Appeal 7672

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)

Regulation Requirement:

• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs):
• Applying For My Permit:
• Things to consider:
• Attached vs. Detached: The zoning code standards for attached versus detached ADUs differ as follows:
• Attached buildings. To be considered attached, living space of both the primary structure and ADU must abut (be on opposite sides of the same wall). Incidental and accessory features such as trellises, decks, patios, breezeways, garages or tool sheds will not be considered as establishing an attached structure.

The existing house and the new ADU unit are connected by a new breezeway consisting of a deck surface and roof structure. The new breezeway roof is a 10' long x 5'wide 4/12 pitched open roof structure. There are no shared electrical components that run between the existing house and the new ADU unit. All exterior lighting fixtures and switches are attached to the new ADU unit. No new electrical/lighting/switching was added at the existing house structure that would in any way tie it to the new ADU unit that was proposed. In our designing phase we were sure to take the necessary precautions NOT TO make this one attached structure. We were always told by Portland BDS and PGE that this project was considered to be a detached structure.

The action we are acquiring about is: PGE (Portland General Electric) is refusing to hook up our power service line. PGE's main reason is stating that the breezeway now makes the ADU be considered as an attached structure.

Per the code, in question: "Attached buildings. To be considered attached, living space of both the primary structure and ADU must abut (be on opposite sides of the same wall). Incidental and accessory features such as trellises, decks, patios, breezeways, garages or tool sheds will not be considered as establishing an attached structure."

1. The new constructed ADU structure is not on the opposite side of the same wall, we are @ a 10"-0" setback from the existing house and the deck and breezeway are not (per the code language stated above) to be considered as establishing an attached structure.
2. Edmiston Design/Build in the planning and design stages also researched Chapter 33.205 Accessory Dwelling Units and Portland BDS program guide for Accessory Dwelling Units as recommended by the http://www.portlandonline.com web site. These two documents indicate nothing about breezeway systems and how they are to help classify if the ADU unit is to be considered attached or detached. Edmiston Design/Build then proceeded as if the new ADU structure was a detached structure.

We took our plans through PGE's "Request for Single Family Residential Service" and the Portland BDS planning and design processes that were required. Since the schematic design stage of this project all have known about the breezeway system required between the structures. No caution flags were ever brought to Edmiston Design/Builds attention stating that this was not acceptable as shown on the plans. Per our discussions and meeting with PGE and Portland BDS the project was considered to be a detached structure even with the proposed breezeway. Edmiston Design/Build then proceeded with the design, permitting and construction of the new ADU project, believing it was considered a detached structure.

Here is where we are looking for the appeal. If this new ADU unit is considered an attached unit which we believe is not. The power meters would have to be ganged together at the existing house and then a new power supply line from there would be routed to the new ADU sub-panel. This option from the beginning was discussed as not being an option since the existing panel would have to be updated and it also has PV-solar panels connected to it. If this option is to happen it will cost the home owner thousands of extra dollars and head ache that are simply not available and acceptable at this time. Edmiston Design/Build took all necessary precautions with PGE and Portland BDS to avoid this type of situation.

We have been talking to Portland BDS (Dave Hill & Joe Botkins) and PGE (Jake Lang) about the issue, PGE is on board to do whatever this appeal reveals on how to deal with this existing electrical issue.