I Although not entirely clear, the hearings officer appeared to conclude that petitioners failed to <br />2 present enough information or analysis to conclude that the proposed modification complied with <br />3 EC 9.8110(2). <br />4 Petitioners contend that the findings quoted at n 6 are unacceptably conclusory, in that the <br />5 findings fail to explain what evidence or evaluation is missing. Alternatively, petitioners contend that, <br />6 pursuant to ORS 197.522, even if the proposed modification is inconsistent with EC 9.8110(2), the <br />7 city was obligated to approve petitioners' application under reasonable conditions that make the <br />8 proposed modification consistent with applicable regulations.' <br />9 Intervenors cite to testimony that use of roads and utilities within the CUP area by non- <br />10 cemetery development in Zone 6, such as residential uses proposed in the pending CIR-CUP <br />11 application, could have significantly greater alverse impacts on surrounding properties than the <br />12 cemetery uses conceptually approved in Zone 6 under the 1995 CUP. According to intervenors, <br />13 petitioners failed to recognize or address those impacts, and instead took the position that any <br />14 impacts firom use of roads and utilities by figure development in Zone 6 are speculative and beyond <br />15 the scope of consideration under EC 9.8110(2). Intervenors argue that the hearings officer <br />16 disagreed with that position, and rejected the proposed modification because petitioners failed to <br />17 present any evidence or evaluation of the impacts of the proposed modification on surrounding <br />18 properties or the CUP site. With respect to ORS 197.522, intervenors argue that the city is under <br />19 no obligation to present evidence on petitioners' behalf or provide the evaluation necessary to <br />20 determine compliance with EC 9.8110(2). Further, intervenors contend that petitioners did not <br />'ORS 197.522 provides: <br />"A local government shall approve an application for a permit, authorization or other approval <br />necessary for the subdivision or partitioning of, or construction on, any land that is consistent <br />with the comprehensive plan and applicable land use regulations or shall impose reasonable <br />conditions on the application to make the proposed activity consistent with the plan and <br />applicable regulations. A local government may deny an application that is inconsistent with <br />the comprehensive plan and applicable land use regulations and that cannot be made <br />consistent through the imposition of reasonable conditions of approval." <br />Page 15 <br />