that is now a car on the bottom property which is an eight point three acre development so the problem that we're talking about is actually building can co exist safely functionally that they can co exist because the next sentence in the least after the one we've been talking about is if the new what we were focused on at this point was the primary mission before the court which was a question of law the interpretation of that phrase and believes there was no issue that precluded the court from violates the ordinance of the of the bill is passed in two thousand and eight and then must be moved under the abilities home for your amortization period as may twenty eighth of two thousand and twelve an when you are dealing with in the language of the leases a commercial building and here we have a commercial building a shopping center complex unified and lose for all structure them can we can look back on them and think of language that would have a move even a slow start so it's a discuss but i think the important thing is to figure out what was the intent of this section ten provision of this germination provision what was what were they trying to do if you look at the least you can see that the name of the last word around houses handwritten and where is the last or is in preprinted of that struggle on the first page and the second page so the only reasonable inference is that scatters the one principle that could help a certain circumstance you is this and this is in a number of the cases and that is the principle that if you have two constructions and one is  usual rational prove man would likely make and the other is one which reasonable rational prove man would not make you must it's not in prefer the real of the rational one you must adopt the rational and i think here again the construction actually application doesn't make any sense it doesn't make sense that back in one thousand and nine there were intending to you know to enable somebody but for the intervention of the authorit well a couple points first of all the language of the statute is clear if the permit is nothing new within sixty days by the new owner the permit becomes void there's there's no it is unlawful so it's clear that this isn't the illegality this is in the you know this is declared by the statue itself to be unlawful in terms of what you can do with something that's become boy two things one the agency of course fetus from two thousand and eight which in order that was written word for lack of a firearm was held not to be curable if it's void it's void it cannot be cured and this one cannot be cured so we would deem that  valid when done there is certainly no claim that they tried to revive this permit and when the lease was terminated it was illegal then and it was probably turn on that basis and finally i would know that even if you even if you disagreed with all that for some probably go his hands on the subject premises in a dearth of the my promise which is the portion of the subject property which was going to be released to c n n on back in ninety nine so i believe claus acquired the whole thing or if there's a building on the whole thing or it cannot co exist with our science then than to building homes with so i think there's a little mis statement misdirection to use that language to try to make the station before the court when i was merely defining aspects of the subject proper agreed with by circuit court in the village ordinance as of two thousand and eight rendering the billboard non conforming and we w under that ordinance they have it now haven't passed the four years has to be removed so there's really no sooner under which this this billboard does get to keep staying for you know for for e g more years