Eugene city councilors took a tentative first step Wednesday toward removing the owner-occupancy requirement for so-called accessory dwelling units.

The move came as city councilors were reviewing local regulations for the dwellings in light of a decision by the Land Use Board of Appeals late last year. The dwellings, also known as in-law suites or granny flats, are smaller living units intended to be secondary to an existing home on a lot.

The step could gin up debate between local housing advocates and some neighborhood leaders who are at odds over the dwellings. Advocates support easing regulation to encourage more dwellings in a bid to increase the stock of affordable housing in Eugene. Leaders view the dwellings as a threat to neighborhood livability as the increased density from the units can result in a loss of privacy and increased noise and traffic.

The local debate over the dwellings was sparked by passage of a 2017 law that requires most Oregon cities and counties to allow at least one dwelling for each detached home in areas zoned for single-family structures, "subject to reasonable local regulations relating to siting and design."

The city attempted a two-pronged approach in response to the new law.

Last year, the city approved an ordinance that identified accessory dwellings as permitted uses in areas of Eugene zoned for single-family homes where they had not been explicitly allowed. It then planned to begin a public process to look at changes to the regulations that dictate the siting and design of the dwellings on the lot.

The Home Builders Association of Lane County, joined by land-use watchdog 1000 Friends of Oregon and the Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce, among others, appealed the ordinance to LUBA, saying it fell short of complying with the state law.

In November, LUBA told the city to go back to square one. In essence, the board concluded the city, in permitting the dwellings in new areas of the city for the first time, improperly carried forward the existing regulations on siting and design for the dwellings in these new areas without explaining whether and how they were "reasonable."

So on Wednesday, city councilors weighed which of nearly two dozen regulations they do or don't want to retain as they consider adoption of another ordinance.

A majority of city councilors directed the removal of five of the six regulations that a deputy city attorney advised likely wouldn't survive a legal challenge. They included the owner-occupancy requirement as well as regulations that set the maximum number of bedrooms and occupants in a dwelling.

Under the owner occupancy regulation, a property owner must either live in the primary structure or the dwelling on the lot.

A state agency has provided guidance to cities to remove that regulation because it can be a barrier toward construction of more dwellings and is difficult to enforce.

Councilor Chris Pryor supported the removal of the regulation, noting the state guidance and adding "it's not instrumental to either siting or design."

Betty Taylor said she wanted to keep the regulation on the books, saying property owners in neighborhoods have a right to expect they'll remain low-density.

The city must hold a public hearing — yet to be scheduled — before city councilors could take final action on the proposed ordinance, and they could ultimately change their minds about any of the regulations or decide not to approve another ordinance.