this case the only specific proposed use that was ever presented to the city in a complaint at the evidence the trial was the fourteen up plan and therefore to not claim did not comply with the legal requirements under this subdivision in order to squeeze out more miles from the property the court there found that was unreasonable in this case the court said no you can't squeeze out those extra lot you have to drop one two relief it has to be based on the general characteristics of the nature of the development in this case that the fundamental question is how many lives can be developed on this property that is the fundamental question trial court therefore in order to avoid the outcome there has to be a specific use proposed there might be a bit more attached and it's then used as opposed to any other so there's no bait and switch there is the real need to be created courts if the supreme court has been very clear and then the  put ringers judgment it thinks it's rendering judgment usually tries to render judgment for a prevailing party so who do you think is the prevailing party in the situation i think in the zoning case because normally used done which is one party video from what i can see these judgments both parties prevail and for purposes as you pointed out if this judgement is to be enforced by someone there should be some where it has a sixty six what grade would an ex who move lives that are more or at least a minimum of twenty thousand square feet what is your position going to be relative would be reasonable as long as there's a sixty six good right now if if that judgment is a final appeal judgment and we say it's affirm on the basis that the judge was right about him and right about the it doesn't mean that mr gandhi can go and start building all it needs is the rights have been declared which is very unusual considering i've never seen a situation to my knowledge where i think a judgement is done nothing more than declare the rights of the parties without actually having a proposed use that has been a affirmed or certified as an forcible and judge i would say that to to affirm the fourteen month plan with the modification is itself a fundamental error and probably because well that means is that all the evidence that the trial for we might time was on the fourteen months plan but a fourteen month plan is in what's  five that right away you come up with twenty thousand square blocks it will be a fundamental change in the way only zoning war has been implemented for the last fifty years to suddenly say yes we'll give you just parameters and go figure it out in fact the case  presented by the by the plaintiff the village show there's an intermediate plan that would have been reasonable the outcome of the case was in the courts and yes an intermediate claim is reasonable the proposed plan is not there for  playing you moves that's exactly what should happen here that's the process because this emanates from the from the local zoning ordinance something which is to be handled at the local level one has to go through that and convert it to a sixty six foot wide right away does not do great harm today when however the consequence of imposing that sixty six foot wide right of way will cause a geometric adjustment in certain of the lots certain of the lines that are well in excess of twenty thousand square feet their size will change but they will still be compliant with twenty thousand square foot minimum there are a few lots th may be in and i looked at the record in just a constant clearly said may be made part of the loss of a couple of lives in order to achieve that twenty thousand square foot minimum so specifically what we would have done with a bit more is make that in effect a geometric adjustment to a form engineered plan presented to the city of lng force for final approval in building permits and proceed from there that would have been entirely consistent with what judgment passed the rule now to come in to answer your question just as mclaren i don't think you would do anything different if this were dismissed or affirm we still have to make that simultaneously so when they're considering the rezoning they can see a specific plan which we did in our own since unlike what they did across the street they refused to consider anything of the subdivision issues that we presented the because the city's position was or were any answering your questions keep in mind the first response when we filed the lawsuit was to move to dismiss saying we failed to exhaust are a mystery to remedies because we were coming before the trial court without  it cannot be consistent throughout if in fact it is reasonable to impose our two zoning in our two stone requires twenty thousand square foot lots and a sixty six foot right of way and supposedly depending authorized to do namely to try education already outside of the evidence in the plan that was presented i came in so far as the absence of a final determination yes that's a submit a new flat plan document whatever that shows thirteen lots of sixty six will right away and the judge says you're a guy you found it i i rule that this is reasonable i would say that has allowed  proper determination but we then could also say but based upon the sixty six word right away he also committed what might be an oxymoron a paradox attack or addiction and says you can't do it this way because what you