and again when the lawyer step forward if you please identify yourselves for the record speak up i woud lay clearly and spell your last name it's worth and i think authorizes the bringing of an action where there has been a violation of an ordinance an ordinance and the acts specific weight allows either a municipality or an adjoining landowner who is within twelve hundred feet which my clients are  the property at the will call the oakwood finds its own by the accounts the statute says in it it also provides that in addition to other remedies which i think is important language that the legislature put into that statute so  whatever other remedies there may be such as you want to go to a administrative review that's an option but this statute in our view respectfully specifically authorizes a landowners like my clients to bring a lawsuit seeking an injunction where there has been a violation of an ordinance the statute the language of the statute itself as repeated references to the words like supes complaint the court with jurisdiction get a restraining  permanent injunction preliminary injunction references plaintiffs defendant all those words are in the statute and that we respectfully submit there for a reason because it would allow the plaintiffs such as my clients to come to court where there's been a violation of an ordinance we have alleged that was a violation of the home occupation ordinance in this case and we filed that lawsuit on january thirty first two thousand and eleven i would add just as far statutory interpretation then the court intent by first looking at the statutory language itself and if the language is clear it must be given a fact and courts will avoid construing the statute in such a way that would render any portion of it meaningless but we respectfully submit that the trial court in its ruling where it said we were supposed to now go through the administrative review process to review a letter that we also contest its authenticity but in any authority by the letter that was issued was a trial court ruling the case was pending an appeal before the public court we went to the village and asked them to enforce the ordinance they said they weren't going to do it and so then we filed this lawsuit then six weeks later in mid march this schuman letter surfaces six weeks later the shoeman letter shows up and says they appeared to be in compliance with subsection she only the court says you plaintiff you need to go through the administrative review process we go through the administrative review process let's say that th says we lose we've got to go back to court to challenge that and now the the defendant comes up with a new letter from the village that says well now you're in compliance with the employee limitation under different subsection so now you're in compliance so now the then under the ordinance it says you're supposed to file an appeal within forty five days which we did to protect our client's rights but in light of the statute that says in addition to other remedies we had two options when we then got to the june first hearing i said to the trial court we're going to dismiss that case he'd be a case because they don't have any basis to hear the case you do judge the court does because that's what the statute says the pipe right about clients did not proceed with that z b a hearing that was dismissed for want of prosecution in august and then after that was all the rulings that dismissed our case and said it should have gone to the c b i we wish but i respectfully disagree with that because otherwise the stand she would have no meaning there is no that's when he agricultural the no that was his defense argued agriculture as they said they were agriculture the village defended and said you're not agriculture but also said you don't comply with the entire zoning code which included the ho testimony in the c p a hearings in two thousand and eight of the underlying case defendant wasn't claiming they were home occupation the newly never complied because they can never comply because the home i q patient or dentistry pages you have to comply with all of it and it says the definition of a home occupation there's three components to it and that he one for our purposes is your home i q patient has to be incidental and secondary to your residence that's for things like a piano teacher who's got a room where the people come in and kids get a piano lessons or an accountant comes in but it's not for a situation where here where the farms the cost of a thirty thousand square foot building across the small road from my clients and we're operating commercial or sporting operation because the the buyer and the farm it's the big writing stable thirty thousand square feet can never be incidental and secondary to the house it's not and can never be a home my capacious can't be that's not the ordinance was set for piano teachers that's a exclusion to that more importantly here we have a specific statute that would that allows and provides for a landowner to bring this case that's what we're going under if we had as i was trying to explain before if we had to go through the administrative review process every time the i'm doing violation of the audience would never get resolved because they would just come back with a new letter that said now you are in compliance with this obsession and now you are in compliance with that i have to go through the whole process i'd be here and i would never get to court that would in essence render the language of the statute meaningless because a party could never ever get to court to seek its injunction and i think if you look at the cases that we cite the  dunlap case there the plaintiff sued for under the same sections with the village and sued the neighboring landowner regarding a patio room and the court there i said gave you what the purpose of the act was but there the court held that the plaintiff was entitle to bring the suit the ordinance and they can put in the shoeman letter if they want as evidence and work tackett we should have the right to cross examine that evidence because mr shulman didn't sign the letter and we put in a boatload of evidence that showed they can test that that was southbank case  which also another lawsuit out of the act there that case was sent back to the trial court first hearing to determine if the adjacent property was in full compliance with the ordinance or not that's all we're asking for and in the more importantly i think and then casey said the city clinton first class and granted its fourth district case there the city of clinton its own to defend its property its residential that a year later the defendant went to the zoning board and got a variation you got a variation and said i could build multifamily there after learning of that the city then went into court under eleven thirteen deaths fifteen sought an injunction to stop that multifamily building even after it started when they saw the buildings very go up they went into court and the defendant there argued that the city should have proceeded under the administrative review process and the court their health however we are satisfied that the injunction was properly sought under section eleven thirteen fifteen of mr code which allows local authorities to seek injunction against construction violation of in this  litigation or during the village like camps appeal before this court they have police ever claim that they were operating as a home like your patient and indeed to believe reinforces has set forth and page thirty eight and they have offices this owning board of appeals is then best it is a ministry debate as he to conduct fact finding mission so to speak along the same lines as any other administrative agency and upon their final determination which may include affirming the zoning officer reversing or modifying the vision thirteen just plenary powers zoning board of appeals to look into the  h it what you say would be true that if somebody found such a lawsuit because a property was in that conformance with someone and then they kept filing should not be dismissed because the showmen letter the one of the bill which attorneys mr lynch also sent a letter to the counsel involved it was presented into the record affirming that this was the under division thirteen and two apply eleven thirteen fifteen and it's only variance or special use permit which hurt classified as legislative decisions which attempt to apply and in the point the point is if they are allowed to bring in appropriate action or proceeding in this case the vision thirteen of the zoning poll identifies the appropriate proceeding it they may be conscientious decision not to pursue their day in court they've had their day for a name chills that barrington hills and by the way barrington hills has adopted all the appropriate ordinances and legislation to enact division thirteen as set forth many times for begum is set for a i'm sitting on one hundred thirty two acres of land this is not just a twenty five five hundred twenty foot lot it's sitting on a large tract of land and many of the and frankly it should be just not considered by this court because it's never been developed as a legal argument and it lacks range specificity how they were denied the process  members of the c p a discussed the h m o granted the defendant i viewed their agriculture did i do i made show but the village did argue that there that they can't comply with the code so that's clearly in there and if you go to the said the record reveals that it would finance primary purpose is the commercial boarding of forces which is a use that is not incidental and secondary to residential property we find that the commercial building of questions does not comport with the overall and they can never comply with the with the home occupation because there are thirty hot there thirty thousand square foot stables it's not incidental and secondary to the principal use of the drawing unit sit there that's house it's a commercial for sporting operation it could never comply with the home occupation or it simply can't beat the shoeman letter we've discussed the council said it was authenticated the person who authenticated from the village the last tram don't is the person who then you can read our complaint that how this human letter came about and we think it was issued improperly i'll be polite but there are we think gross misconduct and we put affidavits in that show that and we believe we have been titled to get a landowner and that case was allowed to proceed against the joining landowner that's all we're asking for in this case and finally just let me address the zepa hearing that we're counsel says our clients didn't show up in fact our client sent a letter to the village before the hearing and said there's no basis to hear this case there's no jurisdiction for this case and they and that's why they didn't show up so with that kind of feel you have any more questions i'd be happy to answer those and as you said one