of "use" in the Eugene Code: EC 9.0500 Definitions. Use. The purpose for which land or a building is arranged, designed or intended, or for which either land or a building is occupied or maintained. Note how "Use" is defined as "[t]he purpose ...," which ties the term directly to the purpose of the residential zones (above), which is "designed for one-family dwellings" as well as the table of "residential uses." Nowhere in the code's definition of "use", nor in the purpose of residential zones, nor in the table of residential uses is there any mention at all of the physical characteristics of a one-family dwelling. The code is quite clear that a small one-family dwelling and a large one-family dwelling are identical uses. And Mr. Lawler has confirmed for the Council that the land use code allows the use of the subject property to build a one-family home. His statement of that fact dovetails perfectly with what Glenn Klein stated in the findings that you, the Council, unanimously adopted in Council Resolution No. 5202 denying the Wilson M49 claim: "The Claimants argue that their use of the property is restricted because prior to EC 9.2715(17(c)9. the structure on their property would have automatically qualified as a secondary dwelling and now it does not. However, Measure 49 requires that a land use regulation restrict a residential use and as noted above, EC 9.2715(17(c)9. does not prevent the residential use of the property generally, nor does it prohibit Claimants from establishing both a primary and a secondary dwelling on the subject property. Paul Conte and Carolyn Jacobs also submitted testimony into the record arguing that EC 9.2715(17(c)9. does not restrict the use of Claimant's property. ["use is emphasized with bold-italic in the original report.] "Because there are other ways for Claimants to place a secondary dwelling unit on the subject property, the City Manager concludes that EC 9.2715(17(c)9. does not restrict the residential use of Claimants' property as required by Measure 49. Page 4 -- "Report and Recommendation of the City Manager" The situation with the Moore M49 claim is even simpler than the prior (Wilson) M49 claim. The permitted use before and after the cited regulation is simply a one-family dwelling. A 1,200 s.f. one-family dwelling is the same use as a 462 s.f. one-family dwelling, regardless that the two dwellings have different physical characteristics.September 24, 2018, Meeting - Item 3