Agenda Packet 5-20-19 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

ordinance that, if passed, would eliminate some of the regulations identified in the LUBA appeal. Council also asked that staff provide findings to explain how the retained regulations are consistent with ORS 197.312(5)(a). Some Councilors also asked City staff to provide possible findings relating to the regulations proposed for elimination. Since the statutory terms “used in connection with or accessory to” and “reasonable regulation relating to siting and design” are so vague, these City Councilors wished to carefully consider the possibility of retaining all of the City’s current regulations. Those alternative findings, explaining how the regulations proposed for elimination might be consistent with ORS 197.312(5)(a), were provided under separate cover in advance of the public hearing. These findings pertain to the regulations identified in LUBA’s remand that the City Council has determined to be consistent with ORS 197.312(5) and is retaining in the City Code. The terms “used in connection with,” “accessory to,” “reasonable,” “siting” and “design” are not defined in state law or in the Eugene Code, nor is there any useful textual, contextual or legislative history of the terms associated with Senate Bill 1051. The definitions from the Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (2002) were consulted by Council, as described below. “Connection” (“in connection with” is not defined) is defined as relevant here to mean: “the act of connecting;” “a coming into or being put in contact.” “Accessory” (“accessory to” is not defined) is defined as relevant here to mean: a "a thing of secondary or subordinate importance (as in achieving a purpose or an effect)” or b “an object or device that is not essential in itself but that adds to the beauty, convenience, or effectiveness of something else.” “Site” (“siting” is not defined) is defined as relevant here to mean “the local position of building, town, monument or similar work either constructed or to be constructed, esp. in connection with its surroundings;” “a space of ground occupied by or to be occupied by a building;” and “land made suitable for building purposes by dividing into lots, laying or streets and providing facilities (as water, sewers, power supply).” Given this definition of “site” and the new law’s explicit grant of some local regulatory authority over siting, it would be reasonable to find that “regulations relating to siting” include both: (1) regulations that specify the necessary lot characteristics for the siting of an accessory dwelling; and (2) regulations that specify where, on such a lot, an accessory dwelling may be sited. “Design” is defined as “a scheme for the construction, finish, and ornamentation of a building as embodied in the plans, elevations, and other architectural drawings pertaining to it.” It would be reasonable, for example, to find that “regulations relating to design” include regulations that address height and size. “Reasonable” is defined as “being or remaining within the bounds of reason; not extreme; not excessive ***; not demanding too much.” The City Council incorporates this into the analysis by considering whether a regulation is so important May 20, 2019, Public Hearing - Item 2