Laserfiche WebLink
basis" that the batch plant was an "accessory use," and "the state of <br /> the evidence is such as would warrant the making of [that] finding," <br /> we will infer that the Board properly made the finding. Id. <br /> ;' The record shows that the parties to the administrative <br /> proceedings extensively briefed the Board on whether the batch <br /> plant is an "accessory use." The issue was also argued at the <br /> hearing on the application, during which NLGC's attorney <br /> summarized Ready-Mix's application as "seeking as an accessory <br /> use by special review approval to construct and operate a concrete <br /> batch plant" and directly asked the Board to "make a specific ruling <br /> on [the issue]." And a county staff member who appeared before <br /> the Board echoed that Ready-Mix was specifically seeking special <br /> review approval of the batch plant. Thus, the record indicates that <br /> the Board was not only on notice of the issue, but that the issue <br /> was expressly presented to the Board for its consideration. <br /> Moreover, the Board's Findings explicitly referred to the batch <br /> plant (in addition to mining) as a proposed use under consideration. <br /> The Board also alluded in its decision to the parties' briefings on the <br /> "accessory use" issue, finding Ready-Mix's arguments "to be <br /> persuasive." And significantly, the concrete batch plant could only <br /> 42 <br />