court had was had a lack of jurisdiction with respect to the application for special use permit or the ordinance granting especially permit dated may twelve thousand  matter which included five point five acres on the application but it did in taking a legal description as to seventy nine point five acres which included five point five acres that they requested  to be back evil to go back and file a subsequent application which may take the clear approach so away from the plaintive and the outcome me different because the declaratory judgment remained intact your honor my clients have had consider taking that very action the response we received from the athlete who continues to fact is that perhaps it is improper for us to be doing that because the declaratory judgment still your honor the scope of the order as i understand it it was appealed at the first appellant argument was whether the declaratory judgment was proper as to the seventy nine point five acres and the  another tract i don't see what's so confusing well i think of it perhaps just a clarification at this point the order seems to suggest that the county cannot because declaratory judgment that was entered the county could not appeal the first time well i just hope i think that goes directly to the subject matter jurisdiction and i don't think there is a problem what happened is nobody raised because nobody was placed on notice by the pleadings filed by the pla that one of the defendants asked that it be published as an opinion so it turned out to be a public issue but how was judge freeze to imply in there that he was supposed to do something on the real man with respect to  judgment when this court didn't address that the only thing it did address was the permanent injunction and this court didn't address the declaratory portion of the judgment because it wasn't asked this is not a subject matter jurisdiction finding that this ordinance was unconstitutional and valid as applied the second part of the appeal was ok if you're going to firm that then the scope of the permanent injunction is too broad and you should narrow the permanent injunction to try to raise it on remained after you sent it back after this court sent it back to the trial court to modify the permit injunction now they're trying to appeal saying well we think that the rest of the declaratory judgment is too broad as well so now you need to do something about that well you know that said and done they had their opportunity to appeal it the first time around the law of the case bars them from bringing it up again it's not a subject matter jurisdiction issue again you have to look at the last cases subject matter jurisdiction is not dictated by the number of acres that might be involved in the particular matter so they're just too late they're trying to get the second bite  appellate apples what they're trying to do section because there you are you know again i would it seems to me that you would have to get an analysis of pata and collateral stoppel principles which nobody's which is the one that we guessed thank you for the clarification like sorry ok this is not an easy case to sort out o principles of law and the body of law that spilled us about take an appeal issues that are decided or issues that could've been raised weren't  decided that's it that's your turn you can come back and try to raise them at a later time and that's what's happening here the law the case got bars them from raising an issue like that for whatever reason  they knowledge that the court had subject matter jurisdiction over any part of this case the give away case the order may have been too broad you know but that's the voidable order that's something that can be they seek to go to two super injunction the end the seventy nine point five acres based upon new evidence they as i stand here no i like to put up but i don't know where that i haven't seen that analysis from my opponent your honour's briefly and i know you want me to speak to how it impacts my client's ability to file a subsequent application but just briefly i'd like to speak as to the subject matter jurisdiction issue which in our judgment may be less clear than it appears clearly the trial court had had some better jurisdiction over the costs of action related to the seventy nine point five acres and the track that was subject to the application what becomes less clear is how they which allows consider consideration of the issues would then allow the court to determine custody of the hearing the court when you consider that issue said look you filed your petition as to the heritage act a seventy nine point five acre tract never before the court never framed by the complaint was the issue of whether it was improper for there to ever be an r lay on the remainder of the property the declar judgment in essence suggest look county you can go ahead consider this petition my clients can go ahead and file another application for especially if you have it but what it does is it hinders the adjudicative or it hinders the county in being able to so it creates inefficiencies it also creates an issue with respect to concern by the county board in creating any future applications because they feel the stickler torrie judgment now it's them from from approving so how do you answer the property was generally defined as the four hundred thirty five acres and certainly i'm happy to be corrected if that's not the case but i believe i'm on on remand when the order was modified we corrected the legal description and sit now only