enterprise in such proximity to the Plaintiffs’ property as to affect the Plaintiffs’ use and enjoyment and fair market value of their property. 15. The decision of the Commission to approve the Application was illegal, arbitrary and an abuse of its discretion in one or more of the following ways: (@) The proposed development does not conform to the Regulations’ definition of “Home Occupation” in violation of Section 2.1.26 of the Regulations; (6) The proposed development constitutes an expansion of a prior nonconforming use of the subject property in violation of Section 20.2.1 (a) of the Regulations; (©) The proposed development will change the residential character of the dwelling in a visible manner in violation of Section 15.15.2 of the Regulations; (@ The proposed development will create objectionable noise, odor, vibrations, waste or unsightly conditions noticeable off the premises in violation of Section 15.15.3 of the Regulations; (©) The proposed development will utilize equipment not customarily incidental to residential occupancy in violation of Section 15.15.5 of the Regulations; (©) The proposed development will include items related to the development that will be visible off the premises in violation of Section 15.15.7 of the Regulations; (g) The proposed development improperly comingles single-family dwellings and commercial uses in an area zoned R-80, Rural Zone, in violation of the Regulations; 7