(the defendants built a fabric building adjacent to the plaintiffs' property for use as an indoor horse riding arena; plaintiffs filed a complaint against defendants, alleging that the building was a public and private nuisance; the trial court ordered defendants to remove the building, finding that defendants’ course of conduct unreasonably interfered with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their property and constituted a private nuisance; on appeal, the court vacated the trial court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings; the court found that the trial court abused its discretion by requiring defendants to remove the building; an adjoining landowner did not have a right under nuisance law to prohibit the erection of structures on adjoining property that he or she considered not to be aesthetically pleasing; the lawfully constructed building did not, based on its size or proximity, constitute a nuisance; on remand, the trial court was to consider the allegations of noise, dust, lights, and odors, and fashion any reasonable restrictions necessary to limit interference with the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of their property based upon those factors; the trial court properly found that the state (ID) Right to Farm Act did not apply because the case did not involve a change in the character of the surroundings).