farm actually the farm you know i don't know whether it was being farmed or not put under the circumstances the was not the this destruction the sound the farm was not being used for the purposes of furthering the actors farming or to house what i would say either farm workers or a family that was offering that farm when did the horses arrive on the property in the horses arrive sometime between sometime t separated from the one point eight three acres and with they are the breeding nor care forces considered and management of livestock i don't know whether really you care of course would be considered management of livestock but under th circumstances it certainly would be what i will say and activity on the land i don't know whether it's a farming activity and i guess it depends on the use of the horses under the circumstances minor scene even those horses were p cause the top choice purchased a one point eight three acres only it is that you sit before you they just purchased which one was at a cattle farm before or was it not my clients who purchased a two hundred acre parcel in protesting purchased with the intent to operate  seven years to construct and was not given an occupancy permit until two thousand and four appear and then in two thousand and four they moved in after having received nineteen see permit for the new structure that was located in a one point eight three acres there was nobody living on the property there was nobody living across the street from them it would have been if it was a bane it was a vacant building and the building was clearly hopes there was a house because the house was ultimately demolished and the testimony in the trial for buying mrs talk  was that it was not a suitable residence for her to move into nonetheless it looked like a house it acted like a house it just no one was living there actually it looked like a house but it did not mean my house because nobody was using it as a house to reside there so your client build a new structure for one for your parcels with the plaintiffs did is they sell them by and represented in their building permit to the kendall county zoning commission that they were the owners of the land in that they were going to subdivided for the or they were going to build a new structure and then the only way happened was they were the owners of the land on the five hundred subs the property was then subdivided and they constructed their house so this situation is the result of a subdivision  land and by the transfer of the ownership of the n land so on the state she says any change conditions the come after farmers been in operation for a year the result in a claim  result in a claim of nuisance against an operating farm and under these circumstances that would be a change certain species acing so if let's assume the farm falls had been abandoned same scenario somebody interested in the farm house  circumstances if we look forward to all the potential situations like this you can have people some dividing lines in the argument would be well i'm going to do is storable analysis of wealth of the land is used for so under those circumstances  but i know for a fact that this land is new news in the past historically for someone to live here so this is completely submerged the purpose of the statute because it's a retrospective analysis of the use of the land where the statute requires would not be the land which results in the creation of this complaint for the nuisance but some time after i think i'm suspecting based upon our conversation here after the two thousand and four suit was filed and  conforming plot because it's one point two three acres when it should be in forty acre fly under the circumstances and all this i might have happened after the day that my friends began the operation of their clients so now right in analysis of whether or not the statute there seems to be no reason why the state you would not apply in those circumstances and that's where the trial where what the court did make some findings it back out to substantial that you can't have somebody move to an agricultural area complain about agricultural activities and then sue a nuisance because that's inherent in the in the concept of can understand that let's say that they put up a new bar on the top price put up a new bar and it's been agricultural and now they complain i mean is there are provision in where there's been an existing farm and the the the legislative history of this act and i might add the preamble to the act is explicit being to is to close to protect farmers it's to protect farmers it's  flyers would hurt the farmland per se they would hurt the farm so the farmer if if this was on the other side of the far if they were farming out a tougher property so it doesn't make any difference if the farmer is being harmed it doesn't make any difference if the farmers being harmed when you speak arm in this residential capacity to use it because that's the change condition because if you can't because if you just want to see this is to farm's a question richard to continue to operate over a period of time the statute would not apply because there would not be a change condition and suit that's the difference there is this difference between two separate farms operating here across the street from each other the what happened in our case in our case we had a change in ownership the subdivision construction demolition of the building for the people that will bid to the residence of the people later decided to move somewhere else from the house so that point that the clarence talked to a very broad term bobby tough tory decided that clarence was good about wanting to walk outside there is when we raise the pigs there is where we have the chickens and that's where farm implements were that was our farming operation when mr puffery goes out the back of his house through the garage or otherwise he's on the farm that he's par look at the operation there was nobody next door to complain about any record not true if the place was leased and this is in the record one sixty seven by the in ninety two there was a person in the smaller areas of the nevertheless there was a house there and there's a house there that it's virtually on the same nation it's just a matter of the age of the house and its structure and the cost that would be incurred by my clients that they made the decision to tear traffic for people or visitors or sensitivities of people like that that may come there for a different purpose rather than agriculture or to live there if your home and be a family farmer is my forests were that may have been a change condition perjured potations of the act which is our interpretation the act is that if someone comes to rule area and sets up a change from what was there what was going on there and what  all about well to drive through area and see a farmhouse on a farm and people living there and then later there's different people living in there or they tore down the old one and put up a new one single family house i don't see that as any take these facts that you're now giving us we have two foreigners living across the street from each other ok or to cultural purposes we cross the street because we're not talking about the farmers we're talking about com clearly found that the in believable number stable flies that were infesting our property from their property that that that was clearly substantial that was clearly intentional because said that you could never eliminate them absolutely you could never go down to see but to have fifty seven hundred flies caught on fire traps in your front yard in seven days in august of two thousand and seven that is within a few hundred feet of the operation of the space that we're asking for zero expecting to zero we wouldn't expect according to impose any set a zero tolerance for regarding the situation but this is this is williams is regarding the animals in twenty or more is considered on the feet in the legs of the animals to be an irritation that will actually affect the weight gain for the cat well these are blood there's no reason for an operation of this size a couple hundred gals that they can't keep it cleaned up enough that they break the cycle of active reading so that we don't have a problem that's our us and and the court consider because we try to come up with a leave the court hears it i'm concerned about going to the source stopping this at the source understanding what testimony i have heard from her to williams about the flying breeding cycle from a to learning to fly it's about fourteen  the least intrusive way possible as far as their operation she's not saying they're shut down she's not saying that they have to get rid of couse she's simply saying you have to manage this pest control problem differently or better and use someone discuss with expertise to help never to be zero right so what is the remedy what is it is sufficient it is a tough criteria because it's a matter of what is annoying to a reasonable person to get a good use of good and they can be very subjective example they wanted to point the finger at our horse operation but they never came over to his fact they didn't do anything to check it it we're not going to do it so they didn't do that when it comes to the inspections of a court ordered by someone who knows what they're looking for at least to someone educate them tidy here's their herdsmen their guy in charge of this he admitted some of the pictures we took the problems others were they were active flying larva in the picture he couldn't see what the problem was and so it was a part of an educational process to bring that to bear on the works of the countr road and in my hand the record also reflects that roger tough way throughout this entire period was a heavy equipment operator that's his primary source of income that's crime really doesn't he gets up in the morning that's primarily really goes to work as a heavy equipment operator not as a farmer he helped his father farm on occasions but in reality what he was was a heavy equipment operator who came to this anymore house and built a house across from a cattle farm and in the end of the day dealt with the circumstances around or around this purchase and then purchased didn't occur or they didn't didn't occur until nine hundred ninety eight after the property even begin and i'm an occupier for six years the court also brought up an interesting question with i got to protect farmland in farmers from this exact type of situation we're faced with roland list lawsuits over and over again rising out of committees and tell if you listen to what counsel said there was no evidence testimony that was offered by the plan this expert mr williams every single farming operation anywhere in the united states is a potential breed site for flies and specific language of this water in this case says presented both to the plaintiffs as well as the plaintiff's expert there was no testimony regarding improper operation or negligence and that they couldn't tell you anything because they weren't there and they don't know and they had an opportunity to inspecting go on to the far already setting up a situation where my clients can meet in completely on reasonable standard and they have no way of complying short of shutting down their operation and the end in there in the it i think it is because the truth that we don't know what that means and that the court doesn't provide us with what that means and so under the circumstances again that doesn't give me any guidance as a bar operator