Laserfiche WebLink
contain "additional applicable criteria." As they point out, in <br /> contrast to other provisions within section 4.3, neither details <br /> specifications that a mining use — or a batch plant — must satisfy. <br /> Cf., e.g., Land Use Code § 4.3.7(H), (N)(1), (0) (outlining specific and <br /> technical standards for various uses and, in one instance, explicitly <br /> stating that the requirements are "in addition [to] the section 4.5 <br /> minor special review criteria"). <br /> 76 Yet, as they did before the district court, the defendants <br /> specifically acknowledge that the proposed batch plant must fall <br /> within Land Use Code section 4.3.10 or section 4.3.7(E)'s definition <br /> of an "accessory use" to be permitted as part of the project. Indeed, <br /> the Board itself states in its opening brief that "the Board <br /> understood that to be included in the project, the Batch Plant must <br /> be an allowable accessory use and the Board evaluated it as such"; <br /> it then explains why the batch plant is an "accessory use" under <br /> sections 4.3.10 and 4.3.7(E). So the defendants appear to concede <br /> that the definitions in sections 4.3.10 and 4.3.7(E) function as an <br /> applicable standard for whether the batch plant could be approved <br /> as part of the proposed mining project. And, in our view, the term <br /> 36 <br />