reversed totally in favor of the plaintiffs and requiring the defendants to remove the improvements that are existing on the last three thousand to six turning to just a couple of matter just for the courts clarification address as far as setting anything aside vagueness or anything like that was the existence of the architectural control for many many subdivision fact most of them today that are quite a deal with some kind of a committee to make rulings with respect to questions that arise regarding the use of the property within that something that remained in place third is that on march tenth of two thousand and ten the defendants did see a variance approval with the architectural control is because if this court permits the judgment of the judge thing to stand basically there are no restrictive covenants in effect from now on as far as that subdivision is concerned because he's basically vetted them by saying that they're if i just bring a couple of pictures which the first time in my life i've never put pictures of reef i've never ever done that before but i thought in this case but still saying thousand words so i say four thousand words and you don't have to read those words just  it happens in this country today and therefore it should be really scuse me reduced with the defendant's enjoyment required to restore their property to the capacity to exist in august two thousand and nine taking a look now when you turn and make point also that when we deal with three point eight it says a lot of great shall be substantially changed without prior approval of the well the question is of course what substantial and we've gone through that in the briefing very deeply we've had lots of cases we've given view to show that number one in this case those are eight inch wall even flaws each of them are eight inches and diameter so if you're talking about fifteen feet from the edge of this wall down the bottom where they started to pull back are told back in some of the dirt to that extent why there's no way that a person without a long ladder could even step down off that wall where it drops off into the ravine now it's important to another twenty four inches minimum blocks added to the already fourteen hundred ninety yards of snow i'm startin hundred twenty seven yards of bill that's already in the premises so it's twelve foot high today it's going to become fifteen feet the lot right here in the middle you dive right down there that's what we call a grieving swale that's going to take another six and a half feet of bill just to bring it up to the level to make it compatible with the service for the corps and so you've got a lot more to come against restrictions so the question here today is what was the trial court's decision against the manifest weight of the evidence that's a very high threshold just as recently as two weeks ago this court held th trial court weighed the credibility of the witnesses and reached this decision the vast majority of the plaintiffs are human i believe is focused on section three point eight so that's what all talk about and the language within that government doesn't facts say no developers provided any testimony or any evidence as to what constitutes substantially change none of them providing any evidence for any testimony about what they intended section three point eight to do at the governments some thirty years ago so no evidence whatsoever as to what the purpose of section three point was when we looked at the rest of the covenants the only other place we see a definition our discussion about rate change is that ran from the house floor of the back yard even pearl exhibit three o three that was offered the demonstrates that slow it was not until the property reached the timber line that it dropped off mr lewis explained that in fact he didn't really change the breed the design the intent of the design was to tie in the existing grade to the project as much as possible if anything he said we extended the gre there might be a dropoff in the grade and there was to begin with were dropped off into the ravine that was built up a little bit but there's still a drop off into the ravine so essentially what the plaintiffs want you to do a second guess credibility decisions of credibility analysis by the trial court and completely disregard mr lewis testimony completely disregard the trial court's finding a fact and instead accept wholesale the point of that's addressed very well in the brief i want to eat the horse on that one because it simply refers to buildings two point two applies by its own terms only the buildings this project clearly is not a building just  when they file them thirty years ago well the only developer that offered any testimony about what etc that reverses of section two point four was mr peterson the court considered mr pierce this testimony found him to be a want to measure from everything from one side in which case some people in the subdivision can have offensive status to the side of the house but other people well the problem is there's one there's two different ways to  is going on as early as september sitting back letting that much work be done approximate one hundred thousand dollars of work never initiating suit never saying they're going to file lawsuits never telling them to stop and in to take affirmative action to take legal action they didn't do it of bruce's continue to work based on those representations of no we're not going to stop and continue to bill correct that is correct but from the standpoint when you look at the deeds involving that circumstance it's august of zero nine is when they got started that's when the first truckload i believe came in from miller's second thing is you're talking about then october twenty second a meeting in which opinions so i say that from the standpoint of getting the government's counsel's comments aren't true if this opinion stands it doesn't got the time the covenant of temperature thoroughly from the standpoint because he said there bay he said they're on a forceful as a matter of is two point one five miles of dump trucks and dump trucks on park a bumper is that substantial that's what the distance would be for the fourth out of four hundred seven dump trucks of fill material brought into the job site they sure didn't take that much training of a lot behind the house now it's it's an aerial photo you can't really depths unfortunately from that photograph but it does show the tree line sure they took stumps out but they did reduce a lot mind as you look at the photograph you're forty three these are not like we used to be so i say from that standpoint but very bad policy to let this decision stand however is bad policy from the standpoint that that's not going to change one of these factors to rule that the