variance exactly that's actually my mother so that so that might be something that is still happening but but i tell you i have this case from the state court and it says that they can act on that you will also need to be referred to the zoning board of appeals for various variances and i'm asking you just a legal question which is does your or i guess the factual end of the question st a factual question which is how do you actually applies to the zoning board and there is a request don't you board or not but what the direction of the town was if you wish to apply for the variance you apply here and there and if they were in a technical sen town when they were finally that they need to make a dual application of some nature it was all presented through the rainbow but i'm just as well as as the as the attorney now who's trying to say that the town has violated your client's rights is the date in our case is october th two thousand so that's fair enough that's the explanation it's for three years but there are a couple things that seem to be either ongoing or was in the statute of limitations to ask is don't we have to soon that that factual allegation is true that that the town officials entered eight times to measure setbacks does not does that change anything in terms of the analysis no it does not limitations analysis isn't relevant because it's within the three year period in regard to the statute of limitations the only claim that it would be relevant to is the st member retaliation claim but even that wouldn't be relevant against even because even you're saying that it didn't happen which seems like the dispute over the facts but let's say that i am assuming that it's true and maybe i just think that it's as an individualized occurrence that the town he says the town is gratuitously entering their property for no reason i mean is there the town doesn't have any explanation for why it might be doing this but it does not appear in the record your honor and i can't go into it because what little i know from the town is that they don't have records  sewer permanent septic tank turn permit from county department of health the nd would have been a special use permit from the planning board and in order to get the special use permit in the planning board they would need but rd probable regions variances from after much to ing and fro ing with the county department of health and never getting approvals from they nevertheless submitted an application to the planning board for a special use when they did that it was noted that they would need a variance from  board d of the pills they never applied to the i think if you could frame the issue this way the questioning whether allegations in a complaint that someone criticize the town or the supervisor and the town attorney between twenty million seventy two thousand and eleven no allegations criticism after two thousand and eleven would plausibly state a cause of action for st and then retaliation it's time needed allegations that the town officials entered the property to take that back measurements eight times i don't think that you could plaus time or yes i have a question actually before we get to the can i just so i take it that for about twenty years the sants brother mr sam's brother in law lived in this barn in the town action what is the prompted the town to change their attitude towards the property status in two thousand and eight well actually what happened was the building inspector was closing out gould building permits and when you get a building permit in order to  where there's a series of acts that are not necessarily actionable or at least not apparently wrongful d individual but collectively they come to an unlawful practice a policy and usually arise in the context of workplace discrimination claims it's rarely applied outside that but it's well established that a series of separate acts constituting discrete violations on their own does not give rise to in violation of doctor that's true even if it's still violations directed towards a point in our case we clearly have a number of separate actions which if they were wrongfully all are we really want to lobby our own i mean the letter the it's not a continuing violation let's say it is it's still revitalisation so if they just say you're entering my property out of retaliating let's what would be your answer to that is that don't think that is just not plausible because it's too far removed from the