but i think that very it is possible to act legislatively with regard to any small classification of properties but when you have a situation don't i'm not i'm not familiar with the community at all but it was described as being the south and industrial area as if that's something unique i don't know whether it's its coastline what we what is the surrounding property similar or different from  least knows something about this parcel that suggests that thinking out this one too personal property is somehow distinct from what the town ordinarily does with regard to land use well there's nothing in the record about the member may have acted upon those types of considerations but there's no proof that these other members acted upon the considerations and so those considerations by the result of they still don't reflect municipalities and you can usually wind up in a situation where on the part of the plaintiff unless you have further questions for me at this point i issue question they're fairly narrow and that is whether the acts as alleged in the complaint on the face of the complaints are legislative in character of the views within the sphere of legislative activity claim that they were not properly computed or that they should have been lower that offer virtually no evidence to support that and i submit that under the abuse of discretion standard i just pick there made a correct  scenario i see as a municipal defense attorney they simply abandon the original action name the town and i think it's interesting that the two complaints in a complaint against the town in the original complaint against the five individual defendants the right well first of all you know i contend that they didn't have a right to do that because of the way the plaintiffs crafted their complaint bear in mind they wrote the complaint they're the ones that made the allegations in these various acts statement by the circus on the immunity issue in that case and this court put together eight basically coalesced the two standards one from bogun which identified two factors to look at and the other and and put together for part test and i think that's the test of the circuit and that actually goes to answering a question you posed of counsel should we be following the third circuit cases  law on how we define how we determine whether an action is legislated versus ministerial or requires a judicial and i think if you look at those four tests that are set forth in part to morrow i think that every allegation the complaint clearly falls within all four of those ambers one of the things i'd like to point out on the immunity issue that wasn't discussed in detail in the briefs but it is supported by law and that is the fact that in determining whether an action is variety of court cases that have already made determinations that things like comprehensive plan it is purely unequivocal legislative that moratorium or necessity even if they target individual properties are rezoning comprehensive plan decision on two small and very discrete parcels with readily identifiable individual owners and the court there concluded the state supreme court concluded that  down well and i appreciate that question there was one of the other questions are going to follow up on this property as i understand it must've been rezoned is bounded by residential neighborhoods in part i believe on the size this is a small town and i think given the fact that this is a small community with two very large blocks of the comprised and area of planning under the comprehensive plan and it's called the south and industrial area that's the way it's denominated none of the decisions are challenged in this case referred to the decisions that were made as focusing on just look car associates property they all referenced an area they talk about the south and just real area comprised of these two very large parcels that comprise about twenty percent of the land area of the incorporated town and i think that's important because you need to look at the relationship of the properties servants they make about twenty five dollars per meeting about fifty bucks a month as a as a nominal stipend virtually all of them have full time jobs and all of them have families most of them live in the community for twenty plus years and those things are all important because it goes to the issue of one the propriety of this lawsuit or so so you can certainly knew all of this they own property otherwhere of the community and they knew what kind of effect this was going to have on these people these are not professional politicians that are getting paid one hundred fifty thousand dollars a year to the governor they're doing this because they like doing it because they have a real interest in the community and i think all of those reasons  anybody getting sued is going to feel stressed out well it's one thing to say that suit it's another thing to say i get sued in my official capacity for doing things that you know i'm not really getting paid to do as a volunteer and getting sued for five million dollars and sue for punitive damages which are not insured typically and for the kinds of claims that are made in this lawsuit that got a lot of publicity in this community i noticed for example in the publicly that is reflected in the declarations by these individuals talking about the stress that they caused a number of these individual defendants testified that people bain new refused to run for elective office because of the are virtually identical and i brings us right back to the question i posed earlier and that is why wasn't the town named as a defendant or the defendant in this lawsuit but he did come one step further and look that after the  continually viability of the original complaint was not challenged it was not at the time record entered final judgment on the twelve there was no but i thought i bring it up because i would caution you against relying on on any of our statements that are not reflected in the record with regard to plus the size of these parcels maybe in relation to how many of you say he has the opportunity to is in fact directly adjacent to other industrial property that is it's not a case of simply having an isolated corner of industrial property which is that which is therefore treated as planning in it's a case of having sure you're all familiar he was in correct in that belief but believe that that was the reason why the town was not originally named and that the intent was to join the town as an additional defendant and i believe that intent is reflected in the joint status report which the contention that the motion to dismiss should have been denied was not a frivolous crazy contention it is in fact a contention which i personally have had the good fortune to be on the winning side of in cases which are very very similar