property owner of a grocery store property in braidwood illinois on this court this case comes to you because there was no trial whatsoever in this case in this case i doubt move to bar of the owner's valuation evidence and i'd as motions eliminate three four and eight because under illinois in the domain law the zoning variance facts that are discussed in the briefs as well as the evaluation opinions for damage to remainder that are based on those facts are miscible under illinois law second in this case is unequivocally clear because appraisers did not value the go shoe store as especially as property the facts are clear and unequivocal they value the property using the sales comparison approach they value the property based on the existing use just like i damaged in this particular case the facts of the law stablished that the whole property is two point five acres includes the so called disputed area which is one hundred seventy five feet by a twenty five foot area it contains twelve parking spaces i doubt asserts that that this area is not part of the the law it's allowed to review the deed and to review the legal description and to make a determination as to whether or not the legal description describes and indicates that the whole property that my eliminated making parking spaces it reduced the size of the property by fourteen percent or so so they all moved this assumption and based on that assumption they all developed opinions of value for the remainder based on interested in buying it has to take that into consideration it's that if you're looking to buy a piece of property and they're using so the issue that affects it that affects how much you're willing to pay for it because it affects what you have that property can be use opinions because they were in their irrelevant because they were inconsistent with the plain meaning of the city code they were unreliable because they were based upon the hippie latent prints proceedings or they were far because they were based on improper appraisal methodology in providing for compensation for which there was no compensation about the first opinions that were bad by the child when the various pointed opinions those opinions are based on to the ranis assumptions the first assumption was that the don't come in so you need to look at not just whether if in fact they would rule which i disagreed ruled again the ruling would have been a citation fine or ticket only looked at various there was sufficient room along the perimeter of the property to accommodate landscaping right and then acknowledge that they cresent the planet under the property when moment pushing it all would have had more decision pretty good just reviewed the various petitions but never ruled on actual plans and intent even if at all in those plans reliable evidence for the position that a variance will never be granted even if be increased in size and two different occasions even on a smaller sized property and they were done without the need for a variance so i would argue that there is pretty evidence of sex a building with the zoning code and it since two thousand and it's been done since two thousand and ten reversed because it had admitting to evidence appraisal opinions that were based upon iranis factual conclusions and erroneous interpretations of what the first district found that under those circumstances it's proper or to decide that that in information may not be admissible it may be unreliable it may be in the prejudicial and it may not be you know you know conform with due process that's no different than in this case the be not amenable to that particularly if they were more interested in having more parking and they had previously allowed nine foot wide stalls but i think the the issue is not just of the various opinions but also the other opinions which again they overreach and create more problems than really existed as a result of the tempting when the roof of the train depot they will always have more important thing than they had before and it never had t you don't need to come into court under any obligation to mitigating your damages and ask for just compensation based upon the owner's individual interests that so thank you  decor suffice it to say when there's an argument about facts don't take what i say don't take what counsel says please take what's in the produce and what cited in the record if the record establishes what we're saying really participated in was that every one of those planning and zoning means never stood up and said why are we here variance is not required i've said in the planning and zoning board for the town that has been for six years it's unpaid you won't do it if matters that point the word then takes the steps to comply and they submit applications and that's it that is what is has happened in this case i doubt just issue with those determinations it can take issue with it but they