hour traffic there would be three cars or less in the queue waiting to make a left turn from the subdivision onto butterfield how is that consistent with woods's theory that drivers  that the fact that they packaged it doesn't change the fundamental nature of the relief involved before the village or that they are challenging but it does let us focus on what the evidence was put forth in this case which was reference to the traffic issues with respect to the ad the seat of the grass and the equals and enjoy not many other shortcomings with respect to the plan of subdivision that the choice of what evidence was presented was then claimed it was their burden of going forward they presented no evidence whatever regarding the appropriateness or not of the subdivisions and terms of our subdivision if they don't present anything we have no obligation to bring anything forward the motion to reconsider was to reconsider those issues that were addressed in the trial for sure and next morning the subdivision wasn't major but in approved as you know under almost anything while it's not enough to show that the underline zoning isn't reasonable you also have to show that you have a plan that is reasonable here the plan that was there are one rd the sun actually twenty have times short of what they need to be this isn't this isn't in the era of the angle needs to be adjusted by one percent on this one for her there is some fundamental problem of their development when and i believe that in the thick of this with the plaintiff's focus i'm just designing issues the trial court went down the same path that the plaintiff but this case did not have a single path that needed me st the trial court in the motion to reconsider specifically found that the subdivision denial was unreasonable and arbitrary after having even acknowledged that there was no evidence on that point so th is self is reversible error you can't you can't invent with a a presumptively valid zoning or subdivision regulation without evidence here the court had a lot of evidence which we disagree with and i'll get to that this is what i'm the zoning but there was no evidence on the subdivision and the court therefore could not find that the subdivision denied and therefore the day one well it is an issue of whether or not there was evidence to support the invalidation of the subdivision and there was not any evidence at all as a result of the subdivision alternative plan which is prefer is enough to show that the development plan is not reasonable and as we saw that is reason enough to uphold the zoning decisions even if the underlying zoning may not have complete consideration of public health safety and welfare there is no question that adding traffic an already overtaxed intersection is not going to enhance it there is no question that heavy original the moment plan which plaintiffs had in which they expressly considered the approval of the preliminary plan and unanimously tonight i can't tell you nor do any of you know or anyone in this room know why they denied it but clearly one of the bases that is justifying that denial  noncompliance with the subdivision and that is a presumption that can be made and should be made in support of the subdivision denial which in turn prevents the zoning believed to be granted creates smaller networks of utilities in roles that are quote one of the other things that occurs in a plane development is there is an increase in the amount of open space over there you've got more green space you have more community areas that's what was reflected in the plan the lots are narrow yes they are narrow or then they would be otherwise required in a conventional are six subdivisions why do you back in order to do was this point did create more green space open spaces of which there were seven park areas six park here it is and one conservation area of seven acres city here the village is not only didn't challenge it they complimented their director of community development staff report which was confirmed understand when he testified as the village representative that this was a creative development section article sixteen of the village call it required requires that the subdivision plaque be reviewed simultaneous with the transept plan in the concept plan is what the code calls the plan that is submitted in order to obtain approval of a planned development why does it do that it doesn't beat it in recognition of the fact that the preliminary play act is going to have to tie you to the concept plan because of those deviations they are linked together they are reviewed and adjudicated by the village simultaneously if one if you think about it if the concept plan is approved which provides for variations from otherwise applicable technical requirements of the subdivision code that's got to be shown on the preliminary plaque you can't have business villages asking this court to do to reinvest them with a subdivision authority then we go back to the village now they have the ability to strictly apply the subdivision requirements to a plan that was developed contemplated and blessed a that the access point provided for was unsafe but the evidence demonstrated otherwise the evidence with complicity otherwise it should that really was a package deal as we talk to them before and that is of its ordinance article sixteen requires that package deal so when the question is asked i think it was you justice burke said so this claim that it violates the subdivision ordinance that everybody just over walk to the trial judge in the thirty five page opinion just overlook these violations with the subdivision ordinance did the plaintiffs in putting in its case simply overlook all of the it here into the subdivision ordinance absolutely not but in a plan development you kind of step out and you step outside the technical requirements of the subdivision ordinance in you talk about this plan this unique developed plan we give and take which accounts for something which according to the village was unique and creative and would add it would have added to the village use the existing develop of residential developments but for this one single issue which everyone submitted to the court was thoroughly to dismantle during the trial recognized by the trial court to the extent of the the trial judge made a specific finding that he found the village as traffic consultant who was relied upon for this evidence to be not credible and he was not credible be not because of how he presented himself that which he relied upon was simply not reliable this is unnecessary inappropriate for office on this one single data point to the exclusion of all others which pointed in the opposite direction that this was as to how he determined the county being the one with jurisdiction to grant access permits to butterfield wrote the county determine and the county chief engineer testified that the access provided not only met the strict requirements of the county ordinance but it more so than they would be an signalized intersections i would say that would be a reasonable assumption but the question isn't whether or not that would have provided some attractive relief for traffic seeking to exit the subdivision moreover at what cost do you do you do you require that secondary access one of the losses to the village when the plan was changed to eliminate that secondary access is the developer would no longer be  if you will with the financial responsibility to put a light in there late to butterfield however the archdiocese of the developed brand with the archdiocese approval conferred to trial said nevertheless we will problems existed at that intersection prior to the development had nothing to do with the developer building that was a preexisting difficult situation the other point there would be and it is lake county testified that given the proximity of these two access points exist the lake butterfield and the proposed new access point there was only in ever going to be one light so the light is go on or would go if this development is allowed to move forward the light will go at that is not true with the un signalized intersections it is simply the single data point measuring the fact that it will take more than fifty seconds or at least fifty seconds in order to make a left turn out during that single peak hour that's all it means so it's a data point it's not an insignificant data point but that they had a point has to be reviewed in the context of all of the other data points which pointed in the direction of it is a safe intersection what's a safe intersection when we talk about on single life they access are there gaps in traffic or that would allow a safe movement out that left turn the evidence show that there would be thirty three dollars cars making the left turn out in that key morning hour and there was enough gaps in traffic reporting to even get study which is an actual physical count independent study enough gaps to move forward times that many cars out during the morning peak hour the point is when you take all of the data together you look at it and it holistically you only reach one conclusion space more or less units depending on what side of the fence you're on more parks less cars depending on what side of the fence you're on so the answer is is there something better is really irrelevant what is important here is that this particular plant in consideration of all factors the balancing that occurs the fact that the developer is seeking a number of units that's twenty five percent last then a lot in the r six zone district typically when you have a plan developments in your shrinking the size of a lot you're shrinking the size of a lot in order to do what create the opportunity for more units more density than his other wife or wife here we only have less a lot in the subdivision ordinance they could be as long as those conditions are reasonable and don't impair the integrity of that which has been imposed it is reflected in the concept plan and then there are reasonable i to proceed while it's possible that there could be some time tested with respect to some of those conditions i would suggest to the court that the record shows that most if not all of the conditions have already been a identif nothing we have no obligation to do anything to do that you have sole obligation to at least clue the trial court in after all the proofs are gone and say judge they didn't prove this and that's what was raised during the argument on a motion