I over the reply brief would benefit either Board or bar, and we allow the reply brief without further <br />2 discussion- <br />3 FACTS <br />4 The subject property is a 72-acre parcel zoned Low Density Residential (R-1) and partially <br />5 developed with an existing cemetery. Those portions of the property not already developed as a <br />6 cemetery are generally wooded. Adjacent properties are generally developed with single family <br />7 dwellings. <br />8 In 1995, petitioners applied for and received a conditional use permit (1995 CUP) <br />9 approving a masterplan for future development of the subject property. The 1995 CUP approved <br />10 development in two phases. Phase I proposes cemetery uses on the bulk of the property from the <br />11 north property line south to the southernmost internal road shown on the masterplan. Phase 11 <br />12 involves the southernmost area, consisting of 15.8 acres between the road and the south property <br />13 line, also known as Zone 6. The 1995 CUP conceptually approved cemetery uses in Zone 6, <br />14 subject to conditions including a 75-foot buffer along the southern periphery of the CUP site, but <br />15 did not approve a specific development plan. Instead, the 1995 CUP required future submission <br />16 and approval of a specific development plan for Zone 6. <br />17 In 1998, the city and petitioners entered into a conditional use agreement (1998 CUP <br />18 agreement), a contract between the parties as to how the 1995 CUP would be implemented. The <br />19 site plans approved in the 1998 agreement include the notations "Future Cemetery Lawns" and <br />20 "Proposed Irrigation" in Zone 6, and also depict a vegetative buffer along the southern periphery. <br />21 In April 2002, petitioners applied to the city for a conditional use permit to develop a <br />22 Controlled Income and Rental Housing project (CIR-CUP) in the 15.8-acre Zone 6 area. The city <br />23 refused to process the application, because the city perceived conflicts between the 1995 CUP and <br />24 the CIR CUP application that the city believed prevented approval of the CIR-CUP application. <br />25 The city's refusal to process the CIR-CUP application was appealed to this Board, which <br />26 remanded the decision to the city to process the application and render a decision. Wiper v. City <br />Page 4 <br />