ÿWPCK3 J 0HU.dU0’ 0H 0u  0Ù 0ÙX 0Ù1 0ï  0Ùù 0ÙÒ 06«U<á 0³ 0¹Ð 0w‰ 0Ÿ 0Ÿ€<b¼ AQÄ 0C 0CXUN› 0Dé %- 3 0DC ‡ 0( Æ· B}! 0@š! 0ÑÚ! B«" D/È"w@÷"47# D3K# 0J~# 0TÈ# 0^$# z$N…%^ ‡%“% m•% 0h¬% 0r& 0|†& 0†' 0ˆ' 1u( 0d(B)ñ(DC) AM])U*ª)áÔ)Eµ*v~ú+vÓx-0~™ÿÿ.FOOTERÓ  ÓÓ Üìü!(#ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔC€ô\  `Tms RmnCÔÓ;1Ü„¢úR ª Z² bºj #;ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔô\  `Tms Rmn2Ͼ¦ `CG Times0~™ÿÿ.HEADERÓ  ÓÓ Üìü!(#ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔC€ô\  `Tms RmnCÔÓ;1Ü„¢úR ª Z² bºj #;ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔ<¢–ÿÿ:FOOTNOTE TEXÓ  ÓÓ;1Ü„Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!T$;ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔC€ô\  `Tms RmnCÔÓ8.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!(#8ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔ6ÒÃÿÿ4HEADING 9Ò ° ÒÓ X ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü 4` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#5ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔòòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ>4Ü,J¢úR ª Z² bºj #>ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔóó6ÒÃÿÿ4HEADING 8Ò ° ÒÓ X ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü 4` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#5ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔòòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ>4Ü,J¢úR ª Z² bºj #>ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔóó6ÒÃÿÿ4HEADING 7Ò ° ÒÓ X ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü 4` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#5ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔòòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ>4Ü,J¢úR ª Z² bºj #>ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔóó6èÃÿÿ4HEADING 6Ò ° ÒÓ X ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü 4` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#5ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ>4Ü,J¢úR ª Z² bºj #>ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔóó6ÒÃÿÿ4HEADING 5Ò ° ÒÓ X ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü 4` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#5ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ>4Ü,J¢úR ª Z² bºj #>ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔó ó6ÒÃÿÿ4HEADING 4Ò ° ÒÓ , ÓÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÓ5+Ü ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#5ÓÔ€XXXÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔòòÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÒ ° ÒÓ>4Ü,J¢úR ª Z² bºj #>ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔóó64HEADING 3ô\  `$Times NewRoman6ˤÿÿ4HEADING 2Ó  ÓÓ;1Ü„Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!T$;ÓÓ€ÓÔ€¼¼¼ÔÔQ€ ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ8.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!(#8ÓÓÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔ6òÿÿ4HEADING 1Ó;1Ü„Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!T$;ÓÓ€ÓÔ€¼¼¼ÔÔQ€ ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÓ8.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!(#8ÓÓÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔó ó<¤–ÿÿ:endnote textÓ  ÓÓ;1Ü„Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!T$;ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔÓ8.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!(#8ÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔ6¶²ÿÿ4Body TextÓ;1Ü„Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!T$;ÓÓ€ÓÔ€¼¼¼ÔÔQ€ ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔòòÓ  ÓÓ8.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!(#8ÓÓÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔóó:³¯ÿÿ8Body Text 2Ó;1Ü„Ü4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!T$;ÓÓ€ÓÔ€¼¼¼ÔÔQ€ ô\  `$Times NewRomanQÔÓ  ÓÓ8.ÜÜ4Œ ä <”ìDœôL¤ü!(#8ÓÓÓÔ€ôôôÔÔE€2Ͼ¦ `CG TimesEÔ' WEST V. LUNA - OPININO IB011C2 0 .   - ù-!#&Cþÿ<< Cÿÿ(2_$©©Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$òòÚ  ÚÚ  Úóó&w0˜ Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝX3|xD ($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó($¡¡ƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò((2ŒÆ$¤¤Ý ƒ !ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑܰÑÑ  ÑÑÑÔ€X7ƒXXXÔà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóüÿP Pd%%'÷ÿ dxd 2 E3 4 5 6 E7 8 e9 : Ó€D ê‚_#8ertu""""'ÿÿdxd2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhα•ÿ$ˆÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô-./56789 ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 dBBBB7Border 1dd!#CCþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ×Ý ƒ !ÝÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€EÔÔ€EÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€EXÔÌÌAugust€12,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ;Ý ƒ !ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÓ  Óà àÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ Ü ÑÑ @ Ñà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€neighborsðð€noise€control€expert€alluded€to€several€of€these€standards€in€hisÏsurvey€and€report€prepared€in€July€1996.€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÝ ƒ !ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÓ  ÓÑ  ÑÓ  ÓÑ „ ÑÓ  ÓÔ€ ôÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ô_ÔÞ ÞÌÌÌÙ€!ÙÓ  ÓÓ` ÜŒ ‹X€%Ø'Óò òÔ€ „ÔœßR€DFCA1-j|´ÿ&` ç `€€@ÿRß›IN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌAT€NASHVILLEÔ€ ¼Ôó óÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌJAMES€L.€WEST,€ET€AL.,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiffs/Appellees,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àLincoln€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€8380ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01A01„9707„CH„00281ÌFRANK€LUNA,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓÔ€ îÔAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURTÌFOR€LINCOLN€COUNTYÌAT€FAYETTEVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÓ  ÓTHE€HONORABLE€Ô_ÔTYRUSÔ_Ô€H.€COBB,€CHANCELLORÌÓ  ÓÔ€ ¼ÔÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffs/Appelleesóó:à àà àà àà àà àòòFor€Defendant/Appellantóó:ÌÌR.€Whitney€Stevens,€Jr.à àà àà àà àà àBrad€W.€HornsbyÌStevens,€Ô_ÔBagleyÔ_Ô€&€Stevensà àà àà àà àà àBullock,€Fly€&€Ô_ÔMcFarlinÔ_ÔÌFayetteville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àà àà àMurfreesboro,€TennesseeÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÓ  Óò òÌÓ  ÓÔ€ „ÔVACATED€AND€REMANDEDÔ€ ¼ÔÌÌÌó óÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÇÔ€ „ÔÑ€ÑÑ7€7ƒ¼XdìXXdì7ÑÓ€Óà@ ààHÎÎ)Dàò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€ ¼Ôó óóóÌÌÓ  ÓÓ` ܸ ŠXØ'WÓà àThis€appeal€arises€out€of€a€long„running€dispute€over€a€dirt€race€track€inÏLincoln€County.€€Six€years€after€the€track€was€permanently€enjoined€fromÏoperating€at€a€noise€level€that€amounted€to€a€nuisance,€a€number€of€the€trackððsÏresidential€neighbors€filed€suit€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Lincoln€County€toÏenjoin€the€trackððs€new€owner€from€conducting€stock€car€races€because€they€fearedÏthat€the€noise€would€create€a€nuisance.€€Despite€the€new€ownerððs€assurances€thatÏhe€planned€to€muffle€the€noise€with€sound„reducing€technology€and€landscapeÏmodifications,€the€trial€court,€sitting€without€a€jury,€permanently€enjoined€theÏnew€owner€from€holding€automobile€races€of€any€sort€at€the€track.€€On€thisÏappeal,€the€trackððs€owner€challenges€the€breadth€of€the€injunction€and€the€fact€thatÏit€was€issued€before€he€reopened€the€track.€€We€have€determined€that€theÏinjunction€must€be€vacated€because€it€is€too€broad.€ÌÌÓ  Óò òI.ó óÓ  ÓÌà àLincoln€County€lies€near€the€Alabama€border.€€Fields€and€pastures€withÏoccasional€tree€rows€and€country€roads€dominate€Ô_ÔtheÔ_Ô€landscape.€€Despite€theÏrecent€influx€of€new€residents,€the€county€is€unquestionably€rural.€€NeighborsÏare,€by€Nashvilleððs€standards,€few€and€far€between.€€Approximately€8,200€of€theÏcountyððs€29,000€residents€live€in€Fayetteville,€the€county€seat.ÌÌà àIn€the€late€1970s,€Claude€Holt€constructed€and€began€to€operate€an€unpavedÏrace€track€called€the€Circle€H€Speedway€on€the€Old€Ô_ÔBoonshillÔ_Ô€Road€nearÏFayetteville.€€In€1979€a€group€of€neighbors€living€near€the€track€sued€Mr.€Holt€inÏthe€Chancery€Court€for€Lincoln€County€alleging€that€the€noise€created€by€theÏstock€car€races€constituted€a€nuisance.€€Following€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€courtÏfound€that€the€noise€permeated€the€neighboring€homes€and€that€mufflers€mightÍreduce€the€noise€to€more€acceptable€levels.€€Accordingly,€in€November€1979,€theÏtrial€court€entered€an€order€enjoining€Mr.€Holt€from€operating€a€race€trackÏwithout€ensuring€that€all€cars€used€mufflers€to€reduce€the€noise€to€a€levelÏacceptable€to€the€neighbors.ÌÌà àThe€neighbors€returned€to€court€in€1981€seeking€to€hold€Mr.€Holt€inÏcontempt€for€operating€his€race€track€in€violation€of€the€November€1979Ïinjunction.€€Although€the€present€record€indicates€that€Mr.€Holt€had€been€holdingÏraces€regularly,€it€does€not€reflect€the€number€of€stock€cars€that€were€racing,€theÏnumber€of€spectators€who€were€attending€the€races,€or€the€level€of€the€noiseÏcreated€by€the€races.€€In€response€to€the€neighborsðð€evidence€that€he€was€notÏrequiring€the€stock€cars€to€use€mufflers,€Mr.€Holt€explained€that€he€was€reluctantÏto€ask€the€drivers€to€ð ðruin€their€enginesðð€by€installing€mufflers.€€The€trial€courtÏfound€that€Mr.€Holtððs€refusal€to€require€mufflers€indicated€that€he€would€notÏcomply€with€its€November€1979€order€and,€in€September€1981,€entered€an€orderÏfinding€Mr.€Holt€in€contempt€and€permanently€enjoining€him€ð ðindividually€orÏthrough€employees,€agents€or€assigns€.€.€.€from€operating€the€race€track€.€.€.Ïknown€as€the€Circle€H.€Speedway.ðð€€ÌÌà àMr.€Holt€moved€to€amend€the€September€1981€order€based€on€newÏevidence€obtained€during€test€races€of€cars€equipped€with€mufflers.€€The€trialÏcourt€took€the€matter€under€advisement€to€study€the€ð ðhighly€technical€exhibitsððÏsubmitted€by€Mr.€Holt.€€In€May€1982€the€trial€court€entered€an€amended€orderÏpermanently€enjoining€Mr.€Holt€ð ðfrom€further€operation€of€the€speedway€untilÏsuch€time€as€he€can€and€will€operate€same€where€the€noise€level€will€not€be€aÏnuisance€to€the€plaintiffs.ðð€€ÌÌà àFive€years€later,€Mr.€Holt€sold€the€speedway€to€Frank€Luna.€€Mr.€Luna€wasÏaware€of€the€injunctions€but€declared€that€he€intended€to€renovate€and€reopen€theÏtrack.€€He€proposed€to€build€large€grandstands,€plant€trees,€and€erect€a€four„footÏretaining€wall€to€absorb€or€deflect€the€noise€generated€by€the€races.€€Fearing€thatÏthe€proposed€track€would€generate€noise€at€nuisance€levels,€a€group€of€the€trackððsÏneighbors€filed€a€fresh€lawsuit€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Lincoln€County€againstÏMessrs.€Holt€and€Luna€seeking€to€injunctive€and€monetary€relief€and€to€hold€themÏin€contempt.€€Based€on€the€neighborsðð€allegations€that€the€proposed€race€trackÏwould€have€as€many€as€15,000€spectators,€twenty„four€stock€cars€racing€at€once,Ïand€a€public€address€system,€the€trial€court€entered€an€order€in€June€1988Ïtemporarily€enjoining€Messrs.€Holt€and€Luna€from€ð ðengaging€in€or€allowing€theÏracing€of€automobiles.ððÌÌà àThe€trial€court€finally€conducted€a€bench€trial€in€July€1996€after€eight€yearsÏof€inaction€and€the€neighborsðð€withdrawal€of€their€claim€for€damages.€€In€additionÏto€the€testimony€of€Mr.€Luna€and€several€of€the€trackððs€neighbors,€the€trial€courtÏreceived€a€report€from€a€noise€level€expert.€€The€expertððs€report€contained€dataÏon€the€ambient€noise€level€in€the€surrounding€neighborhood€with€one€vehicleÏoperating€on€the€track€and€also€included€ð ðcommentsðð€concerning€the€potentialÏeffect€of€a€public€address€system€and€crowd€noise€and€an€ð ðopinionðð€concerningÏthe€efficacy€of€proposed€mufflers.€€The€parties€disagreed€strongly€both€about€theÏnoise€that€would€be€generated€when€twenty„four€cars€were€racing€and€about€theÏprobable€effects€on€the€noise€level€by€the€proposed€retaining€wall,€theÏgrandstands,€and€additional€planting€along€an€existing€tree€row.€€ÌÌà àFollowing€the€hearing,€the€trial€court€ruled€from€the€bench€that€Mr.€LunaÏshould€be€enjoined€from€operating€a€race€track€on€his€property.€€In€August€1996,Ïthe€trial€court€entered€an€order,€essentially€incorporating€the€terms€of€itsÍSeptember€1981€order,€permanently€enjoining€Mr.€Luna€ð ðfrom€maintainingÏand/or€operating€an€automobile€race€track€or€racing€facility,€and€from€allowingÏsuch€automobile€racing,€on€the€real€estate€located€on€the€Old€Ô_ÔBoonshillÔ_Ô€Road.ðð€ÏLater,€the€trial€court€denied€Mr.€Lunaððs€post„trial€motion€arguing€that€theÏneighborsðð€suit€was€premature€because€the€determination€of€whether€stock€carÏracing€at€the€track€constitutes€a€nuisance€should€be€delayed€until€the€track€is€fullyÏoperational.ÌÌà@ àò òII.Ìà@ àòòExcessive€Noise€as€a€NuisanceóóÌÌà àó óThe€right€to€property,€being€both€fundamental€and€necessary€to€theÏexistence€of€advanced€societies,€is€vigorously€protected€by€the€United€Ô_ÔStatesÔ_ÔÏÔ_ÔConstitutionÔ_Ô€and€the€Constitution€of€Tennessee.€€òòSeeóó€U.S.€Const.€amends.€III,€IV,ÏV;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðððð€7,€8,€21.€€Among€the€most€important€aspects€ofÏproperty€ownership€are€the€rights€to€use,€enjoy,€and€dispose€of€property€at€oneððsÏdiscretion€without€regard€to€non„vested€interests.€€òòSee€Weiss€v.€Broadway€Ô_ÔNatððlÔ_ÔÏBankóó,€204€Tenn.€563,€571,€322€S.W.2d€427,€431€(1959);òò€State€ex€rel.€ElvisÏPresley€Ô_ÔIntððlÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔMemððlÔ_Ô€Found.€v.€Ô_ÔCrowellÔ_Ôóó,€733€S.W.2d€89,€96€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1987).€€Every€owner€of€land,€where€not€restrained€by€covenant,€has€the€entireÏdominion€of€the€soil€to€whatever€extent€he€or€she€may€choose€to€occupy€it.€ÏProperty€owners€may€use€their€land€according€to€their€own€judgment€withoutÏbeing€answerable€to€any€adjoining€owner,€unless€their€use€of€the€property€inflictsÏan€injury€on€their€neighbor.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔHumesÔ_Ô€v.€Mayor€of€Knoxvilleóó,€20€Tenn.€(1ÏHum.)€403,€407€(1839).ÌÌà àThe€courts€of€equity€are€frequently€called€upon€to€strike€a€balance€betweenÏthe€competing,€co„equal€rights€of€property€owners€to€enjoy€their€own€landÍwithout€interference€caused€by€their€neighborsðð€enjoyment€of€their€property.€€TheÏcommon„law€doctrine€of€nuisance€is€the€device€traditionally€used€to€strike€thisÏbalance.€€A€nuisance€is€anything€that€annoys€or€disturbs€anotherððs€free€use€of€hisÏor€her€property€or€that€renders€the€ordinary€use€or€physical€occupation€ofÏanotherððs€property€uncomfortable.€€òòSee€Jenkins€v.€Ô_ÔCSXÔ_Ô€Transp.,€Inc.óó,€906€S.W.2dÏ460,€462€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòAnthony€v.€Construction€Prods.,€Inc.óó,€677ÏS.W.2d€4,€7€€(Tenn€Ct.€App.€1984).€€More€specifically,€a€nuisance€is€any€activityÏthat€endangers€health€or€life,€offends€the€senses,€or€interferes€with€anotherððs€useÏand€enjoyment€of€their€property.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔOakleyÔ_Ô€v.€Simmonsóó,€799€S.W.2d€669,€671Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990);€òòWayne€County€v.€Tennessee€Solid€Waste€Disposal€ControlÏBd.óó,€756€S.W.2d€274,€283„84€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1988);€òòÔ_ÔHagamanÔ_Ô€v.€Slaughteróó,€49ÏTenn.€App.€338,€345,€354€S.W.2d€818,€821€(1961).€€ÌÌà àAn€activity€cannot€be€considered€a€nuisance€unless€it€has€or€will€produceÏsome€negative€effect€on€its€surroundings.€€òòSee€State€ex€rel.€Cunningham€v.ÏÔ_ÔFeezellÔ_Ôóó,€218€Tenn.€17,€23,€400€S.W.2d€716,€719€(1966).€€Depending€on€theÏsurroundings,€activities€that€constitute€a€nuisance€in€one€context€may€notÏconstitute€a€nuisance€in€another.€€Thus,€whether€a€particular€activity€or€use€ofÏproperty€amounts€to€an€unreasonable€invasion€of€anotherððs€legally€Ô_ÔprotectableÔ_ÔÏinterests€depends€on€the€circumstances€of€each€case,€such€as€the€character€of€theÏsurroundings,€the€nature,€utility,€and€social€value€of€the€use,€and€the€nature€andÏextent€of€the€harm€involved.òò€€See€Pate€v.€City€of€Martinóó,€614€S.W.2d€46,€47Ï(Tenn.€1981);€òòÔ_ÔSherrodÔ_Ô€v.€Duttonóó,€635€S.W.2d€117,€119€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1982);ÏòòCaldwell€v.€Knox€Concrete€Prods.,€Inc.óó,€54€Tenn.€App.€393,€402,€391€S.W.2d€5,Ï9€(1964).€€ÌÌÝ‚ ÿÝÝ  Ýà àNuisances€come€in€many€forms,€from€the€pooling€of€sludge€on€adjoiningÏland€due€to€erection€of€a€dam,€to€particulate€invasion€by€smoke€spewing€from€aÍfactory,€to€the€mere€existence€of€a€Ô_ÔpowderhouseÔ_Ô€in€a€city.€€òòSee€generally€Neal€v.ÏHenryóó,€19€Tenn.€(1€Ô_ÔMeigsÔ_Ô)€17€(1838)€(dam€causing€overflow€upstream);€òòGreen€v.ÏArnoldóó,€25€Tenn.€App.€67,€150€S.W.2d€1075€(1940)€(lead€smelting€plant€pouringÏsmoke€and€fumes€onto€nearby€farm);€òòÔ_ÔCheathamÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔShearonÔ_Ôóó,€31€Tenn.€(1€Swan)Ï213€(1851)€(Ô_ÔpowderhouseÔ_Ô€in€populated€portion€of€a€city).€€Certain€uses€ofÏproperty€can€even€be€considered€nuisances€per€se,€but€to€qualify€as€a€nuisance€perÏse,€the€use€must€necessarily€produce€harmful€effects€on€surrounding€propertyÏeven€though€due€care€has€been€exercised.€€òòSee€Llewellyn€v.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€33ÏTenn.€App.€632,€649,€232€S.W.2d€568,€576€(1950).Ý‚ ÿÝÝ  ÝÌÌà àNoise€does€not€necessarily€constitute€a€nuisance€because€property€ownersÏhave€the€right€only€to€quiet€and€peaceful,€not€silent,€enjoyment€of€their€property.ÏòòSee€Caldwell€v.€Knox€Concrete€Prods.,€Inc.óó,€54€Tenn.€App.ò ò€ó óat€402,€391€S.W.2dÏat€9„10òò.óó€€Nevertheless,€excessive€noise€can€become€a€nuisance€when€it€imposes€onÏneighbors€a€level€of€discomfort€beyond€the€reasonable€limit€dictated€byÏsurrounding€conditions.€€€€òòSee€Caldwell€v.€Knox€Concrete€Prods.,€Inc.óó,€54€Tenn.ÏApp.ò ò€ó óat€403,€391€S.W.2d€at€10òò.€€óóIn€order€to€be€considered€a€nuisance,€noise€mustÏbe€so€excessive€that€it€is€unreasonable€in€light€of€all€the€circumstances€and€mustÏcause€injury€to€the€health€and€comfort€of€ordinary€persons€in€the€vicinity.€€òòSeeÏGardner€v.€Ô_ÔInternationalÔ_Ô€Shoe€Co.óó,€49€N.E.2d€328,€335€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1943);ÏòòÔ_ÔStroughÔ_Ô€v.€Ideal€Supplies€Co.óó,€187€S.W.2d€839,€841€(Ky.€Ct.€App.€1945);€òòRose€v.ÏÔ_ÔChaikinÔ_Ôóó,€453€A.2d€1378,€1381€(N.€J.€Super.€Ct.€Ch.€Div.€1982).ÌÌà àCourts€should€not€base€their€determination€concerning€whether€particularÏnoise€is€a€nuisance€based€on€the€subjective€likes€and€dislikes€of€particularÏplaintiffs,€òòsee€Burgess€v.€Ô_ÔOmahawksÔ_Ô€Radio€Control€Orgóó.,€362€N.W.2d€27,€29Ï(Neb.€1985),€but€rather€on€an€objective€standard€based€on€reasonableness.€€òòSeeÏÔ_ÔStiglianeseÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔValloneÔ_Ôóó,€666€N.Y.S.2d€362,€364€(App.€Term€1997);€òòAtkinson€v.ÍBernardóó,€355€P.2d€229,€233€(Or.€1960).€€Whether€a€particular€noise€isÏsufficiently€excessive€to€constitute€a€nuisance€is€ordinarilyÑ  ÑÑ   ÑÑ  ÑÑ€B §u` Ñ€a€question€of€degreeÏand€locality€ð!ð€in€essence€a€question€of€fact€to€be€considered€in€light€of€all€theÏattending€circumstances.€€òòCf.€Caldwell€v.€Knox€Concrete€Prods.,€Inc.óó,€54€Tenn.ÏApp.€at€402,€391€S.W.2d€at€9.€€The€circumstances€most€frequently€considered€inÏdetermining€whether€noise€amounts€to€a€nuisance€include:€€(1)€the€locality,€(2)€theÏcharacter€of€the€neighborhood,€(3)€the€nature€of€the€use€causing€the€noise,€(4)€theÏextent€and€frequency€of€the€injury,€(5)€the€time€of€day€when€the€noise€occurs,€andÏ(6)€the€effects€on€the€enjoyment€of€life,€health,€and€property€of€those€affected€byÏthe€noise.€€òòSee€Pate€v.€City€of€Martinóó,€614€S.W.2d€at€47;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòWarren€CountyÏv.€Ô_ÔDicksonÔ_Ôóó,€195€Ô_ÔS.E.Ô_Ô€568,€570€(Ga.€1938);€òòFinlay€v.€Finlayóó,€856€P.2d€183,€189Ï(Ô_ÔKanÔ_Ô.€Ct.€App.€1993);€òòRacine€v.€Glendale€Shooting€Club,€Inc.óó,€755€S.W.2d€369,Ï372€(Mo.€Ct.€App.€1988).ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌà@ àòòò òRemedies€for€Nuisancesó óóóÌÌà àLand€use€planning€and€control€are€inherently€legislative€prerogatives.€€òòSeeÏRobertson€County€v.€Browning„Ferris€Indus.€of€Tenn.,€Inc.óó,€799€S.W.2d€662,Ï667€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€Therefore,€the€constitutional€principle€of€separationÏof€powers€requires€the€judiciary€to€refrain€from€usurping€the€General€AssemblyððsÏauthority€over€these€matters.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔCrabtreeÔ_Ô€v.€City€Auto€Salvage€Co.óó,€47€Tenn.ÏApp.€616,€631,€340€S.W.2d€940,€948€(1960).€€When,€however,€a€litigant€provesÏthat€a€nuisance€exists,€the€courts€must€provide€an€appropriate€remedy€in€the€formÏof€either€damages€or€injunctive€relief€or€both.€€òòSee€Pate€v.€City€of€Martinóó,€614ÏS.W.2d€at€48;€òòÔ_ÔNaffÔ_Ô€v.€Martinóó,€2€Tenn.€Ô_ÔCasÔ_Ô.€(Shannon)€451,€452„53€(1877);€òòClackÏv.€Whiteóó,€32€Tenn.€(2€Swan)€540,€543„44ò ò€ó ó(1852).ÌÌà àThe€form€that€relief€should€take€in€a€particular€case€depends€on€the€natureÏof€the€nuisance€and€the€harm€it€is€causing.€€Nuisances€fall€into€one€of€twoÏcategories.€€They€are€either€temporary€nuisances€that€can€be€abated€by€theÏexpenditure€of€time€or€money,€òòsee€Pate€v.€City€of€Martinóó,€614€S.W.2d€at€48;ÏòòHayes€v.€City€of€Ô_ÔMaryvilleÔ_Ôóó,€747€S.W.2d€346,€350€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1987),€or€theyÏare€permanent€nuisances€that€are€likely€to€continue€indefinitely€and€cannot€beÏabated€by€the€expenditure€of€time€and€money.€€òòSee€Caldwell€v.€Knox€ConcreteÏProds.,€Inc.óó,€54€Tenn.€App.€at€406,€391€S.W.2d€at€11.€€ÌÌà àThe€two€remedies€available€to€courts€in€nuisance€cases€are€damage€awardsÏand€injunctions.€€Persons€harmed€by€a€temporary€nuisance€may€recover€damagesÏfor€the€loss€in€the€value€of€the€use€and€enjoyment€of€the€affected€property,€òòseeÏPate€v.€City€of€Martinóó,€614€S.W.2d€at€48;€òòLouisville€&€Nashville€Terminal€Co.€v.ÏÔ_ÔLellyettÔ_Ôóó,€114€Tenn.€368,€403,€85€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€881,€890€(1905).€€They€are€entitled€only€toÏtheir€damages€accrued€by€the€time€the€suit€is€filed,€òòsee€Wilson€v.€Farmers€Chem.ÏÔ_ÔAssððnÔ_Ôóó,€60€Tenn.€App.€102,€110,€444€S.W.2d€185,€188„89€(Ô_ÔÔ_Ô1969);€òòCity€ofÏColumbia€v.€Ô_ÔLentzÔ_Ôóó,€39€Tenn.€App.€350,€360,€282€S.W.2d€787,€792€(1955),€butÏthey€may€file€successive€suits€as€new€damages€occur.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔHenegarÔ_Ô€v.ÏInternational€Minerals€&€Chem.€Corp.óó,€209€Tenn.€355,€357,€354€S.W.2d€69,€70Ï(1962);€òòNashville€v.€Ô_ÔComarÔ_Ôóó,€88€Tenn.€415,€426,€12€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€1027,€1030€(1890).€€OnÏthe€other€hand,€persons€who€have€been€harmed€by€a€permanent€nuisance€needÏonly€file€one€suit€to€recover€both€past€and€prospective€damages€and€are€entitled€toÏrecover€damages€equal€to€the€reduction€in€the€market€value€of€their€property.€ÏòòSee€Anthony€v.€Construction€Prods.,€Inc.óó,€677€S.W.2d€4,€10€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1984);€òòCity€of€Murfreesboro€v.€Haynesóó,€18€Tenn.€App.€653,€657,€82€S.W.2d€236,Ï238€(1935).ÌÌà àIn€addition€to€awarding€damages,€the€courts€may€use€injunctive€relief€toÏabate€or€mitigate€the€effects€of€a€nuisance.€€The€courts€may€also,€in€proper€cases,Ïcouple€injunctive€with€monetary€relief.€€òòSee€Pate€v.€City€of€Martinóó,€614€S.W.2dÏat€48.€€Injunctions,€however,€are€drastic€remedies€that€should€be€used€only€if€noÏother€adequate€relief€is€available.€€òòSee€Butts€v.€City€of€South€Fultonóó,€565€S.W.2dÏ879,€882€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1977);€òòÔ_ÔHagamanÔ_Ô€v.€Slaughteróó,€49€Tenn.€App.€at€346„47,Ï354€S.W.2d€at€822.€€They€should€be€used€sparingly€if€the€nuisance€is€beingÏcreated€by€an€otherwise€lawful€activity,€and€they€should€be€limited€to€the€actsÏcausing€the€nuisance.€€òòSee€Ô_ÔSherrodÔ_Ô€v.€Duttonóó,€635€S.W.2d€at€119„121.€€ÌÌà@ àò òIV.ó óÌà@ àòòò òEffect€of€the€September€1981€Orderó óóóÌÌà àBefore€turning€to€the€August€1996€order,€we€must€first€determine€theÏstatus€of€the€September€1981€order.€€The€trackððs€neighbors€assert€that€theÏSeptember€1981€order€that€enjoined€all€racing€at€the€track€is€a€final€order€that€isÏnot€subject€to€later€modification€by€the€parties€or€their€privies.€€While€thisÏargument€is€creative,€it€is€unconvincing.ÌÌà àThe€neighborsðð€res€judicata€argument€contains€two€flaws.€First,€theÏSeptember€1981€order€was€not€the€trial€courtððs€final€order€in€the€earlierÏproceeding.€€The€final€order€was€filed€in€May€1982€in€response€to€Mr.€HoltððsÏmotion€to€amend€the€September€1981€order.€€Second,€permanent€injunctions€mayÏbe€reopened€and€modified€or€dissolved€upon€a€showing€that€there€has€been€aÏmaterial€change€in€circumstances€or€that€the€ends€of€justice€would€be€served€byÏmodifying€or€dissolving€the€injunction.€€òòSee€System€Ô_ÔFedððnÔ_Ô€No.€91,€Ry.€EmployeesÏÔ_ÔDepððtÔ_Ô€v.€Wrightóó,€364€U.S.€642,€647„48,€81€S.€Ct.€368,€371€(1961);€òòBroughton€v.ÏÔ_ÔCignaÔ_Ô€Health€Plansóó,€76€Cal.€Ô_ÔRptrÔ_Ô.€2d€431,€440€(Ct.€App.€1998);€òòShatterproofÍGlass€Corp.€v.€Ô_ÔBuckmasterÔ_Ôóó,€256€So.2d€531,€533€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1972);ÏòòNational€Elec.€Serv.€Corp.€v.€District€50,€United€Mine€Workersóó,€279€S.W.2dÏ808,€812€(Ky.€Ct.€App.€1955);€Restatement€(Second)€of€Judgments€ðð€13,€Ô_ÔcmtÔ_Ô.€cÏ(1982).ÌÌà àBearing€these€principles€in€mind,€we€find€that€the€September€1981€orderÏwas€replaced€by€the€May€1982€order.€€Instead€of€prohibiting€races€of€any€sort,Ïthe€May€1982€order€enjoined€Mr.€Holt€and€his€successors€from€operating€aÏspeedway€ð ðuntil€such€time€as€he€can€and€will€operate€same€where€the€noise€levelÏwill€not€be€a€nuisance€to€the€plaintiffs.ðð€€This€is€the€order€that€has€shaped€theÏpartiesðð€relationship€for€the€past€sixteen€years.€€Thus,€when€the€trackððs€neighborsÏreturned€to€court€in€1988€seeking€a€new€injunction,€they€had€the€initial€burden€toÏdemonstrate€that€Mr.€Luna€proposed€to€conduct€races€at€the€track€and€that€theÏnoise€to€be€generated€by€these€races€would€constitute€a€nuisance.€When€plaintiffsððÏinitial€burden€had€been€satisfied,€Mr.€Luna,€for€his€part,€had€the€burden€ofÏsatisfying€the€trial€court€that€his€planned€method€of€operation€would€not€generateÏnoise€at€nuisance€levels€in€the€surrounding€neighborhood€as€alleged€and€shown€byÏthe€plaintiffs.€€The€factual€issue€was€for€the€court€to€decide.ÌÌà@ àò òV.ó óÌà@ àòòò òThe€August€1996€Orderó óóóÌÌà àWe€come€now€to€the€August€1996€order.€€Mr.€Luna€challenges€the€orderÏon€two€grounds€ð!ð€that€it€was€issued€prematurely€and€that€it€is€Ô_ÔoverbroadÔ_Ô.€€BasedÏon€the€facts€of€this€case,€we€do€not€find€that€the€order€was€premature.€€However,Ïwe€find€that€the€order€does€not€properly€balance€the€competing€interests€of€theÏparties€because€it€is€too€broad€and€because€its€terms€are€too€imprecise.€€ÌÌà@ àò òA.ó óÌÌà àThe€trackððs€neighbors€carried€their€burden€of€going€forward€with€theÏevidence.€€They€proved€that€Mr.€Luna€intended€to€begin€holding€stock€car€racesÏat€the€track.€€The€evidence€showed€that€as€many€as€twenty„four€stock€cars€wouldÏparticipate€in€these€races€at€speeds€of€up€to€130€miles€per€hour,€that€some€of€theseÏraces€would€be€held€at€night,€that€Mr.€Luna€intended€to€construct€a€grandstandÏthat€could€accommodate€15,000€spectators,€and€that€Mr.€Luna€also€intended€toÏinstall€a€loudspeaker€system€at€the€track.€€ÌÌà àThe€neighborsðð€evidence€was€more€than€sufficient€to€support€a€conclusionÏthat€the€race€track€would€generate€a€significant€amount€of€noise.€€Accordingly,Ïthe€burden€shifted€to€Mr.€Luna€to€demonstrate€that€the€noise€generated€by€theÏtrack€would€not€be€excessive€and€would€not€impose€an€unreasonable€level€ofÏdiscomfort€on€the€trackððs€neighbors.€€Rather€than€contesting€the€fact€that€the€trackÏwould€generate€a€significant€amount€of€noise,€Mr.€Luna€presented€evidenceÏconcerning€the€steps€he€planned€to€take€to€reduce€the€noise€and€the€effects€thatÏthese€remedial€steps€would€have€on€reducing€the€noise€in€the€surroundingÏneighborhoods.ÌÌà àMr.€Lunaððs€evidence€failed€to€convince€the€trial€court€that€the€noise€levelsÏat€the€proposed€track€would€not€constitute€a€nuisance.€€In€fact,€based€on€the€proof,Ïthe€trial€court€entered€an€order€more€stringent€than€the€earlier€order.€€While€theÏMay€1982€order€had€simply€enjoined€Mr.€Holt€from€operating€a€track€in€a€wayÏthat€caused€a€nuisance€to€the€neighbors,€the€August€1996€order€enjoined€Mr.€LunaÏfrom€holding€races€of€any€sort€at€the€track.€€ÌÌà@ àò òB.ó óÌÌà àMr.€Luna€first€asserts€that€the€August€1996€order€was€premature€and€thatÏthe€trial€court€should€not€have€considered€the€request€for€injunctive€relief€untilÏafter€he€had€completed€the€renovations€to€the€track.€€He€argues€that€permittingÏhim€to€complete€the€track€would€have€enabled€him€to€provide€the€court€withÏmore€precise€evidence€concerning€the€ambient€noise€levels€in€the€surroundingÏcommunity€while€actual€races€were€being€conducted.€€Even€though€Mr.€LunaÏmight€be€willing€to€make€a€sizeable€financial€gamble€of€completing€costlyÏimprovements€to€the€track€with€no€assurance€that€he€would€be€permitted€to€holdÏraces,€we€decline€to€find€that€the€trial€courtððs€consideration€of€this€issue€wasÏpremature.ÌÌà àThe€courts€may€enjoin€the€creation€of€a€nuisance€before€it€comes€intoÏexistence.€€òòSee€State€ex€rel.€Cunningham€v.€Ô_ÔFeezellÔ_Ôóó,€218€Tenn.€at€22„23,€400ÏS.W.2d€at€718;€òòPierce€v.€Gibson€Countyóó,€107€Tenn.€224,€229,€64€Ô_ÔS.W.Ô_Ô€33,€35Ï(1901).€€However,€anticipatory€injunctions€are€appropriate€only€when€injury€isÏimmanent€and€certain,€òòsee€Butts€v.€City€of€South€Fultonóó,€565€S.W.2d€at€882;ÏòòWallace€v.€Ô_ÔAndersonvilleÔ_Ô€Docks,€Inc.óó,€489€S.W.2d€532,€535€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ï1972),€not€when€there€is€only€a€mere€possibility€or€fear€of€future€injury.€€òòSeeÏState€ex€rel.€Cunningham€v.€Ô_ÔFeezellÔ_Ôóó,€218€Tenn.€at€24,€400€S.W.2d€at€719.€€If€anÏinjury€is€certain,€the€decision€to€grant€an€injunction€does€not€depend€on€the€natureÏor€extent€of€the€injury.€€òòSee€Phillips€v.€Ô_ÔStocketÔ_Ôóó,€1€Tenn.€(1€Overt.)€200,€200Ï(1806)€(White,€J.)€(holding€that€ð ðthere€is€no€distinction€between€smaller€andÏlarger€injuriesðð).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€had€sufficient€evidence€before€it€in€1996€to€determine€thatÏthe€noise€generated€by€the€proposed€track€would€cause€some€adverse€effects€onÏthe€trackððs€neighbors.€€The€trial€court€had€already€found€in€1979€that€the€noiseÍgenerated€by€the€track€ð ðpermeatedðð€the€neighboring€homes.€€Nothing€in€theÏevidence€presented€during€the€July€1996€hearing€indicates€that€the€noise€generatedÏby€the€planned€operations€of€the€track€in€1996€would€be€less€than€the€noiseÏgenerated€by€the€track€twenty„three€years€earlier.€€Even€though€the€extent€of€theÏadverse€effects€on€the€surrounding€neighborhood€is€uncertain,€the€occurrence€ofÏadverse€effects€is€sufficiently€certain€to€warrant€considering€and€granting€someÏform€of€injunctive€relief€before€the€track€opens.ÌÌà@ àò òC.ó óÌÌà àThe€remaining€issue€involves€the€breadth€of€the€August€1996€order.€ÏBecause€holding€stock€car€races€is€a€legal€activity,€the€trial€court€must€limit€theÏinjunction€to€only€those€activities€that€create€the€nuisance,€òòsee€Ô_ÔSherrodÔ_Ô€v.€Duttonóó,Ï635€S.W.2d€at€121,€unless€the€evidence€demonstrates€that€holding€races€at€theÏtrack€will€create€a€nuisance€at€all€times€and€under€all€circumstances.€€òòSee€WallaceÏv.€Ô_ÔAndersonvilleÔ_Ô€Docks,€Inc.óó,€489€S.W.2d€at€535.€€Based€on€our€independentÏreview€of€the€record€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d),€we€have€determinedÏthat€the€evidence€preponderates€against€finding€that€there€are€no€circumstancesÏunder€which€this€track€could€be€operated€that€would€not€cause€a€nuisance.€ÏAccordingly,€an€injunction€preventing€any€racing€at€Mr.€Lunaððs€track€is€notÏwarranted€and€the€August€1996€order€must€be€vacated.ÌÌà àOur€decision€to€vacate€the€August€1996€order€does€not€leave€Mr.€Luna€toÏconduct€stock€car€races€as€he€pleases.€€To€the€contrary,€vacating€the€August€1996Ïorder€has€the€legal€effect€of€reinstating€the€May€1982€order€that€enjoins€the€trackÏoperators€from€operating€the€track€ð ðuntil€such€time€as€.€.€.€[they]€can€and€willÏoperate€same€where€the€noise€level€will€not€be€a€nuisance€to€the€plaintiffs.ðð€€Thus,ÍMr.€Luna,€as€Mr.€Holtððs€successor,€remains€enjoined€from€operating€the€track€inÏa€way€that€causes€a€nuisance€to€the€trackððs€neighbors.ÌÌà àEnding€our€discussion€here€would€leave€the€parties€no€better€off€than€theyÏhave€been€since€1979€because€they€still€lack€objective€standards€for€determiningÏwhether€or€not€the€noise€from€the€track€constitutes€a€nuisance.€€Even€though€theÏtrial€court€concluded€in€1981€that€a€noise€level€of€81€decibels€was€a€nuisance,€thisÏstandard€is€inadequate€because€it€fails€to€indicate€over€what€period€of€time€theÏnoise€level€should€be€averaged€or€the€time€of€day€when€this€noise€level€would€be€aÏnuisance.€€Other€courts€have€been€successful€in€fashioning€precise€noise€standardsÏin€cases€similar€to€this€one.€€Sòòee€Sherrod€v.€Duttonóó,€635€S.W.2d€at€120€n.3.€ÏLikewise,€many€local€governments€and€at€least€one€federal€agency€haveÏestablished€noise€control€regulations€containing€prescriptions€for€appropriateÏsound€levels€for€particular€environments€and€particular€times€of€day.× ƒG ××  ×€€ÌÌà àThe€dispute€surrounding€the€operation€of€this€track€has€been€in€and€out€ofÏcourt€for€the€past€twenty€years€and€requires€a€definitive€closure.€€The€parties€areÏentitled€to€a€definitive€ruling€either€that€operating€a€track€on€Old€Ô_ÔBoonshillÔ_Ô€RoadÏis€a€nuisance€per€se€that€will€not€be€allowed€under€any€circumstances€or€that€aÏrace€track€may€be€operated€on€Old€Ô_ÔBoonshillÔ_Ô€Road€as€long€as€it€meets€objective,Ïwell„defined€noise€levels€suitable€for€the€locality€and€the€character€of€theÏsurrounding€neighborhood€as€well€as€the€time€of€day€when€the€races€will€beÏconducted.€€Therefore,€€we€remand€this€case€to€permit€the€parties€to€presentÏevidence€that€will€enable€the€trial€court€to€decide,€once€and€for€all,€whether€aÏtrack€may€be€operated€on€Old€Ô_ÔBoonshillÔ_Ô€Road€and,€if€it€may€be€operated,€theÏconditions€for€its€operation.ÌÌà@ àò òVI.ó óÌÌà àWe€vacate€the€order€entered€on€August€13,€1996€and€remand€this€case€toÏthe€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€We€tax€theÏcosts€of€this€appeal€in€equal€proportions€to€Frank€Luna€and€his€surety€and,€jointlyÏand€severally,€to€all€plaintiffs€for€which€execution,€if€necessary,€may€issue.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌ__________________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€œJUDGE›