Empowered with the warrant to search the home Burbank shares with her daughter and 95-year-old aunt, Myrtle Woodward, the town officials were indeed afraid the women were washing dishes. Their warrant, issued through Hampton District Court, authorized a search for evidence of an illegal apartment in the women’s single-family home.

"There had been gossip that I’d put a kitchen sink in," said Burbank. "I knew what they were there for. They were searching for a sink."

As a result of that search, during which Burbank said there was no evidence of anything illegal, Hampton Building Inspector Kevin Schultz filed legal action against the women for zoning violations.

The action, filed Dec. 13 in Rockingham County Superior Court, asks a judge to order the women to demolish everything not approved by the town, prohibit further construction, and pay the town’s costs and attorney’s fees. It also asks that the town be reimbursed for time the building department spent on the case and that the women be fined $275 per day, for every day since Feb. 27, 2003, when they allegedly violated their permit.

Burbank estimates the cost of the civil penalties alone to be $185,075, as of Thursday.

"My aunt will be 96 in February, and she loves this old house. I promised not to put her in a nursing home, and my daughter lives here, too, but is allergic to my aunt’s long-haired cats," said Burbank, explaining why they wanted to build a separate apartment for her daughter. "Now I have to spend the money to fight them. I have no choice."

"I really can‘t comment because the case is pending," said Schultz. "I don’t want to jeopardize the case."

The building inspector’s lawsuit, naming Barbara Burbank and Woodward as defendants, is dated Dec. 13 and details the town’s involvement with the women’s home construction dating back to April 25, 2002. That’s the day they first applied to the Hampton Zoning Board for a variance to convert the space above their garage at 292 Winnacunnet Road into an "apartment for daughter."

The variance was denied following a June 20, 2002, public hearing, as was an August 2002 motion for a rehearing, primarily because two-family dwellings are prohibited under the Hampton Zoning Ordinance. The women’s request was not pursued through Superior Court, the next legal step in an appeal process, according to Schultz’s lawsuit.

In the meantime, the women applied for and received a variance to convert the space above their garage into "a large recreational room with smaller loft and bathroom above, two rooms total plus bathroom."

According to Schultz’s suit, three months later, the homeowners’ attorney sent a letter to him saying they intended to comply with zoning regulations by keeping the property as a single residence.

But during three subsequent inspections, representatives from the Hampton Building Department reportedly observed electrical outlets and wiring they believed were indicative of a kitchen set-up for an apartment, court documents indicate. Those inspections took place just before Burbank’s daughter’s ex-boyfriend wrote a damning letter to town officials about the alleged plan to build an apartment.

On Nov. 10, 2004, the building department received a written complaint from the Portsmouth man who claimed to have "stayed in this addition with the daughter and had concerns about the safety of the bedroom set-up above the garage due to there being no secondary means of egress in case of emergency."

With that information, Schultz was able to obtain the administrative inspection warrant necessary to search the property, and did so Nov. 19 in the company of a Hampton police officer and an assistant building inspector.

During the search, they reported finding a two-bedroom apartment, a kitchen and a laundry area. The findings also confirmed there was no second means of exit, windows that don’t meet requirements for means of escape, and construction lacking the required fire separations between the apartment and the garage below.

Schultz declared the apartment unsafe for human occupancy, posted the home as such and declared it "unlawful for any person to use or occupy this structure."

Burbank said there were not two bedrooms, but some walls erected for future plans. There was a stovetop, she said, but no gas lines connecting to it. And, she said, there was no sink hookup.

As for the reported lack of second egress, Burbank said the town required her to replace a smaller window with a larger one, specifically to address that point, and she complied. And while there is a washing machine stored in the space, said Burbank, it is not connected to any plumbing, something she said Schultz observed when he crawled under the building during his inspection.

"I’m sure he was very disappointed. It’s exactly the same as the last day they inspected it, except we moved some furniture," she said. "He lied about calling that a laundry room. And I never dreamed he would leave here and say we had a full kitchen."

While he would not comment about the Burbank case specifically, Schultz said, generally speaking, the town of Hampton discovers illegal apartments in single-family homes through several means.

One is when the Police or Fire departments respond to an emergency call to an address known to be a single-family home, but then observe a separate apartment and report it to the Building Department. Abutters also often see evidence of illegal apartment construction or residence and report it.

"We’ll follow up and, presto, how’d this get here?" said Schultz. "Occasionally we run into situations where people take out building permits and go a little beyond what they were permitted to do. But we’re not here just to shut everything down. We try to work with people, to help people."

Schultz is scheduled to face Burbank and Woodward at 10 a.m. on Jan. 25 in Rockingham Superior Court.

"Here we are, three quiet generations. It’s very frustrating," said Burbank. "I don’t know why the town is doing it."