Laserfiche WebLink
1. The Board Implicitly Found That the Batch Plant Is an <br /> "Accessory Use" <br /> • 2 The parties agree that the proposed batch plant must <br /> constitute an "accessory use" as defined in Land Use Code section <br /> 4.3.10 or section 4.3.7(E) to be approved as part of the project. In <br /> other words, whether the batch plant is an "accessory use" under <br /> those provisions is one of the "applicable requirements" of the Land <br /> Use Code that the Board had to consider in assessing the <br /> application's compliance with section 4.5.3(C). <br /> •; : Problematic, however, is that the Board did not make an <br /> express finding that the proposed batch plant is an allowable <br /> "accessory use." NLGC suggests that the absence of such an <br /> express finding is fatal to the defendants' claim that the Board <br /> properly applied section 4.5.3(C) and precludes judicial review of its <br /> decision. <br /> {i S4 However, in Sundance Hills Homeowners Ass'n v. Board of <br /> County Commissioners, 188 Colo. 321, 328-297 534 P.2d 1212, <br /> 1216 (1975), our supreme court rejected a similar argument. It <br /> concluded that the absence of specific findings supporting a board's <br /> decision does not warrant reversal if the record is nonetheless <br /> 39 <br />