I from the residential uses adjoining the southern property boundary. That buffer becomes <br />2 unnecessary if Zone 6 is developed with non-cemetery uses, petitioners argue, and to the extent <br />3 some kind of buffer is sti71 desirable to protect residences adjoining the southern property line the <br />4 entirety of Zone 6 will act as a buffer between cemetery uses elsewhere on the property and those <br />5 residential uses. <br />6 We disagree with petitioners that the hearings officer misconstrued the 1995 CUP. The <br />7 1995 CUP applicant proposed, and the city conceptually approved, cemetery uses in Zone 6. The <br />8 conditions and uses approved under the 1995 CUP were predicated on an assumption that Zone 6 <br />9 would be developed with cemetery uses. For whatever reason, the 1995 hearings official was <br />10 clearly concerned with buffering residential uses and cemetery uses, and petitioners offer no reason <br />11 to believe the hearings official's concern was limited to the specific residences adjoining the southern <br />12 property boundary. Had the city known in 1995 that petitioners would change their mind and <br />13 propose non-cemetery development in Zone 6, such as the residential development proposed in the <br />14 pending CIR-CUP application, the city might well have imposed different or additional conditions to <br />15 butler those uses from cemetery uses elsewhere on the subject property, in deciding to approve or <br />16 deny the 1995 CUP. In short, the hearings officer correctly concluded that development of Zone 6 <br />17 with uses other than those uses contemplated by the 1995 CUP requires modification of or <br />18 amendment to the 1995 CUP. <br />19 The first assignment of error is denied. <br />20 SECOND AND THIRD ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR <br />21 As discussed, the particular modification petitioners proposed was to remove Zone 6 from <br />22 the footprint of the 1995 CUP. Modifications to an existing CUP are governed by the standards at <br />23 EC 9.8110, which require a finding that the proposed modification is not "materially inconsistent <br />24 with the conditions of the original approval," and that it will ' result in insignificant changes" in <br />Page 8 <br />