"The court then must consider whether seepage of second hand smoke or its smell constitutes a nuisance which is a source of annoyance or interferes with the peaceful possession of the property. If so, the court must additionally consider whether the remedy of banning all smoking on the Property was done reasonably and in good faith, and was not otherwise violative of any legal rights. The term "nuisance" is not defined in the Declaration. Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990) defines "nuisance" as "that activity which arises from unreasonable, unwarranted or unlawful use by a person of his own property, working obstruction or injury to right of another, or to the public, and producing such material annoyance, inconvenience and discomfort that law will presume resulting damage." See State ex rel. Herman v. Cardon, 530 P.2d 1115, 1118 n.1 (Ariz. App.1975). Also, "[t]hat which annoys and disturbs one in possession of his property, rendering its ordinary use or occupation physically uncomfortable to him; e.g. smoke, odors, noise, or vibration." Patton v. Westwood Country Club Co., 247 NE2d 761,763 (Ohio App. 1969). In this case, complaints were made about smoke or the smell of smoke migrating from Unit 2 into adjoining units at the very first homeowner's meeting. Despite plaintiffs' contentions that this action was taken simply to appease one tenant, testimony by several witnesses supports the fact that smoke smell seepage was a longstanding problem. The issue of whether there was actual smoke or simply a smoke smell is irrelevant. Testimony substantiated an almost constant smell of cigarette smoke which was the source of complaint by multiple tenants. Clearly, the smoke smell constitutes a nuisance under these circumstances."