affirmed

The individual plaintiff resided next to a property where the defendant had built a service station. The plaintiff alleged that headlights from the automobiles using the service station at night shined into his windows, which disturbed his sleep.

Melville Shoe Corp. maintainted a row of nitrogen lights in its building that were turned on at night, shining into the bedroom windows of the neighboring property, which disturbed the sleep of the the owners.

The defendant, the Zoning Board of adjustment (ZBA) of the Town of Conway, denied a permit application for an internally lit sign to plaintiff Asselin because it was in violation of the town's ordinance which banned signs “illuminated from within." The trial court found the sign illumination provision valid and upheld the ZBA’s decision. In this consolidated case, another plaintiff, Cardiff & Company (Cardiff), also objected to the town's ordinance and was enjoined by the town from using his internally illuminated sign. The trial court issued a temporary injunction enforcing the ordinance’s regulation of Cardiff’s sign.

Upon remand of Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson, 193 Ariz. 314, the trial court found that plaintiff had failed to establish its substantive due process or equal protection rights were violated by the City of Tucson's Outdoor Lighting Code provision, which banned light fixtures mounted on the bottom of existing billboards.

Residential neighbors challenged zoning ordinance which allowed oil and gas operations and permit issued for a gas well nearby pursuant to the ordinance. Some of the objections of the neighbors were that the zoning ordinance did not adeuately protect the local water supply, limit noise, or reduce light pollution.

Loyola College purchased a property in the Resource Conservation zone, which has the purpose "to foster conditions favorable to a continued agricultural use of the productive agricultural areas of Baltimore County by preventing incompatible forms and degrees of urban uses." The County granted Loyola College a special exception to build a retreat center on this property. Residents filed a suit against Loyola College, objecting to its proposed use of property in that zone. At the trial court, Loyola College presented evidence that there would be minimal impact from their use of the property and that outdoor lighting at the Retreat Center would be "dark skies compliant."

Defendant companies has leasehold rights to develop oil and gas underlying various properties in Harrison County, including surface properties that are owned or resided on by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs brought suit because they alleged that the defendants' development of the shale had caused them to lose "the use and enjoyment" of their properties due to "excessive heavy equipment and truck traffic, diesel fumes and other emissions from the trucks, gas fumes and odors, vibrations, noise, lights, and dust."

The City of Chula Vista formulated a development plan for its bayfront. The California Coastal Commission found the City's plan to be in conflict with the California Coastal Act, which required local governments within coastal zones to develop plans that would protect coastal resource areas. Specifically, the California Coastal Commission found that excessive light pollution from the city's proposed development would adversely impact native species in the costal zone.

Plaintiff company sought to develop a tract it owned which bordered a local creek. The City's Board of Adjustment denied the development because it determined that it was located in a "Conservation Overlay District" and subject to certain "performance controls" intended to protect important environmental resources within the city. After plaintiff filed an appeal of the Board's decision in court, adjacent property owners filed for intervention claiming that the development would result in increase traffic, light pollution, noise, and loss of value to their properties. Plaintiff objected that the intervenors lacked standing.

A landowner applied to the Dane County Board of Adjustment (BOA) for a conditional use permit in the A-1 Agriculture District Exclusive under the Dane County Zoning Ordinance to build a radio station tower for the University of Wisconsin-Madison's use. The Town of Montrose and individuals within the town appealed to the BOA that the proposed tower was not government use and alleging that it would be not in keeping with the statutory requirements for A-1 Exclusive Districts because of its size, obtrusiveness, lights, and other features. The BOA determined that a tower for a University of Wisconsin-Madison student-run radio station was not "governmental use" because the testimony failed to show that operation of such a radio station by the University of Wisconsin "is an integral part of its educational mission."