designation and i preface that by saying judges i've read at least some of the cases in this area and i've seen various references to the court's reluctance to wade into these kinds of land use and i would just remind the i'm trying to determine what is that what is that right that you say you had well i filed with tell you that there were a number of rights that we had before the moratorium was put in place this property was own village center capable of being of all that was more of a vested rights analysis nicky's in our case would be similar to that if there was never a more touring that was put in place in our view on lawfully by the county so in two thousand and twelve the county said no development no subdivision of this parcel another person doing center districts in that prevented our client from moving forward we were fully not i'm just trying to get to the heart of it and because i think this is from our perspective and that is you know you mentioned some designations you know the sewer status and things like that do they just last for ever i mean i did it seems like to me you're claiming it for a constitutionally protected right for designations and they just stay there know what i'm saying to you is that once the zoning is conferred on our to our clients into this property we can eat is not able to just change that zoning at their whim or at their you know whenever they choose to lest they go through the proper process which is become pretense of planning processes but when did they when did the hoop aeration come into existence this i guess what i'm trying to get at you've told me what the what the parents did i'm not sure that  what occurred was that in two thousand and twelve the county placed a moratorium on any further subdivision or development so there was nothing that claim inform could have done to pursue there and that moratorium under all of the cases that we twelve i thought you had put the land in so or your client had put the land in an agricultural circumstance for tax benefit and never saw any development rights and it seems to may it seems to me that even as of today they haven't and the question a judge when is asking this to focus in on what is the right that you're trying to protect with substantive due process that the right is the the comprehensive rezoning process our client would have had at least should be pursued with a subdivision approval and potentially vest their rights in the zoning to prevent it from being downs and so in this particular any time since its existence what steps had it taken to pursue development what plans do is there any drawing or plan for letter or description of a plan or development plan application anything to disclose that they want to do other anything your own or there is a sketch plan and i'm to be honest with you i don't know where or if that's in the joint and but the truth is that when this moratorium was adopted that prevented them from doing anything that said no more development no more stop division that's it and so at that point there was i had ten years from two thousand and two and t two thousand and twelve i would probably have been subdivided and you did nothing you didn't name develop a plan well that you were forming the property your honor and they had every intention that in this bryan testify what's the evidence of that i'd like to see i looked for it i didn't see any letter to the county any application any indication of intent because he testified to that in future when no one disputed her testimony in a deposition that they had and they had intended to develop the property in the future they were relying on the only value in that property to use for for college for their children or whatever it may be in the future and then that right is taken away from them as if it never existed matter to get her for subdivision approval long before the property was ever downs this was a preemptive strike by the county was the more direct it let me just i think what we're trying to understand and maybe this it is case nothing was done and you know that if there's no permit there's no construction yet you got a zoning right but it doesn't last for ever but if you do nothing i agree with that you're on  reason i don't disagree with what the court is saying reason nothing was done is because the county put a moratorium in place saying nothing could be done so if in fact there was no mor and the county went through the appropriate calm rezoning process calm planning rezoning process and change the zoning of our client's property without us having best our rights that would be a different issue in this case in order to know that that statement that statement seems to suggest when the moratorium was put in place in two thousand and twelve that you had something planned and ready to go let's say you didn't get a permit but you had some kind of plan some kind of drawings and the moratorium interrupted you but the records devoid of that you're are my client was not interested painting the county depriving her or taking away all of the development rights that existed on the property if it's not something that she has to pursue in order to have this value to have been taken from her this moratorium has no basis in fact or law all of the cases on moratori say there has to be some some focused purpose some exit in see that the moratorium is is addressing in this case it was just we don't want what we don't want to be just to the punch we don't want anybody to secure their rights before we can down the law and it took six years it's property owners should be entitled to rely upon the zoning that they pursue development and use of their property based on the existing zoning until it is properly done something with the six properties couldn't you yes and you had six parcels that were subdivided did you do anything with those we can they did you do anything with them claims are moot so you know we're just trying to get the court under stand that this moratorium is is the crux of the issue and that is what prevented our client from securing her rights and preventing you from telling you this is what she has done in the interim though i would like to reserve my remaining few minutes for my rebuttal all right thank you thank you the shar regulations for connecting the ship the day and they require local jurisdictions to go through a certain process that is cumbersome old trying to assume there's absolutely no evidence on the other hand in this case that the county delayed in any way or that the intentionally delayed or that it took longer than it should have nagin put the comprehensive plan to be enacted there are public hearings there are planning staff zoning staff there is has a large critical area under the critical areas commission and that legislation enacted by the state and in fact lately has property is almost entirely critical area which is why it was reaso then the county had to go through a competitive bidding process to hire a company that would read wrath with all the regulations based on a comprehensive plan state law immune wire level article requires that perpetuity and he did not want the county to be in a position to which to be able to downs on her property so i guess she saw the writing on the wall she saw the political climate she she yes to that that her property would be down based on all of these factors and so she filed this lawsuit to interfere with the process and prevent that from happening but she never actually you know the this strange thing here is that plaintiff never has amended the complaint to actually challenge the new rezone so this case is not about her zone or any development rights whatsoever because we other bases other than wrested rights i mean if you're not challenging the zoning then the question becomes what is the property rights here and the only property rights that could exist to support the takings of th are entirely legal in fact what is that issue here and the only and it's like you said judge when the district court seemed to take pause in the rd element of the plan central analysis when it said that it questioned the duration or the reasons given by the county for the region of the moratorium and while i understand the district court's concern i have to respectfully so i think you know i just have to respectfully disagree with the court on that i think the ration was both reasonable and shown to be necessary and there was no evidence to the contrary that was a farm in other words leyland was unable to show that any lawyer time any evidence that the process took longer than it should have taken and i guess i don't know how to otherwise state it i don't think the were you know how quickly a political body can function or words processes should occur i think here or there just there's just no evidence that it wasn't was that when it says the properties that don't fit neatly within any year on the line can be placed in any year and if you are it also says that if you're in an agricultural or forested area as opposed we prevented a land from doing this or that we did not play land will never attempt to have a plan never inclined to do anything with its property the only drawing that exists is favor of the county running summary judgment on that plane and as far as substantive due process that's even the there's there's nothing there that indicates any of the factors you would need to show a substantive due process for our nation are no evidence that playland was in any way targeted on supplemental briefing in the district court we came forward forward with maps of every single one of the twenty two villages showing other large parcels that were affected by the war torn am and by the bill twelve planning on peers that were temporarily assigned no longer exist and we also provided our chart something like you complied with the law or you met the requirements or something something more broad and sort of generic and not specific it looked to me like the description of the property and tear for was  tly the way the property was being made main tamed and held out by clay and if i recall the record shows that the children formed clay land in two thousand and two and then set the property up in an agricultural status to get a tax benefit and that the i r s then put a lien on efforts on years and kept the property in that form they got over those years they got a a benefit a ta again the moratorium was approved in two thousand and twelve i am missing then but i understand but the complaint you keep advancing is that we had this valuable property right we wanted to develop it we had all these plans and they interrupted it with their moratorium and the record doesn't same to support that even if that were good enough i don't know if that's good enough it seems to me under maryland law you would have to take more concrete action   and in point of fact we don't have i was talking about the substantive due process if you want to talk about the takings climb that's a little bit more difficult for you i mean they the value of the land there was a substantial value of the land even after the zoning and i understand that your honor as far as i am aware there's no threshold dollar amount that you have to meet i understand he said eighty three percent was not enough but when i read all tea that case also seems to say that that the nd and rd factors underpinned central did not weigh heavily in plaintiff's favor in our case we believe that it is not that we believe that it's the opposite we believe that the character of this moratorium in what is called the county telling us that for every ten year  planning and zoning cycle to go through they're going to stop everyone from doing any kind of subdivision and development for the search for the st six years and then for the last four of a cycle you get to try to you know use it under the new zoning that they get and then they start that's that process all over again and how long is too long would it years be too long ten years be too long i mean this was a six year moratorium that is nothing other than prevent people from using the rights that all regulation by the county what was the purpose of stopping people from pursuing their development rights until they changed the zoning what's the purpose of that is to it's directly taking something away from people that the county gave to them in the st place though our clients and any other person who had this in a similar zone he should have the right to go down by line application and pursue it until zoning is properly changed and this case the county reversed that sequence parties it's our custom and practice to come down off the bench and shake hands with you and i'm not quite sure where both of you are you both on the eastern shore right now i gave or were you located an we would normally do that we thank you for the arguments and we'll stand adjourned thank you