Appeal Materials - Laserfiche WebLink

of the cemetery, the applicant cannot provide evidence of the commitment required by EC 9.724(2)(a)(2) to provide needed services and facilities. The Hearings Official acknowledged that "the opponents are correct that the proposed CIR housing would run afoul of the 1995 CUP...". Decision of the Hearings Official, p. 11. However, he held that "the application is specifically based on the premise (and a condition of approval) that the applicant will also obtain a new CUP regarding the cemetery use that allows Zone 6 to be removed from the cemetery CUP". Id. He concluded that "[a]ll of opponents' arguments regarding the 1995 CUP...do not provide a basis to deny the application". Id. However, the commitment to provide private services and facilities is an approval criterion. The Hearings Official needed to have a commitment from the applicant before he made his decision and the applicant, given the restrictions in the 1995 CUP, simply could not make such a commitment. The Hearings Official therefore erred in approving the application. The Hearings Official also noted that "[n]ormally, the applicant would obtain the new CUP for the cemetery that would remove Zone 6 before applying for the CIR housing, but because the new statute [regarding the processing of remands] requires action on the remanded CIR application within a certain time [180 days] the CIR CUP must proceed before obtaining a new CUP for the cemetery". Decision of the Hearings Official, p.3. The Hearings Official ignored the fact that the applicant has had 12 years since LUBA denied modification of the 1995 CUP to file an application for a new CUP, but the applicant failed to do so. But whatever the reason, the applicant does not presently have a CUP that allows him to meet the approval criterion in EC 9.724(2)(a)(2) regarding a commitment and the application must be denied. In sum, evidence of a commitment under EC 9.724(2)(x)(2) is an approval criterion and is necessary before the Hearings Official can make an affirmative finding. Since the 1995 CUP precludes such a commitment, the Commission should reverse the Hearings Official's decision. The Commission should hold that the Hearings Official erred in conditioning approval on the applicant's obtaining a new CUP, and should hold that the applicant's inability to make a commitment under EC 9.724(2)(a)(2) to provide private services requires denial of the CIR-CUP application. In addition, conditioning approval on a future CUP is not appropriate. It is purely speculative at this point as to whether a future CUP, if any, will in fact excise the 15.8 acres from the cemetery masterplan, whether it will impose conditions that might prevent or adversely affect the development of services and facilities on the site, and whether it might prevent or adversely affect uses on the site from accessing or sharing services and utilities on other parts of the property. It is instructive that the Hearings Official, in considering the applicability of the goal post rule to standards that came into effect after the application was filed, noted that "[u]ntil any future applications are submitted, any decision about what standards and criteria apply to those applications would be pure speculation". Id. p.12. Similarly, until a future CUP application to remove the 15.8 acres from the cemetery masterplan is submitted and decided, 7