is that how you pronounce are going right all right by you and mr right all right and i see here that mr right you are not arguing is that correct sir all right you may proceed  good morning and may it please the court my name is craig moore dock and i represent the plaintiffs steven and pamela shriner in this case our position is very simple this case is not moot there is controversy between the parties and effective relief can still underlying that notion is a zoning amendment passed by governmental unit in violation of one's due process rights is void avenue it cannot and does not act rezone property and it cannot be ratified by subsequent government action central to this case is a two thousand and twelve zoning amendment passed by the logan county board purporting to rezone the defendants mock entailing arches property from s d special district to m free district my clients the shriners are farmers they live in farm the land adjacent to that property and being adjacent property owners they have certain rights and they're alleging that their due process rights were violated they filed a complaint to this effect and when our law firm was retained by the shriners that complaint was dismissed by agreement of the parties with leave to refile our first and second amendment complaints both had certain paragraph stricken and we were granted leave to follow specifically the court held that regardless of the court's ruling in this case it is clear that subsequent county board action on march seventeenth two thousand and fifteen classify the ma cards property as in three and rendered moot the current litigation now that tax amendment after that amendment it was only conditional use sensually the twenty fifteen tax amendment added it dition governmental oversight for extraction within logan county it also changed certain regulations to agricultural districts with  which aren't at issue in this case in your client supported is that correct that is correct your honor because our client wanted more governmental oversight for limestone corps being added in the county of local they may challenge however the we are challenging the assertion that that tax amendment mooted our our case which was based on an effective date provision which was found within that two thousand and fifteen tax  that affected a provision essentially said it was a grandfather clause it said sections three point seven three b and c shall be permitted uses for all land which has been or is otherwise designated for entry classification by ordinance of logan county on  before the effective date of this event and that also she uses for which was for which i just just described of the section as of the effective date or designated end and three on the attached zoning classification that they had a defendants it can be gleaned from the brief arguing that it's valid there's the controversy and the fair case makes clear that resolution of that controversy can still be had in a declaration now today you're going to hear and the briefs certainly argued things such as time stone quarries rezoning ratification permitted uses a branch of special privileges within the property but the simple fact remains the two thousand and twelve map amendment still appears valid in the corporate records of logan county and we are challenging that is being passed in violation of our due process rights and we at least have the right to a hearing on the merits of that case to determine whether or not that is actually a valley amendment to the logan county zoning now this would also have a practical effect and we're going to touch on the practical effect but that alone is enough to show that this case is not the practical sign that resolution were alleging that was avoided action because our clients were not granted their procedural and substantive due process rights prior to that resolution being entered and if you're correct in that signing was void ab initio if it had no three prior to the passage of that amendment would not even apply and we wouldn't get here now defendants argue that the resolution does apply they argue it in a conclusion or a fashion and they also argue that the attachment of the zoning map which outline defendants can mock and arches property somehow rezoned or or grants to additional rights within the property but before we even get there we need to touch on the question that's what the underlying case is all about whether or not the property was zone as dear m three that morning and that is what or that is what our underlying complaint challenges the two thousand  in their briefs state that defendants property clearly constitute land which has been approved or otherwise designated for m three classification this is the entire controversy that underlies our suit we are alleging that it was never properly classified and three and that the boy decision operated to do nothing to the property so that its littleness it seems like the crux of the defendant's argument is that with the had been the property of your clients and specifically mentioned and that the amendment superceded what you're calling was a void action what's your response to that that we don't even have to look at that because this amendment superceded well my initial response to that would be that under the ferret case as long as that two thousand and twelve map amendment remains in logan county as a valid ordinance we have the right to challenge it even if a similar resolution was passed otherwise we can get to their logan counties code as well as state statute and a map amendment just affects one parcel of property and due process rights are granted to adjacent land owners when touching on map amendments and with their legend they achieved through a t amendment is kind of a back door rezoning or back door superseding of this statute to fight despite the fact that the the the word superceding were never used granting  were never used to rezone this property or zone again was never use and i would urge the court to look at the difference between the language used in the actual resolutions because the two thousand and twelve map amendment very clearly states that i believe depending on the twenty twelve map amendment i believe ambiguity can be found because it will be fifty in the twenty fifteen amendment and here's how if we prevail and all we're asking for is a trial on the merits but if we prevail then we would assert that defendant mocking arches property remains s t and that it could be ambiguous in the sense that the effective date provision specifies that only property designated m three prior to the passage of this effective date is grandfathered in however the map does contain the monarch property and i would read that that that the effective date provision is ambiguous because it conflicts with its exhibit now i would argue that would be simply error and if you were actually at the be the best quality map can be found in the record of page one thousand three hundred nine but the districts are aren't notified by pen there there is no meets and bounds descriptions it's just a shaded map so basically your position is right try to summarize it the two thousand and twelve approval there was not the appropriate process given to your clients and that and with the two thousand and fifteen  men men that simply grandfathered in and property that had been previously approved but that doesn't impact the appropriateness of the property and so the procedure that was employed with that two thousand and twelve approval that is correct your honor logan county but the effective date provision only applied to property zoned and three prior to its passage it will say it doesn't apply you are saying that the two twenty fifteen amendment did not result in your client's property that's correct the twenty fifteen amendment did not resolve on defend it moxon arches property two and three well isn't their position that it superseded the two thousand and i see what you're saying i'm sorry yes you're correct additional procedural safeguards they could have mooted this case had they passed a had they gone through the proper zoning procedures had they affectively reason on the property had they done that they follow  proper procedure and again try to reclassify that probably published properly but they did not go through those steps instead they passed a text amendment they waited until the time to challenge that text amendment passed and then they came up with their interpretation of what that text minutemen and they argue that the plain language of it is clear what the texan amendment despite the fact that it seemed that contrary positions were taken at this actual he we would argue that the inclusion of the kind of mocking arches property on the map is a mere error and that if we proceed if we prevail in the underlying suit that the map could be amended the previously occurred in two thousand and twelve it was accurate in the sense that the ordinance was still looking kind of still operating under the assumption that the ordinance was valid and they're still operating under that assumption  however we would argue that that resolution was void ab initio that it had no effect ever and that as of its inclusion on that map the inclusion would be an error but we have to we with we are asking for a trial on that issue  to have a determination as to what effect if any the twenty twelve map amendment hat i guess my point is there has been no holding her ruling that it was void at this point that is correct your  in their arguments the defendants are putting the cart before the horse in this case they're asking for interpretations of the twenty fifteen tax amendment as it applies to extraction on the property we are arguing and twelve map amendment is void that determination has not been met i think the fair case makes clear that we have a right to challenge that and unless it's rendered inoperable either either explicitly or implicitly the plaintiffs have a right to challenge that we're asking for a hearing on the there might be a day when we argue what the twenty fifteen tax amendment but we're not at that point yet we're trying to get to the point where we know what happened in twenty twelve what happened what did the tw actually do so we can know what the property was zoned as of the morning of march seventeenth twenty fifteen and so we can know with the property his own today there is a controversy as to whether or not that's valid you can still find that resolution  the books of logan county so i read this case can be resolved by a finding one way or another it's whether that's a void or valid argument so this case is not moot and and we asked for getting approval for it i mean is it just americans and their process that they have to go through to get approval for they publish notices in the zoning that was no yes or no question and they have the the twenty fifteen amendment rezoned the property is was already zoned and rearguard you in that plain language states that the property shall have a permitted wife state structure so your position is that twenty fifteen amendment grandfather in your client's property is that correct no i'm arguing that the plain language states that y senate traction shall be a permitted use for the property such that the well sure what of the twenty fifteen amendment referred to it at all because they were defining the property to which the language implied you mean they had to refer to it by means of the twenty four members there was no other way to refer to this property they were applies to all properties owned and operated at that time and locale and there were multiple properties and i guess what i don't understand is the twenty fifteen amendment grandfathered in and property already rezone and three your define the zoning classification of the defendant's property as something that would be subject to change in the future and if you apply plate plate which rule of sash for instruction you should look at what was the defendant's properties owned at the time of the twenty fifteen so if you're trying to there are you should assume it's a boy based on rules relating to motions to this mess which should not be applied and they may be arguing that but the question becomes should that be subjected to a hearing to determine whether or not they're correct  boy my argument is the plane like you have to look at the twenty fifteen zone and amendment the language of it and interpret that and when you interpret that it means to defend its property shall have the permitted use  no it means that he will grandfather and property that was already rezone and three and so if that was not properly done we get back to test this type of question can we grandfather in i don't understand how you would ignore the plain language rule of sash for instruction which would explain that the language use is listed in section three point seven three dash three b and c shall be permitted uses well we are here what we like justice that we said if we assume which i i'm not saying that is necessarily true but how do you grandfather in something that was done improperly sacr based on the plain language of that section ye their second argument they argue the intent of the twenty fifth seems only amendment was not to rezone any property because the procedures followed were for a tax amendment and not a map amendment the defense agree that the property was not resigned because the property was already zoned in three plain language of the twenty fifteen zone in amended states weiser traction should be a permitted use for the defendants property so although the property was not resolved it hasn't the same effect of rezoning because it grants the permitted use of whites or extract arguing there's an ambiguity they didn't argue that the trial court and they didn't argue that in any of the written briefs do you think there's an end here to absolutely not use is listed in section three point seven three dash three b and c shall be permitted uses for all and where such that way as well is interpreted that it did not have the effect of resolving the property no i think the plain language is clear that's my argument for why the case is moot is that it has the same effect of presenting the properties so that doesn't go to the and they are not challenging the validity of the twenty fifteen zone even though they do to the extent based on their arguments are saying they don't but based on our case they are because they're saying they challenge it they specifically say they challenge it to the extent it grants the permitted use of wise extraction to that property and they attack it based on notice is being defective first the players cite to procedural requirements of the logan county zoning orders which were not in effect at the time of the twenty it at the same time as the twenty fifteenth only members passed they passed new procedural requirements well they're arguing for the new procedure arguments to apply will they apply that time second the plaintiffs were present at the hearing based on the subsequent events prong and not the no controversy problem they then criticize the defendants for citing the sather case the plaintiffs arguments ignore that the defendant cited to the weekly case which specifically lutes the subsequent event language which they are trying to also i think it's an argument of semantics if you look at the sather case out that there's anything wrong with the language and case it says a case is moot if the parties rights are no longer  and they're the resolution of the case will have no practical effect and that that also goes to their argument their wanting to they're saying we should still have our day in court even if even if  the twenty fifteen amendment granted by so expression is permitted use we still want to argue that we were given proper procedural due process for what purpose i mean well is it their position that if they can demonstrate that the two thousand and twelve rezoning was not properly nine then that eliminates the possibility of your client's property being grandfathered in pursuant to the two thousand and fifteen  no question she's as you please repeat the question the question was do you agree that if it's determined that the two thousand and twelve amendment was a void then there is no way for it to be grandfathered in pursuant to the two thousand and fifteen i do not king your client's property and be grandfathered in under the two thousand and fifteen amendment given that by assuming the two thousand and twelve amendment has been vacated it no longer exists yes because of the with ignoring the plain language wall and allowing the domain maintain your the plain language says that any property that was already resulted in three is grandfathered in it doesn't the plate like you i know what your disagreement with the fact that it was grandfathered in and pursuant to the two thousand and fifteen you seem to question whether or not i was accurately trying what you said because the section doesn't use the language  it's grandfathering something in yes but i also hate him next time they are so if that is the case i don't understand your argument that if it is determined that the two thousand and twelve amendment was a void or judicial rule review while we're challenging an ordinance i think the county can simply grandfathered in through through a further resolution and and therefore we have no no relief we can't we can't challenge that anymore because because it was grandfathered in under another ordinance even if proper policy wasn't followed to actually reselling that property as far as the extended strict interpretation  what was a property zoned as of the morning of march seventeenth twenty fifth that's at issue that's what that's the underlying controversy that's what the effect of having the map amendment declared void heavily by defense well closing counsel takes the position that even if the two thousand and twelve amendment was done properly it was not done properly that somehow it's still valid because now we have the two thousand and fifteen amendment that i don't want to say resulted because he said basically has the same effect as resulting in what's your response to that well your honor my response is we might have to fight about that someday  counsel and i might have to brief that issue and we might have to argue it but first what needs to be determined is whether or not the two thousand and twelve map amendment is void or valid that the issue is not right before the court today that it somehow granted special privileges and we can we might that might become ripe someday say if we prevail and extraction begins on the property we might be arguing that point that that's not why we're here today that's why we're here just and that's not what our complaint challenges our complaint challenge