I House IV, the applicant for a drug and alcohol addiction recovery facility in a <br />2 residential zone applied for a conditional use permit for the use, while <br />3 maintaining before the city and LUBA that the proposed use is a permitted use <br />4 in the residential zone and no conditional use permit was necessary. Id. at 511. <br />5 On appeal, the applicant raised no challenges to the conditional use permit <br />6 approval itself, but argued that the city misconstrued the applicable law in <br />7 requiring it to obtain a conditional use permit, and therefore the city lacked <br />8 authority to impose any conditions of approval. LUBA rejected the applicant's <br />9 interpretation of the code, and affirmed. Recovery House VI v. City of Eugene, <br />10 33 Or LUBA 327 (1997). The Court reversed and remanded, after agreeing <br />11 with petitioner's code interpretation. 156 Or App 509. On remand, LUBA <br />12 reversed the city's decision. Recovery House IV v. City of Eugene, 35 Or <br />13 LUBA 419 (1999). <br />14 The city responds that LUBA lacks the authority to grant the relief the <br />15 Dreyers seek, i.e., to "affirm but correct the legal errors by the City." Dreyers' <br />16 Petition for Review 2. We agree with the city. LUBA may resolve the merits <br />17 of an appeal only by affirming, reversing, or remanding the decision on review. <br />18 OAR 661-010-0070(1)(b). Because the Dreyers state they are not seeking <br />19 reversal or remand in their petition for review, the only other relief the Board <br />20 can possibly grant is to affirm the decision. However, the Dreyers cite no <br />21 authority suggesting that LUBA can affirm the city's decision while at the same <br />Page 11 <br />