Laserfiche WebLink
Bd. of Adjustment for Zoning Appeals, 30 P.3d 762, 768 (Colo. App. <br /> 2001) ("While more detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law <br /> are preferable on appeal, the absence of express findings by a lay <br /> board does not affect the validity of the decision when the necessary <br /> findings are implicit in the action taken."); Burns v. Bd. of <br /> Assessment Appeals, 820 P.2d 1175, 1177 (Colo. App. 1991) ("[A]n <br /> agency's findings of fact may be express or implied. . . . [T]he <br /> absence of findings by an administrative board is not fatal to a <br /> decision if there is evidence in the record which supports its <br /> decision. . . . [Thus, the board's] express findings, taken together <br /> with reasonable implications based upon its assessment of the <br /> totality of the evidence presented . . . [may be] adequate to apprise <br /> us of the basis of the decision."). <br /> As an ultimate fact upon which the Board's decision rested, it <br /> would have been good administrative practice to make an express <br /> finding that the batch plant was an "accessory use." But the <br /> absence of such finding did not render the Board's decision on Land <br /> Use Code section 4.5.3(C) erroneous or unreviewable. See <br /> Sundance, 188 Colo. at 328-29, 534 P.2d at 1216. Indeed, so long <br /> as the record supports that the Board "necessarily acted on the <br /> 41 <br />