affirmed

Defendants sought to replace an existing billboard on their property in a residential neighborhood. Plaintiffs, who live nearby defendant, brought suit requesting injunctive relief to enjoin defendant from keeping the new billboard in place. The plaintiffs alleged that the new billboard did not meet the requirements of G. L. c. 93 and 711 Code Mass. Regs. § 3.00 et seq. (2010) and that the new billboard was different from the old billboard because, among other things, it was lit with light-emitting diode (LED) lamps hidden and mounted at the bottom of the billboard’s catwalk, as opposed to the prior sign’s floodlights. The trial court judge credited the defendants’ evidence that the new billboard's LED lighting minimized “backwash lighting,” or “light trespass.”

Plaintiff residents of Philadelphia objected to the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) granting a variance to permit the Applicant, the Franklin Institute, to change its sign from vinyl to digital. The Franklin Institute had informed the ZBA it would agree to, among other things, reduce the sign’s brightness and equip the sign with automatic dimming control, which adjusts the sign’s light levels to changing conditions.

Proposition L was a ballot initiative that passed which prohibited the construction of additional billboards within Pomona city limits. Plaintiff, a non-profit composed of Pomona city residents formed to advocate for the enforcement of Proposition L, brought suit against the city of Pomona for entering into an extended agreement with Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (Regency) to allow Regency to erect advertising billboards alongside several Pomona freeways. Issues discussed at city council meetings regarding the extended agreement with Regency included "the locations of billboards in the City, types of digital signs, light emissions, and the possibility of negotiating the removal of the three additional signs."

A group of Ridgeland residents challenged the legality of an ordinance issued by the City of Ridgeland to allow developers to construct a thirteen-story office building near them. The residents' concerns about the construction of the commerical development included ingress and egress access issues, depreciation of home values, the height of the building, and after-dark light pollution. The City of Ridgeland argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the ordinance.

The Board of County Commissioners approved a special use permit for Black Forest Mission, LLC (BFM) to build a greenhouse or set of them in the Black Forest preservation area. Some residents initially objected to BFM's plan for the building of the greenhouse because of concerns related to light pollution, obstruction of views, and traffic congestion, however, BFM revised its plan to address these concerns and resubmitted its plan to the Board of County Comissioners. The plaintiff, Friends of Black Forest Preservation Plan, Inc., objected to the Board of County Comissioners approving BFM's updated plan by arguing it was inconsistent with the Master Plan for the preservation area.

Township Board's and trial court's decisions allowed for the construction of a gas compressor station adjacent to landowners' farm. Landowners appealed on the basis that evidence that the station will negatively affect public health and welfare was not considered and that they were denied the opportunity to present additional evidence. The township's conditions for the gas compressor station already required the station to minimize nighttime lighting.

City Commission approved developer's subdivision preliminary plat. Neighbors filed complaints alleging the developer's environmental assessment inadequately addressed potential increased traffic, decreased water quality, flooding, and light pollution. District Court found the approval of the plat unlawful for failure to address groundwater and surface pollution concerns. Developer appealed.

City approved plans for a 37-lot subdivision. Nearby residents and a neighborhood association opposed the subdivision due to incompatibility with the City's growth policy, ecological concerns, traffic, and light pollution; they then petitioned for judicial review. District Court found City's decisions to be arbitrary and capricious. City and developer appealed.

A proposed interstate natural gas pipeline project would impact exceptional-value wetlands. The State found the project to be water dependent and the least environmentally damaging option. An environmental organization filed a petition for review.

City sought land through eminent domain to expand a water treatment plant. Property owner objected due to the impact on access to her property and because the part of the land to be used as a buffer would be taken in fee simple interest. Moreover, the plaintiff property owner had requested a deeper buffer than the city proposed to build in order "to preserve the land's appearance from the road and to minimize light pollution from the facility."