Laserfiche WebLink
under sections 4.3.10 or 4.3.7(E). Ultimately, though, the Board <br /> properly — albeit implicitly — made the requisite finding when <br /> ruling on section 4.5.3(C). Accordingly, any prejudice from the <br /> Board's failure to consider the issue in applying section 4.5.3(F) was <br /> necessarily remedied. Thus, the Board's misapplication of section <br /> 4.5.3(F) was harmless and does not require reversal of its decision.9 <br /> Sheep Mountain All., 271 P.3d at 606. <br /> V. Conclusion <br /> W The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part. We <br /> affirm the court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the <br /> 9 NLGC argues that we should not consider whether the Board's <br /> misapplication of Land Use Code section 4.5.3(F) was harmless <br /> because the defendants failed to raise the matter below. However, <br /> in its supplemental brief addressing the "accessory use" issue, <br /> Ready-Mix argued that the Board's decision should be upheld <br /> notwithstanding any error in its section 4.5.3(F) finding because (1) <br /> the Board found that the project complied with all requirements of <br /> the Land Use Code under section 4.5.3(C) and (2) the batch plant <br /> constitutes an allowable "accessory use" under sections 4.3.10 and <br /> 4.3.7(E). Thus, while Ready-Mix did not specifically recite the <br /> harmless error rule in its brief, the brief included the "sum and <br /> substance" of the harmlessness argument it advances on appeal. <br /> Accordingly, Ready-Mix sufficiently preserved the argument for our <br /> review. See Berra v. Springer & Steinberg, P.C., 251 P.3d 567, 570 <br /> (Colo. App. 2010) (Where a party "presented to the trial court the <br /> sum and substance of the argument it now makes on appeal, we <br /> consider that argument properly preserved for appellate review."). <br /> 48 <br />