and eighty three dollars based on selective enforcement of law and converting that claim to an action i was told that the federal court is more equipped to deal with section nineteen maybe three big mistake a different outcome in the prior law to the plaintiff claims his constitutional rights were violated by the denial of his building permit application seeking to convert twenty six dollars seminary into a three  a legal non conforming you quote the district court properly held that it did not establish that twenty six seminary was entitled to convert the property from its prior legal non conforming  states supreme court that would deny so the issue of whether his property was grandfathered was fully litigated and was resolved against him the planet now attempts to raise the issue again the district court properly reject appendix a that he says he found in an attic in twenty eight b he has characterized appendix a is newly discovered evidence that bars the application of grace  in that it wasn't really discovered because it was a matter of public record and rd no fraud had been committed on the court because the existence of appendix a was not concealed by the defend and they were not under any duty to call it to the plaintiff's attention the planet also sought a declaratory judgment supporting his interpretation of appendix a as validating his new theory the same claim he had raised in the prior lawsuit that he didn't have to comply with the two thousand and nine domingue ordinance essentially his new argument was that while the st tour of the property had previously been used as commercial space which was a legal non conforming use it had been abandoned and one thing that happened the space somehow reverted or was restored to residential importantly the plaintiff was not seeking to continue a non conforming you his argument was that he acquired a vested right in a nd non conforming youth that shipped it over the lie by the plain language of appendix a paragraph twelve of seven of that appendix reads that if any nonconforming use of the building ceases for any reason for twelve months which is what happened here of any building structure early and maybe change to a youth only permitted in the district are three or by a use variance granted by the board's appeals to another non conforming used so even assuming the plaintiff could come form could convert one non conforming youth commercial to another three residence he would still need approval as the district court probably help nothing in appendix a conferred a vested right that would allow a switch from one non conforming use to a different non conforming is without approval there's also nothing in the record to indicate that the st floor was ever even used for residential purposes so that it could revert or be restored to such purpose as the plaintiff has contended so appendix a even if it had been found earlier and raised in the prior  not have changed the outcome as the district court probably found and finally as the district court also found the plaintiff position regarding the use of the st floor is inconsistent with fa that were made in the prior lawsuit the plaintiff filed two separate permit applications in which he specifically stated that the purpose of the work was to convert or change the st floor of the property from commercial to an apartment and those applications appear at pages one hundred and thirty three thousand one hundred and thirty eight of the supplemental append of both statements are contradictory to his present assertion  was not seeking to modify or converter change the property in any way and that it was already in conformity with the zoning ordinance allots there are questions for these reasons the defendant's request on this case we will reserve decision and that is the last case on our challenges so i will ask the clerk to adjourn court course then said john