Laserfiche WebLink
position that a batch plant, be it asphalt or concrete, is a normal <br /> and accessory [appurtenant] to a sand and gravel operation." <br /> Therefore, competent record evidence supported that the batch <br /> plant was an allowable "accessory use" under Land Use Code <br /> section 4.3.10. See O'Dell, 920 P.2d at 50. Accordingly, despite the <br /> lack of an express finding to that effect, we will infer that the Board <br /> properly made such a finding, as it was implicit in its decision and <br /> supported by the record. See Sundance, 188 Colo. at 328-29, 534 <br /> P.2d at 1216; Hudspeth, 667 P.2d at 778; Burns, 820 P.2d at 1177. <br /> Thus, we discern no error in the Board's application of Land Use <br /> Code section 4.5.3(C).8 <br /> 8 While Land Use Code section 4.5.3(C) references "all applicable <br /> requirements" of the Land Use Code, in arguing that the Board <br /> misapplied the provision, NLGC's complaint only alluded to the <br /> project's alleged failure to comply with Land Use Code section 4.3. <br /> And the parties' arguments on appeal likewise address only section <br /> 4.3's requirements. Thus, in concluding that the Board did not <br /> misapply section 4.5.3(C), we considered only the relevant <br /> requirements of section 4.3; we express no opinion as to whether <br /> the project failed to comply with any other applicable requirement. <br /> Accordingly, our conclusion here does not preclude the district <br /> court from reviewing on remand NLGC's other asserted violations of <br /> the Land Use Code that have not yet been addressed. <br /> 46 <br />