Petitioners took the position before the hearings officer that because the 1995 CUP did not <br />2 approve any particular development in Zone 6, no modification of the 1995 CUP to excise Zone 6 <br />from the masterplan was necessary in order to develop Zone 6 with uses otherwise allowed under <br />4 the X 1 zone. The hearings officer considered that argument and, after quoting and reviewing <br />5 portions of the 1995 CUP, concluded as follows: <br />6 "[N]otwithstanding the applicant's present position, the 1995 CUP clearly included <br />7 the Zone 6 area as part of the CUP, and the [1995] Hearings Official relied upon <br />8 the applicant's proposed use of that property, i.e., the buffer proposed for that <br />9 zone, in his description of the site and his evaluation of the use as applied to the <br />10 approval criteria. The applicant also relied on that zone as part of the CUP in order <br />11 to comply with Condition 17, which required a 75-foot buffer zone on the site's <br />12 southern periphery. To argue now that the Zone 6 portion of the use was not a part <br />13 of the 1995 CUP approval is inconsistent with the applicant's previous <br />14 representations and proposals regarding the use of that site, the 1995 CUP <br />15 approval and the applicant's final approved master plan. * * * <br />16 "Further, the fact that additional review was required prior to further development <br />17 beyond the conceptual plan provided for Zone 6 in the 1995 application does not <br />18 exempt that portion of the site from the CUP. Rather, as the Hearings Official <br />19 explained, the applicant had conceptually proposed tombs and fencing in addition to <br />20 a proposed vegetative buffer [in Zone 6]. The Hearings Official found that, since <br />21 further development of this portion of the site-beyond its approved use as a <br />22 buffer-was proposed for a future phase, conceptual approval at that time was <br />23 adequate, provided that additional review was completed prior to development `in <br />24 that regard.' This does not exempt [Zone 61 from the CUP, or allow the applicant <br />25 to remove that portion of the property without a modification to the CUP. <br />26 "Condition 16 of the 1995 CUP decision states that `if the timing, location or size of <br />27 any of the proposed improvements included in the master development plan are <br />28 changed, a minor modification to this CUP shall be required. If there are substantial <br />29 changes to the timing, location or size of these improvements, a major modification <br />30 of this CUP may be required.' The request to remove Zone 6 from the CUP <br />31 changes the location and size of improvements included in the master development <br />32 plan within the meaning of Condition 16. <br />33 * * [In addition], all modifications to approved CUPs must be evaluated for <br />34 compliance with the criteria at EC [Eugene Code] 9.8110. As the Planning <br />35 Director's decision correctly determined, `as clearly established on the approved <br />36 site plans, and within the CUP performance agreement, the subject area was <br />37 conceptually approved for cemetery use with several requirements such as a 75- <br />38 foot wide buffer zone along its periphery. As such, the applicant's request to <br />Page 6 <br />