evidence and that is one issue raised in the briefs and by the appalachians in this case the other other issues raised in the briefs is whether or the constitutionality of the review so i think there's a couple of different standards that review that are applied depending on what the question is being consider in this case and this i think is a confusing case  there's a lot of different issues that need to be addressed by i think the trial court's ruling should be repealed reverse for several different reasons first of all i think it's ruling it was not supported by the evidence presented at trial the court purchase the purpose i think for the findings of fact under the legislative statutory scheme and under the county ordinance is so that there's a due process so parties have a due process and there's a procedure and so that when there's a recommendation made to the county or if the county board knows what evidence was presented during the zoning board hearing and what the basis for the zoning boards recommendation is i think the evidence or the record rather is clear in th also the trial court's decision should be reversed because i think the injunction that was issued in this case is overly rod a first of all it applies to more land that was subject than was subject to the litigation  problem which piece of property has the restriction you your honor in terms of restrictions imposed are you talking referring to the injunction that i mention while i'm talking is a residential zoning and that that piece of property the land owner wanted to use it for commercial or industrial so the restrictions in that case were the landowner was not able to use the property for commercial so it was that  voice i think it's very important for us to zero in on which property acts as a restriction or ok i think i think it does apply to the greater sense property does the research and impose and the restriction would be says inability to use that particular track as an r l way so you know does that restriction what what benefit or what is the legitimate government purpose for compliance with i thought regulation so it's not about that in fact he says looks like it went above the restrictions that are required so then you kind of get back and say what is this case about then when you look at what he said he says well i've looked at lasalle and every single factor here favors the point of every single one he doesn't talk about how he he thinks that applies but he says he's never seen a case that's so strong in favor of one side and then he goes one step further and he says there's one factor here and that nobody has heard and this is one that i think it's important the robotics attorney did not address the suitability of the subject property for the purpose and he goes on to talk about i have to look at this and i have to find the gate for us property to be particularly suitable for this our l a not just that it qualifies not that it meets the safety standards not that it meets all the other standards but i have to find it's particularly suitable for this particular requirement parcels out there in the county and he drives north to south every week and it's common knowledge that you know the counties flattened and then he goes on to say there's probably no less than several hundred tracks or ground in this county that couldn't accommodate and are away and so there's nothing particular about this piece of property that is a higher standard than what is required by law sal and in fact now he's shifting the burden to my clients so live they have to prove not only that it means counties zoning requirements but it's particularly suitable i don't know what kind of evidence we have to bring him to to do that in terms of land in a truck well or at fifteen but if you think about how this our lane was designed it really goes from the immediate south south eastern portion over a  small portion of the road proc plan and and really when you look at the burden that the court has put my clients willing to use their property this thing that versus run their conservation area and the other the other problematic parts of this was how did my clients for a way affect their ability to subdivide develop in the future now that is an interesting factor it's one of the lasalle factors but what's interesting about that is that evidence is purely speculative and the reason i say that is because there was not a shred of evidence about velvet might take place if it would take place at all instead put mr robert reich said was you know i want to develop this property maybe in the future it's kind of consistent with the sort of nature preserve that i've got but you know my intention is that i will only subdividing and develop this property at a point where i need it for retirement funds and i'm doing pretty well right now that that's appraiser that opinion basically said well there's this huge imune you should in value based upon that but he had no idea when it would happen if it would happen and also admitted that there were none of the infrastructure play that you would normally see in connection with some division so i really think when you pull back and look at this case there's a lot going on and and really when you read the cases that talk about  use permits they're all over the place because it's very hard to fit some kind of standard set of tests on it on a case by case basis because every single one of them excuse me is different but more importantly the court did several things here he based his opinion on evidence not before him he based his opinion on evidence that was speculative he applied a higher standard to my clients and i think overall made the injunction much more fraught than it had to be so for those reasons we would ask that the decision be reversed and remanded so that there is an entry in favor of my client's well let me ask you for be the reason for getting rid of that need as a practical matter if you lose what difference does it make if you lose on the first issue or the primary issue that the special years what difference does it make if of all it means it runs with the land in my clients can never ever apply to the county even fast at a law changes so in the future your clients might develop or anticipate the development of a you afternoon there please there let's go right to what are your questions justice turner the restrictions imposed really refer to the particular zoning action in question that works pretty south type of case where it's the petitioner the owner who didn't get what you wanted to get in that case i think the property was o residential but the owner wanted to make it commercial in this case the zoning action at particular zoning action involved as opposed to the restrictions imposed because restrictions imposed doesn't really work for the special situation the on the tract of land question i  think judge freeh has included only the property in section ten but in the injunction order because that is all we included in our complaint we allege that the ownership of that four hundred thirty five acres or so in section ten which is all contiguous and which is adjacent to the old rock property we didn't say anything about the other property owned in section fifteen so i believe judge freeze took what we have necessarily included the rich from the i guess would be the east half of the northwest corner section well there's two hundred fifty seven point five six i looked at it briefly based on the plat from place exhibit number twenty four seven in the record unless it also included the property in the east of the northwest corner of section fifteen this airstrip could have been placed some place today we would not interfere with your point of property well first airstrip is on the farm the farm is basically one unit there's also evidence that  besides this one i think there was reference to a seventy nine point five acre track in the application but there's also a building that goes with that airstrip that's on the track to the north the tongue the the house property so it's not just that one track that they referenced in their application that's really him impacted here or more of that property is being used not for the airstrip itself but at least for a building that's ancillary to the airstrip well again it seems to me that it's just like when somebody owns a five acre piece of property and they try to rezone that property although they're only going to really use part of it though the whole clarify the underlying words but that's really what we're talking about that's what was added there was evidence of that there's there's no doubt that yep titian focused on seventy nine point five a track and that the evidence focused on the location of the r l a on the trail right and again we have a wedge that the gauge was his own entire farm and this was part of the entire farm right so when the order was prepared we asked that the entire farm be included i raised a point that no objection was ever raised to that in tribal court the trial court if if factors and there's been a lot of focus on the his comments that he made about the suitability of this location for in our l a and i go back to wait when first of all the suitability factor examines the property as it is of in this case it looks was the property suitable for agricultural purposes where the girl i was supposed to located well yes it was being used for agricultural purposes it was productive to what that case really involved was a a petition to rezone it back from our to our for about five years after the downs own so when the court was talking about  looking at the suitability of the property for the zone purposes it was looking as it was then at the time the rezoning petition filed which was the our two which had resulted about five years earlier from the downs over so you look at but i argued the first way the suitability for the zone purpose i also argued that the other way just to make sure i had a covered judge freezes comments i think as i interpret them he took it that i was mainly arguing as i've just indicated to you the way it should be but he was examining ok is the suitable for an hour away and down and that's not wrong because the south says you can look at any number of factors are not necessarily  factors but what he was really doing is saying if you look at his comments he's saying what would have happened if the special use permit would have been denied and the pick and the gate forces had come in here and said well there was air in the denial of the special use permit would have been wrong to say but i've been compelled to say that this was suitable such that the special use permit should have been granted and he said no and he did make some comments about driving through pike county but  just kind of looking at the he said himself he was looking at the flip side i don't see anything wrong with that and the fact is he said it is oral recitation he said in a written order that all eight south factors favored us in this case and that means he considered them now the the defendants a point to point comments he said well this isn't about you know the financial circumstances of your about financial matters while again there was evidence for example about how much the the gauge losses have spent in developing the r l a there was evidence and how much they'd spent to buy their gyro planes so for residential development at some point so that's the reason for that comment there are some other ones that point to it not being about jarrah playing safety or whether scott uterus is a good pilot well that's true that there was evidence about all of that it wasn't a direct issue it bore in some ways as on the public safety factors but again he made it clear throughout and what he sa and convincing evidence and the judge found that we had met our burden to show by clear and have been seeing evidence that the branch of the special use permit was arbitrated and arbitrary and unrelated to the public health safety denial but true that the no the focus was on whether the focus was on whether the special use permit should have been granted or not it was granted we were saying that it should not no it doesn't prove itself in this particular case saying analyzing whether the court used the proper scene and especially his contacts what the court that the restriction morphs into the zoning action take grant it let's say then you're looking at whether the grants of that special use permit was arbitrary or unrelated etc and so far as it pertains to the challenge by the which property values are diminished by the special use permit that was on right and that the factors are exactly the same right you just you're doing it from a different perspective like sal it was the owner who didn't get what he wanted in this case it's the neighbor objecting to the other neighbor who got what it was but if your client had no restriction your clients are no restriction client's complaint was that that was him premiss of all in this particular situation because if you look at all the beautiful south factors as applied to my property and that's what the inquiry really gets it's arbitrary and say cut the value of the ground it was going to be used for crops he did he did he defined a small impact area right at the end you know we didn't really do much with fed didn't even really argue it to my way of thinking what important part of the appraisers opinion was was the north ninety four acres the highest and best years as we have heard a lot of sound and fury about the highest and best use no objection was made to the testimony of the appraiser about it or the foundation for that testimony highest and best use occurs every day in litigating cases in reported cases and somebody may not necessarily intend to develop piece of property themselves for that use but if it has value for that use then it's considered and it's considered an eminent domain cases and i cited a couple of cases where they do that so you know if the defendants thought that there was something wrong with your  yours them they should have been objecting to the foundation which is objecting to the admissibility of this testimony in the first place they didn't it's in i pointed out while he's far more qualified than the appraiser they ha government you have a point in time where you know what value is going to be it's a fixed point here even though we have a lot of talk about the highest and best use it's only based on time whether the rope property is for business and it's a prime spot and when this guy retires in three years he's going to sell it and he wants to sell it for the highest and best use because nobody will ever want to live in this house it and sal but what the state is taking my my house which i live in i say i understand that this house is actually worth a lot more if i sell it now i don't want to i wait when i retire i want to cash in on the fact that i've been put up with the grief of living near sharda but everybody there's a gas station for the last seven years and that valuation would be taken into account so i understand that there is a degree of  south sinclair factor in that you don't talk about restriction because there really isn't a restriction restriction existed originally you can read that you can't do this on your property unless you get it has some detriment to us and the economics are awash why wasn't that factor a favor point because i would say that if there is evidence it does promote the public health safety welfare and here's well do you agree with mr stanko that you have to have you have to perforate some language and put it into there so that you're not talking about a restriction you know like we're talking about this party that is special