hearing, the record was left open nine days for the submission of new evidence, one additional <br />week for responses to the new evidence, and one more additional week for the applicant's final <br />legal argument. <br />DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE HEARINGS OFFICIAL <br />I have considered all of the documents in the planning file for the proposed conditional use <br />permit (CU 02-4), including all the materials submitted during the open record period, as well as the <br />testimony provided at the public hearing. <br />FACTS <br />This case involves an unusual situation. The Subject property, Rest Haven Cemetery, has <br />been involved in numerous land use applications, disputes, and appeals to various bodies. The <br />cemetery is a 72-acre parcel surrounded by residential uses. The present case begins with a <br />conditional use permit (CUP) approval obtained in 1995 that authorized the cemetery use in two <br />phases. The first phase authorized cemetery uses on the most of the property except the southern <br />portion of the property. The second phase authorized cemetery uses on the southernmost 15.8 acres <br />of the property known as Zone 6 (the area in dispute in the present case) subject to Condition of <br />Approval 17 which required a 75-foot buffer along the southern property line. The CUP did not <br />approve a specific development plan for the second phase, but instead required a later application <br />and approval in order to develop that portion of the property. <br />In 2002, the owner sought to develop Zone 6 as controlled income and rent (CIR) housing. <br />The CIR application was filed as a CUP under the applicable Eugene Code (EC) provisions at the <br />time. The City refused to process the 2002 CIR housing application because the City believed the <br />CIR application was in conflict with the 1995 CUP. The owner appealed the City's refusal to <br />process the application to the Land Use Board of Appeal (LUBA), who remanded the decision <br />instructing the City to process the application and make a decision. Wiper v. City of Eugene, 44 Or <br />LUBA 127 (2003). Subsequent to the remand, the owner filed a new application to allow the CIR <br />housing or to modify the 1995 CUP to remove Zone 6 from the cemetery CUP. This application <br />was not a proceeding on remand on the CIR housing application that had been remanded by LUBA. <br />Instead it was a new application regarding the 1995 CUP. The City denied this application because <br />allowing CIR housing in Zone 6 could not be accomplished with a CUP modification. The owner <br />appealed that denial to LUBA, and LUBA affirmed the City's denial. Wiper v. City ofEtrgene, 47 <br />Hearings Official Decision (CU 02-4) 2 <br />