allow equal time at the first thing i want to tell you is everyone's going to get a chance to argue what they need to argue today we will have some general time clamorous but we have no intention of cutting you off if we're in the middle of something that's meaningful my thought was twenty sure but in the midst of that litigation it sounds like the the the interveners are saying you know we no matter what happens we continue to have the right to do this they're still doing it right as of this day they're still operating the  thing that the standard test for evaluating the constitutionality of an ordinance tell us what just utilizing that teff we can hang our hat on to determine whether or not the ordinance is are limited to some kind of a legislative record when we're looking at things like this i mean when no one went to the state laws passed or an act of congress has passed and of course reviewing the constitution ality of it they will look at the language of the legislation and they will look at the what sort of history if there's something to be gleaned from that but we all start going back to india once upon a time five years ago here's how this all started these people were fighting c and they tried to fight in court and you've got a legislative you know i mean there came a lot of case law that says you get to just go back and start trying a story at some point and i'm trying to let this room what we can and can't answer there's a lot in your complaint but i'm not sure all that oh i guess it's it's a matter of how you look at them and i think what they would probably say is our position is that the law and yours is that it's invalid so that's not really representing our position that doesn't strike me as a reasonable take on how things about everything from general we're talking about in this particular case where we have the village and we have intervenors who believe in the case we're not talking about every case in which the village is seeking to settle on an issue with with someone who lives within those we're talking only specifically about this particular case in which we have individuals who have been granted as a right to intervene in this case and whose interests because they've intervened i believe not to be a is the it's in their best interests or else the let's say we disagree not everyone else for whom there is a lawsuit in which they are involved and they've been granted right to do  because the government will always take that position we don't need to petition or we can just agree to strike down something in the position is that correct me if i'm wrong here if he can continue to operate this large scale running operation on his property because of the retroactive the provision of the twenty fifteen ordinance which granted him a vested right some sub parts and each one of them said let's consult this person for that question has three let's talk to this person to sort through an assessor how many you know i can't remember all the questions i've got it written down herself so they said  was debated in the zoning board and i think it's some point that recommendation must have gone to the village in the village that we have all these questions to ask what was it was it did and then ultimately came back as we enter syntax amendment and it became the ordinance is there testimony well whatever made the findings of fact anything that supports hey this is why we're doing this this is what we need to do this is a good idea well  subsequently have separate meetings to discuss and deliberate on those records if they were deliberative before the actual village board and i can't represent right to force not every cultural property and there was a portion in the song code that talked about a cultural property and where you could do and you know the average citizen would have assumed yes i can have forces approximately fifteen hundred residents arms in that village you have properties i mean there's actually more properties so it's a large crowd large area so it's facially there is a very legitimate absolutely yes was an arbitrary no this is been going on since two thousand and six to get to that to the text none of that change that the vote for your justice the virtue i believe can arbitrariness judge i do not hear any case law on that point i would argue that it does into the the specific the trick to reprovision is i've side was looked at adequately alleges that there was no public interest behind this other than to do this for mr lookout whether you think it's true or not if a question do you think the complaint adequately pleads that case if the boy who stated there's another solution and that occurred in a watch and those four members were moved out now we're obviously take his position as being smith a for the care with which you've looked at the record in it raises some very interesting issues i'm going to go on to the thin ice part of the argument first and i would just want to go back to the settlement agreement in it and i a been a ladies practitioner for a long time it's all i ever did you know and i do some municipal law and so when we try to settle litigation because obviously the courts don't want to get mired down in all these zoning cases we have to look then the only guidance that i've been able to find in four years of practicing is in barn versus greenville an x and as i read those cases i read them as saying you've got to provide due process that is the fundamental issue involved in those cases and so martin they settled it without giving the people an opportunity to be heard in the ethics they approved all the signs of the city council holding any of the necessary hearings so the but i don't see that the courts have ever held that this is tantamount to an amendment to his own ordinances virgin hills farm says i don't see that it's the courts have ever said you follow the same laws as you would with a i don't agree with the settlement obviously because they intervened they felt that their interests were different i see to you that that order of settlement did not bar the interveners from challenging defend the constitutionality of the ordinance it's an option that they have i can write something agree it's a warning shot sure that's an option i mean i wasn't wasn't the settlement that the ordinance is invalid that's the villages determination but it's not entry of that settlement order this case would have continued i but the interveners would have had to argue that the villages of entering into the agreed order in the ordinance itself all were in error and that the ordinance the twenty mr bond and i know he knows a lot about this he does he's a very well respected to support tony and i would say that i've never heard of it i will concede that i would say that if you look at martin if you look at the fs if they had head the notice it and then to it i just want to respond very quickly there was a sense a comment made by mr le cops attorney that this ordinance ok forget how we put it up it new restrictions on the justice ellis that there is no confusion about what the two thousand and six ordinance said it's didn't before the public or in two instances and nobody had a problem what the mistral cops confusion is that he didn't agree declare reinstate is a first of all i would ask you to enter into the settlement agreement and if the interveners then want to chill isn't a declaratory judgment the validity of this ordinance they can you know you disagree with me prison provisions which is your honor is also is there a constitutional basis for that and i say that there is none and i also remind you that mr lee comps attorney was really on able to come up with any counsel thank all of you the briefs were were excellent it oral presentation was excellent this is a very challenging case we appreciate all of your time and effort and we will take it under advisement and hopefully be issuing an opinion