Laserfiche WebLink
be approved as an "accessory use"; unlike mining, the Land Use <br /> Code does not allow for concrete batch plants as a principal use in <br /> a district zoned "Open." See Land Use Code § 4.1.5. Thus, the <br /> record strongly suggests that the Board specifically considered <br /> whether the batch plant was an allowable "accessory use." <br /> . 'S� } In light of the above, and because section 4.5.3(C) requires <br /> that the Board consider "all applicable requirements" of the Land <br /> Use Code, we will presume under these circumstances that the <br /> Board "necessarily acted on the basis" that the batch plant was an <br /> allowable "accessory use." Accordingly, so long as competent record <br /> evidence supports that finding, we will infer that the Board <br /> implicitly and properly made the finding. See Sundance, 188 Colo. <br /> at 328-29, 534 P.2d at 1216. <br /> 2. Competent Record Evidence Supports the Conclusion that the <br /> Batch Plant Was an "Accessory Use" <br /> y0 Because it is undisputed that the batch plant will use <br /> imported, nonmined materials to manufacture concrete, it is <br /> questionable that the batch plant could be considered an "accessory <br /> use" under section 4.3.7(E). See Land Use Code § 4.3.7(E)(1) <br /> (stating that the "[o]n-site processing of mined materials is <br /> 43 <br />