supporter or the lower court should or shouldn't be acting as a second zoning board of appeals of course the case was made clear is not the role of the federal courts the issues before you are first of all whether a town can deprive a knee and a bar or two would produce property use of any notice of that proposed use without violating the procedural due process rights of that the due process question whether or not the facility closes is irrelevant because we have claims against the town for injuries that the case law makes clear were sustained at the time of the due process by lesions which again w asians of what the supreme court has called the requirement of the due process clause that is notice no opportunity to be heard with regard to the second issue here or the permanent by settlement that was arrived at between one arguably become aware of the intent is not a waiver to rights under that settlement agreement neither the town nor one ten has indicated that it regards that permit by settlement as  one that is already occurred in the case and that is that the property isn't sold it's been on the market before it didn't sell and that one ten resumes operations it's true that is suspended its operations now that one ten intended to suspend its operations that's all good that i know all that anyone knows is that right now they're not not reading what i did you know propose to come in my brief and this did come up in the lower no longer operative they haven't done that and that perma by settlement has language in the tops about the town will not restrict the town will not impede that the facility is exempt from zoning restrictions those principles  this permit by settlement much much broader than the zoning board of appeals decision it's being appealed under forty day still exist and tomorrow or the facility could decide it wants to avail its of those requirements so that's that particular contingency that could occur and the probe by settlement is still alive if the parties decide they don't think that there's any possibility that the permit by settlement would be needed because one ten does decide interest for purposes of procedural due process in the u s constitution nor has it ever said that it isn't we have cited for more than a strict case where the court said that it was but the lack of notice on the part of appendant on the situation we're not asking you to act as a second it's only word of appeals and say that anytime there's some deficiency in the zoning process on the part of a broader that that should be something that when the subsequent process is is his appeal is only one of appeals decision and again that's something that shouldn't be conflated with the perma by settlement busy bee itself said that it wasn't going to take stock of the  they have suspended operations if they were to disclaim their quite broad rights under the permit by settlement then we would have nothing to complain about with regard to down a very separate and distinct  all thank you thank you a reasonable accommodation with respect to the person room comedy feature in haiti it requires that if ever quest is made on the building inspector that the building inspector reviews of the bylaws of the town not disregard them judge nine and the claims against the town were not simple zoning claims they were violations of the f h a in the a d f a claims that the town feels to accommodate in accordance with those statutes there was a resolution that an agreement between the parties has several restrictions that it's not enough accordance with the settlement agreement directly conflict with the settlement agreement for example there are churches only a number of g likely it's a case that has been tried many times in the course and this districts and has been heard many times by this record and it's not a case of first first impression it's a case that he was making allegations that the town was essentially denying permits and licensing applications for the purpose of the state when his land value and passing the property t