I hear you Rex. A few further thoughts on the matter.
From the previously listed link:
Substantial Interference The law is not intended to remedy trifles or redress petty annoyances. To establish liability under a nuisance theory, interference with the plaintiff's interest must be substantial. Determining substantial interference in cases where the physical condition of the property is affected will often be fairly straightforward. More challenging are those cases predicated on personal inconvenience, discomfort, or annoyance. To determine whether an interference is substantial, courts apply the standard of an ordinary member of the community with normal sensitivity and temperament. A plaintiff cannot, by putting his or her land to an unusually sensitive use, make a nuisance out of the defendant's conduct that would otherwise be relatively harmless.
"Apply the standard of an ordinary member of the community with normal sensitivity and temperament." As I read this, it's not a case of one person's rights vs. another person's rights, but a reasonable interpretation of what might be considered acceptable by most of the community.
Here are honest examples of how I feel, and tend to look at things. This past Saturday, I took the day off from the shop. One of the things I wanted to accomplish was to use the tractor to grade the driveway that goes back to our other piece of property, and the ponds. There are 4 other houses that share this drive, with our property being the very last one on the lane.
Well, it seems that the first house on the lane, one of our neighbors, was having an outdoor get-together. It was Memorial weekend after all. I could've went ahead with my plans and stirred up clouds of dust, made noise, and generally made a mess of things, and been legal doing so. But it wouldn't have been the right thing to do.
My shop sits on the same piece of property as my current home. We're zoned light commercial. Most of the adjoining properties are zoned agricultural, but are actually residential. I know this, and I maintain a strict cut-off of business hours at 5 pm weekdays. My neighbors deserve to come home and not be bothered by roaring engines and grinding metal half the night. I do not work on Sundays, or Saturday afternoons for the same reason. Even during the spring, when I'm three weeks behind.
I begin my day at sunup, delivering and picking up equipment. Unless the piece is just too large, I push them onto the truck or trailer rather than start an engine at that early hour. Don't have to, just choose to. Out of respect for my neighbors.
This is the same sort of courtesy I appreciate being extended towards me.
Tony, you are in a "zoned" area. Only a relatively small fraction of the contiguous USA is zoned and a 10 million dollar mansion can sit next to a tar paper shack with 50 old rusting washing machines stacked on the front porch and not one thing can be construed a violation or nuisance.
As I said earlier, I know you're a good dude. I would not have disturbed a neighbor's gathering either...That is simply how we were raised, with respect for others.
My point on the nuisance thing is not about common courtesies. It is about EPA zealots and ideologues that have admittedly lied and fabricated "science" to support their personal goals and are now creating regulations WE will have to live by. Are they who you would consider, "good people", interested in what is right or fair? Would or do you trust them to not take advantage of the power to alter every aspect of your life when they state that is what is needed to attain their goal? Those last 2 questions are rhetorical for readers to ponder and decide.
When the BLM tried evicting the Rancher in Nevada over grazing fee's it may or may not have been owed, before any court decided the matter, then sent in Federal agents that aimed automatic weapons at women and children legally protesting the action, that action caused a deep anger in many landowners. Anger to the point of fighting back, however needed. Similar, recent (within the past year) Federal land grabs by claiming a false jurisdiction in Texas and Oklahoma nearly caused the same.
To think the EPA, which has now empowered itself to define it's own powers, in direct defiance to the recent US Supreme Court rebukes will now suddenly NOT grab all it can from landowners, is to me, either very optimistic, naïve, or downright foolish. What check or balance is there left to stop the EPA from anything when it is openly defying US Supreme Court rulings against it?
