*1 Argued September 8, October affirmed A. HUTCHINS S. ux, Appellants, MURPHY et CO., CONSTRUCTION & ASSOCIATES Respondent. *2 argued Murphy, Roseburg, Edward M. tbe cause appellants. for Roseburg, argued the Dole,

Donald A. cause respondent. Justice,

Before O’Connell, Chief and Denecke, Tongue, Howell, Bryson, Justices. BRYSON, J. declaratory proceeding this

Plaintiffs filed to de- zoning termine whether defendant had violated a Roseburg by collocating ordinance connecting single-family dwellings on a residential Roseburg, Oregon. Plaintiffs reside lot in near the sought an order structure and to defendant’s remove homes. The trial court dismissed one of finding complaint, that defendant’s structure was family dwelling” satisfactory “two within the terms of appeal, assigning Plaintiffs as error the ordinance. complaint. of their dismissal hearing appeared that defendant’s It lot by Roseburg to was restricted Ordinance No. 1185 two-family dwellings. defined a as follows: family dwelling family dwelling. “Ttvo A two having is a two persons for not over two families, five and within which more than

kitchens, lodged one time.” are for hire at Ordinance § 1185 1. building plans in- submitted its

Defendant spection city planning Rose- burg prior any construction. The officials were proposed plans satisfied that for the qualified two-family dwelling pursuant as a to the appropriate building permits. ordinance and issued the proceeded There is no contention that defendant with- necessary permits out the or that its struetare exceeded permission granted permits. in the The two houses were secured to one common *3 foundation on cement defendant’s lot. Defendant also by constructing carport connected the houses a double approximately eighteen feet wide between the two carport floor of structures. The the was a continuous tied concrete slab which was the common founda- into gabled carport roof the tion. A covered entire and was large house with wooden beams. tied into each The testimony changes, shows defendant made other that landscaping painting, including that blended the standpoint buildings into from a visual one structure. being derogation in ordinance, of The common rights owner to use his of the law strictly prop in is construed favor of the wishes, as he County erty Co., Heintz v. Const. 228 owner. Lane Or (1961). presumption validity, A of 364 152, accompanies regularity, reasonableness acts city charged officials with the enforcement Mullen, v. 214 Or the ordinance. Jehovah’s Witnesses (1958). 330 P2d 281, question provides guidelines

The ordinance in no determining dwellings have so when two been they dwelling. However, connected that become one Eggleston, building inspector for. Mr. Eoseburg, that he that defendant’s struc testified felt qualified as a because the ture by residences were attached a substantial individual Undoubtedly, degree of structural connection. physical structures is a interconnection between two determining buildings significant if the two factor in e.g., building. Carpet H. Robinson See, became one W. (1943) (two 52 NE2d Mass Fletcher, Co. buildings resting separate foundations did merely they because constitute walkway). by a covered overhead connected were a residential flavor the district, To maintain one-family two-family that houses it was intended A two- architectural features. exhibit common should one-family dwelling resemble a should give appearance and not extent to some dwellings. accomplished this was issued that were satisfied necessary permits. evidence of the structural Prom harmonization of these connection buildings, trial court was satisfied that the two two-family into transformed one dwell been had homes extensively were ing. witnesses cross- Defendant’s *4 hearing and, under these circum examined great decision is entitled to trial court’s stances, weight appeal. we our review of the evidence From as the trial court. reach conclusion the same Affirmed. dissenting.

O’CONNELL, C.J., restricting the use family dwellings” family “only single was and two to one or use limit either intended to dwelling. ordinance the dwell- To sense out of the make ing, product would at structures, if the of architectural least have to have some semblance photo- unity. drawing from made scale below, clearly graphs that defend- demonstrates evidence, placed two houses with ant on its has joined simply them with and has features, carport. clearly comply the ordinance does not with This should be of the trial court and therefore the decree reversed. joins in this dissent. J.,