the court doesn't have the sort of record that it would need to determine this on a legislative to know basis so you end up romantic well it's been years and that's not that that is grossly prejudicial to both parties his his determination that this was properly administered and i think it's is the correct decision still record what is it that we could have done here and i didn't do that i wouldn't give in the quarter greater comfort level given the county board agreed a comfort level with finding in favor of our special use permits  should we have conducted the county wiring economics analysis of exactly need for this special use permit no no i don't think so i don't think that's required to get especially is for me should we have hired a an expert in human biology to say exactly how far away the human ear to hear sounds of machinery no i don't think that that is required when we need to do a show enough evidence and just to present enough evidence its positions that this court is reviewing the ministry the decision rather than the intermediate review there to by judge bork now frankly i think judge barnes analysis was entirely  obviously doesn't mean the same and in the response the county has demonstrated for us what it means when it says consistent by using the example of four times in residential use committed under the a two zone as being consistent those plans provided that the county should provide opportunities to utilize mineral resources to the extent that they can be rude economically and without long term degradation to the natural environment or conflict with other land environment i've seen there is nothing in the record that supports a finding that this is would contribute to long term degradation of the natural environment in fact the evidence that's been presented in the record shows that this is essentially a completely neutral use been any that this would be in a way says it with this round he's now interestingly the county has taken it upon itself in its ordinance to take steps to ensure that this particular  versus the illinois department of professional regulation if there is evidence and the record that supports the board's decision it must be affirmed even if an opposite conclusion is reasonable or this you know m it shows that both the administrative and legislative reviews can take place within a single case in point this reply brief they made him for the first time that the reason both types of review could be maintained that case is because the law changed or the pendency of the appeal and that doesn't apply to this case however the entire reasoning behind the second district's ruling regarding jurisdiction was that law changed so if this court is going to follow the second district's district's reasoning in the jurisdiction then this court could also follow the second district's reasoning regarding having both sides view in one case and obviously our opinion would be that if possible to it as has always been our position there's never been a need for a second case regarding this exact same issue as far as the part of the board's findings of fact they found that without crossing the sound line and crossing into oncoming traffic creating a safety hazard that wouldn't necessarily be permitted every single person's own age to an i q there would necessarily be twenty school buses travelling along agricultural lands for non farm development obviously plaintiff is proposing to convert agricultural land for non farm development which is completely opposite of the goal of the plans so th the second finding that the court found that i was fishing did not mean was consistency with community character as i already mentioned that parcels are surrounded on three sides by agricultural and residential uses the only industrial use in this area is to the south obviously only being informants with or similar to twenty five percent of the surrounding uses when being consistent with the community care area now play this council did it pose the question of what is consistent i think there is a spectrum of consistency and in this case i think having a subdivision next to a heavy manufacturing is failing consistent and i don't think that there would be a question of whether that is consistent with one another they're completely separate things kind of proposed that there can be how it is and ceded processing and agriculture in the same area and those would be i think slightly more consistent if you have a farmhouse on plaintiff maintains that there is no possibility of contamination however i think this own expert's report stated the operation of an open pit mine at the site will add a potential source of oxford contamination and create an additional pathway for contamination by disaster also testified that the fuel tanks of those additional risks that offer and testify that it has no plans for monitoring for installing monitoring wells or any standard spill response very clean up procedure so that it and off site project related improvements and other indices conditions such as the duration of the permit hours of operation and mitigation of environmental impacts in this case because of the many areas where the county found eyesight improvements to kind of growing so that think this trucks can enter and leave their site without crossing the center line and endangering schoolchildren his buses are passing by restriction of hours of operation potentially so that trucks wouldn't be entering and a cultural and industrial area has definitely been predominantly uses especially coming right out after buying high and the caterpillar facilities to the south where we believe this specific spot facility it's a heavily industrialized area we have a heavy industrial truck routes leading to this property reading right past this property it's fifty five miles an hour but it's eighty eighty thousand pound trucks rated  this proposed development would result in a one percent increase in traffic on that road a one percent increase it's hard to think of a place where you have less of an impact than one percent i know there's really no proof that is not a reason to deny this special use that's a reason to maybe change your ordinance entirely to say you can't have a two rights of properties that have few things because it's not that is not related sold it it's actually easier to clean up you're not looking oh you're just corning it off and scooping her off the top it's not we don't have waves like in the gulf of mexico in our little lake here i mean we can control that bad spill it