and everyone are of a few simple interest to a lot with the new fairfield is a member of that homeowners association covenants or restrictions were recorded in will county in two thousand for the purpose of new fairfield residential single family home development section three point one of the decorations declarations states and relevant are then the last show me use only for single family dwellings section three twelve states that the restriction in three point one shall not or be construed in a manner to prohibit an order from basically maintaining personal business or arm and public business within his or her unit for example maintaining his or her professional library there in keeping his or her personal business records or accounts handling the personal or professional postpone calls or correspondence there from in the garage with the garage or shop such uses are especially declared customary insident principal residential use and not a violation of that said saxon whole section three point three but not to frequent the property the right to me a business but only customers coming to my doorstep every day i meet a little try to clean i may do it in writing there is a number of different ways that i can operate a business without having the public come to m values provide for a quiet neighborhood and sue all allow people to conduct business with in their home but not the business where the public is coming in and out of there so the vision in the question that we have just been because if people were concerned and upset about that that's not relevant to whether or not they finally did the intent of the government  obvious purpose of the restriction or the clear intent of the parties in that's also forced one and then see obvious and clear i think so right if you rebuilds two more in conjunction section three twelve and three you know additionally you know the we never got the chance to even get testimony from the developer we never got the opportunity to do  present the contradictory facts and it that's why i don't think summary judgment is appropriate i don't know if the court would allow it that's my opinion i think the court thinks it isn't us so i think the ball will probably allow the developers intent to be his testimony be allowed i think the section three quarter three thirteen very clear and i think the definition of what is very clear and i don't think no matter what definition of frequent you use i think both the rams are mat in this situation that would preclude them from operating the business i think whether it's frequent regularly attending well whether it's frequently multiple times i think both of those comply companies that were in place it in this particular case that they were overly restrictive to being welsh on the property rights or the free use of the property and if there is an interpretation there it was typically five or six in that half of them came from the subdivision so all and again and i think the trucker was correct that this is not the same situation of somebody  it's to maintain the sequel family residential association it's not operate daycare for the public is coming in now and they try to minimize the normal birders but at the sale type company i rethink beds probably an accountant who's doing tax preparation and hold but has an office somewhere else is a while where the public is not coming to his house they have the