construction and demolition debris site on all of their completely ignores the separately defined recycling just because the separately defined recycling use allows for three distinct uses so the trial court was correct inconsistent ordinances that all the yes that's found in article six for it is now it talks about the present recycling use or the future use of the subject realty for the construction that one company as opposed to the future use of maybe use in the future bridges by another company they have relates specifically to the definition of construction and demolition debris does it after the construction of demolition debris that future use will be after presumably after the end excision agreement expires clearly when the annexation agreement expires one looks to the underlying filming and the news is allowed in the underlying zoning initiation agreement expires and whatever happens happens owner was attempting to get mining to mix his priorities city was chicago he did what a lot of property owners do you meet with the municipality to say here's my existing use this is what i want to have continue what can we do to ensure that the appropriate zoning for the property so that it can or alternatively sometimes the property owner wants to change the use to make it something other than what is existing by the purpose of the expedition agreement is to get the parties together the city and the property owner and make define recycling years and you can you can see that because if you go back to playing machine records which i sang the intended everybody when they were an exceeding property is to protect the existing use of the property to guarantee that th basis but you can see when you put those two definitions together they were meant to be synonymous it was the construction demolition debris was a thing here in t to the property owner then their property we come into the city and he wouldn't have to make any changes to language to call their recycling used that you presently have in the future it's going to be call destruction demolition debris recycling and if you look at the definition of construction in demolition debris recycling this is where you get kind of into the weeds with the end o but if you look at the definition of you the recycling or construction the militia to bring it meant to be on the compassing and particularly when you look at the definition of construction and mission to be recycling it meant as a permanent use we've cycling use which the coroner thought was different from and more expansive than construction done wishing recycling the property owner should have suggested at that time to the city t those things they put under the caption recycling use when it became indexed to the city all of those things were guaranteed to continue under fire for its construction demolition debris recycling which is why i think the there and there was never an intent on the part of either party to modify negatively any of the activity is occurring or allowed to go on property those are still legally isn't in effect the city wanted to ensure they would be legally permitted so they adopted agreed upon you know this is the thing it was not the city acting alone there was an agreement there was a meeting of the minds in two thousand and five because the signature that you see of the property owner the city said can't find a buyer for construction demolition degree recycling but maybe for one of the component parts but there wasn't the intent of the parties in two thousand and five in this country that is control for twenty years the trial court found that the outside storage and maintenance of trucks and equipment was incidental to the overall the cycling use you never are attempted to defend that ruling here on appeal primary years well is there to the point that i was making to the trucker and the point i'm making here is legal permanent use of the property is construction demolition to bring recycling it's not if it's not as it does the city say well that's not the use and more so there were you can't use it i guess my question is does he take into consideration what is the harm what is the problem with this with this incidental impacts on a neighbor so haarlem you know that is one of the elements you always want to protect the sanctity of the community and their residents but in this case and in most cases if a pretty owner comes in and says you know this was my could come in and use the property for one of the individual component parts that make out the zoning so what we were doing was asking the court again left to the annexation agreement and to the because the trucks would be related to the primary use i'm paraphrasing be the recycling and use the existing agreement doesn't distinguish between the uses they're all treated equally there is no primary view secondary use incidental use each use is identified separate and apart from one another that distinction primary versus secondary or primary versus incidental that is in the zoning called definition of construction  of trucks and for that matter the storage of containers is a subordinate secondary incidental whatever word you want to use but you wouldn't be able to do without recycling but that's not what's permitted under the annexation agreement