fact not only is bad plain language net specific a section of regardless of whether it's considered a move straight or for other purposes other purposes at the hearing what are the hearing itself is administrative so the decision is review as a legislative all because this was an extension hearing as opposed to a c p hearing that i was coming from or seeking his review reaction from and the only reason that he gave for doing it is they want to find the cases that say you have to apply testimony direct testimony it was all kinds of testimony at the hearing th regulated almost every other way in use in the town they created it a series of permitted uses and circus zoning districts in a series of conditional uses and they designated a wind farm as a conditional use in the due process rights that the plaintiffs as argued i don't see how you can construe this thirty day period as anything but directory because if you construe it is mandatory and say that the county loses so that's why it's clearly directory if anything meaning that it's not a avoidable act if it happens after the thirty days in the  directed directory mandatory analysis is tempered clearly where there's negative language prohibiting prohibiting the action after the deadline there's nothing in five slash five desh one two zero two zero which says the county board may render a decision if it's thirty days after the close of the public here there's nothing in that statute that directory provision which is intended to essentially emphasise that the you know the economy and one more thing about the mandatory directory it also comes into play in two different worse and found that they didn't play just didn't satisfy the limitations period therefore they couldn't bring the suit and the the people the most of the people that was filed in this case then well be i think the the plaintiff did include in a footnote that for purposes of preserving any rights to appeal they were not  address it in their notice of appeal then i do think the issue is clearly waived i think it's the it is jurisdiction is a notice of appeal does it include that word or those orders that dismissed those asking to prohibit an interesting party from communicating with a legislature concerning the zoning matter that's pending before the there's there's never been a one way case that has  here in the plaintiffs in this case received over those procedural due process rights although when you point out this is an extension not this is not an original grant of the conditional use for special use there's nothing in the state statute that says you get a public hearing when you're asking for an extension but nonetheless the county did provide a public hearing they didn't provide notice the plane just participated the plaintiff said there attorney there was any evidence in cross examine witnes you're not going to you know who say the right to move is not going to be relevant it's you're going to be looking at whether there was a rational basis for that decision that that rational basis may or may not be consistent with what was presented at the public hearings in this case it was the same information that well the bridge when presented why they want the extension was the same information we don't present to the trial court had to do with the money that was spent and committed to the project immediate in their case the city councilman why they voted in favor of something or why they did or what they reviewed or what they really did because it's a legislative act and so we're going to review it in there's a right to be heard and there's a right to cross examination present evidence and that's that's part of the process there's also the legislative process and that legislative process a curse you know after that public hearing process ends and that's not subject to due process there is no due process requirement that the plaintiffs hay out of when this matter gets presented to the legislative body that's making its decision his it was called and they said well that's perfectly valid there's there's nothing wrong with with constituents in interested parties communicating their protection that cases and there's a business very important reason it's because it's a different process the environmental protection act cases are staging court proceedings where the county board where the city council by cases they say the objector roast and challenging the decision has to prove that there was that the expiry communications influences the decision that's part of it you just don't show the communications you want to show that it influenced the decision there is not a single citation to this record showing in any way how those writers influenced any town or county board members decision i don't even believe going to keep in mind this was an extension of time that the county board granted under section two point three one of the bureau county zoning ordinance which allows an advocate to come in and state the reasons why they want an extension there's no requirements legislative persis purchase purpose was an extension of time here and we demonstrated that we made a tremendous investment and we're continuing to invest and wanted to build the project but that is a good basis for an extension reason for that by the way because you you want the information to be fresh as to the kind of more decision to be made you don't want the parties waiting for a long time for the decisions are made that there's that there are no cases that disallow all the communications that were issued here that simply wrong the supreme court has said that this process is a jo process or requirement protections that op my clients enjoy most were supposed to enjoy app especially news here clearly when title to at least what you get in a landfill hearing that exempted from the zoning process and