reversed in part

Solar Soccer Club v. Prince of Peace Lutheran Church of Carrollton

Full Case Name
SOLAR SOCCER CLUB, Appellant and Cross-Appellee v. PRINCE OF PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH OF CARROLLTON, Texas, Appellee and Cross-Appellant
Description

The Court affirmed the trial court ruling that there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded defendant breached the use clause of the leasing contract it had with plaintiff to build soceer fields on plaintiff's property by its over-illumination of the field lights, which caused light trespass and glare.

Date
09-19-2007
Court
Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Texas
Defendants
Incident Location
Dallas, TX
Disputed Act

Plaintiff church (Prince of Peace) leased part of its land to defendant Solar Socceer Club (Solar) to build soccer fields on Prince of Peace's undeveloped property. In the contract, the parties agreed Solar would use the fields primarily on evenings and weekends, while Prince of Peace would use the fields during the school day for the students in its school. Prince of Peace filed suit against Solar for breach of contract with regard to four provisions, including whether use of the field lights "exceeded the City of Carrollton's standards for light trespass and glare, by as much as six to twelve times the maximum in some locations."

Holding
The Court affirmed the trial court ruling that there was evidence from which the jury could have concluded defendant breached the use clause of the leasing contract it had with plaintiff to build soceer fields on plaintiff's property by its over-illumination of the field lights.

CBS Outdoor v. Lebanon Plan. Bd.

Full Case Name
CBS OUTDOOR, INC., PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BOROUGH OF LEBANON PLANNING BOARD/BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Description

The Borough of Lebanon Planning Board/Board of Adjustment (the Board) denied plaintiff company's application for conditional use variances to the zoning code for off-premises billboard signs "illuminated by five 400-watt lamps mounted at the bottom, facing upwards, located three feet below the face of the sign and six feet away from it." The Court reversed the trial court's decision in favor of plaintiff because it found the trial court did not provide sufficient deference to the Board's finding that light spillover was a justifiable concern and that the plaintiff's illumination compliance with the zoning code was imperfect.

Date
07-22-2010
Court
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction
New Jersey
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Hunterdon, NJ
Disputed Act

The Borough of Lebanon Planning Board/Board of Adjustment (the Board) denied plaintiff company's application for conditional use variances to the zoning code for off-premises billboard signs "illuminated by five 400-watt lamps mounted at the bottom, facing upwards, located three feet below the face of the sign and six feet away from it." The Board's denial was "because of the significant amount of light spillover along the edges of the sign face." The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff, finding the Board had conducted an improper denial of the variances.

Holding
The Court reversed the trial court's decision in favor of plaintiff becuase it found the trial court did not provide sufficient deference to the Borough of Lebanon Planning Board/Board of Adjustment's finding that light spillover was a justifiable concern and that the plaintiff's illumination compliance was imperfect.

Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School District

Full Case Name
TAXPAYERS FOR ACCOUNTABLE SCHOOL BOND SPENDING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent
Description

The Court found no substantial evidence that the School District's proposed field lighting would have a significant effect on the environment due to the limited hours of operation, limited evening events, and low number of residences impacted in excess of 0.8 foot-candles. The Court also found that the lighting would not substantially impact the historic aesthetic of the neighborhood.

Date
03-26-2013
Court
Court of Appeal of the State of California
Jurisdiction
California
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
San Diego, CA
Disputed Act

Organization of school spending activists objected to the installation of high school stadium field lighting and other renovations on grounds of waste of funds, violation of zoning laws, and environmental concerns (including light trespass, glare, and sleep disruption). A consultant group stated that the sky glow and glare caused by the project would have a less than significant impact. Trial Court ruled in favor of the school district.

Holding
The Court found no substantial evidence that the School District's proposed field lighting would have a significant effect on the environment due to the limited hours of operation, limited evening events, and low number of residences impacted in excess of 0.8 foot-candles. The Court also found that the lighting would not substantially impact the historic aesthetic of the neighborhood.

RUTHERFORD MANAGEMENT CORP. v. TOWN OF COLUMBUS

Full Case Name
RUTHERFORD MANAGEMENT CORP., Plaintiff, v. TOWN OF COLUMBUS, Defendant.
Description

The Court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiff's illuminated sign does not violate the Town's ordinance because "the mere fact that the LEDs necessarily flash or move at the moment the sign is changing its advertising copy cannot be considered a violation of the other provisions of the ordinance" which prohibit flashing lights on signs. The Court reversed the trial court's order "to the extent it directs the Town to issue a permit for the sign without any limitations" and remanded the matter to the trial court.

Date
01-04-2005
Court
North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Polk County, NC
Disputed Act

The plaintiff company failed to obtain a permit from the Town of Columbus prior to installing a new sign for its McDonald's Restaurant. The Township sent the company a Notice of Violation because it's sign violated the Town's sign ordinance by using "flashing and intermittent lights to display its messages."

Holding
The Court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that the plaintiff's illuminated sign does not violate the Town's ordinance because "the mere fact that the LEDs necessarily flash or move at the moment the sign is changing its advertising copy cannot be considered a violation of the other provisions of the ordinance" that prohibit flashing lights. The Court reversed the trial court's order "to the extent it directs the Town to issue a permit for the sign without any limitations" and remanded the matter to allow the trial court to decide which features of the sign should be precluded as a condition of plaintiff obtaining a permit.

Haaf v. Zoning Hearing Board

Full Case Name
Ralph D. HAAF, John J. Angelino and Diane M. Angelino, Robert C. Rupp, George D. Haaf, II, and Tamilee Haaf, and David Musselman v. The ZONING HEARING BOARD OF the TOWNSHIP OF WEISENBERG. Appeal of ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, LTD., Appellant
Description

The Court reversed the the trial court's order denying plaintiff's appeal from the Zoning Hearing Board's decision to revoke plaintiff's building permit for its billboard, finding that the objectors' appeal from the issuance of the building permit for the plaintiff's sign was untimely filed. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that plaintiff waived its right to pursue a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Zoning Ordinance when plaintiff entered into a compromise agreement with the Zoning Hearing Board regarding the billboard's lighting restrictions, position, height, size and number of advertising faces.

Date
05-21-1993
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Lehigh County, PA
Disputed Act

The plaintiff company, Adams Outdoor Advertising, Ltd. (Adams), filed an application with the Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Weisenberg (the Board) for a building permit to erect an off-premises advertising sign. The Board denied Adams' application because it was in violation of the Zoning Ordinance in terms of both its height and off-premises status. After Adams appealed to the Board, the Board granted Adams a variance for the sign and the Board issued Adams a permit, which limited the time period for illumination of the lights on the sign from between 6pm to 11pm. Upon objectors filing an appeal to the Board's permit, challenging the sign's height, the Board then revoked the permit for Adams' sign, and Adams appealed the Board's decision.

Holding
The Court reversed the the trial court's order denying plaintiff's appeal from the Zoning Hearing Board's decision to revoke plaintiff's building permit for its billboard, finding that the objectors' appeal from the issuance of the building permit for the plaintiff's sign was untimely filed. The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that plaintiff waived its right to pursue a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Zoning Ordinance when plaintiff entered into a compromise agreement with the Zoning Hearing Board regarding the billboard's lighting restrictions, position, height, size and number of advertising faces.

Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment

Full Case Name
SCENIC ARIZONA, an Arizona corporation; Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix, an Arizona corporation, Plaintiffs/Appellants/Cross-Appellees, v. CITY OF PHOENIX BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, a municipal agency, Defendant/Appellee, American Outdoor Advertising, Inc., an Arizona corporation, Defendant/Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Description

The Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case. The Court reversed the lower court's holding that the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment (the Board) "did not act in excess of its authority." The Court reversed on the merits because it found that the billboard approved by the Board violated the Arizona Highway Beautification Act due its intermittent lighting.

Date
11-17-2011
Court
Arizona Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Arizona
Defendants
Incident Location
Phoenix, AZ
Disputed Act

The City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment ("Board") granted a use permit to American Outdoor Advertising, Inc. ("American Outdoor") to operate an electronic billboard adjacent to Interstate 17. Plaintiff non-profits brought suit to enjoin the electronic billboard, alleging the billboard would violate Arizona Revised Statutes ("A.R.S.") section 28-7903 (1998),[3] a provision of the Arizona Highway Beautification Act ("AHBA"), in part due to its intermittent lighting.

Holding
The Court affirmed the lower court's decision that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the case. The Court reversed the lower court's holding that the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment (the Board) "did not act in excess of its authority." The Court reversed on the merits because it found that the billboard approved by the Board violated the Arizona Highway Beautification Act due its intermittent lighting.

Bitterrooters for Planning, Inc. v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Full Case Name
BITTERROOTERS FOR PLANNING, INC., and BITTERROOT RIVER PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC. Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, an agency of the State of Montana, Defendant and Appellant, STEPHEN WANDERER and GEORGIA FILCHER, Defendants, Intervenors and Appellants
Description

The Court found that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act because it only considered the environmental impacts to water quality of the construction and operation of the wastewater discharging permit issued to the facility.

Date
09-05-2017
Court
Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Montana
Defendants
Incident Location
Ravalli County, Montana
Disputed Act

The plaintiffs alleged that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's wastewater discharge permitting process for an unnamed retail store facility violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) because it did not consider the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the facility other than water quality. Public comments organized by the Department of Environmental Quality included light pollution, noise pollution, and soil pollution, as well as others.

Holding
The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reversed the District Court's summary judgment that Montana Department of Environmental Quality violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act because it did not consider the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the facility other than water quality. The Court affirmed the District Court's summary judgment that the Department of Environmental Quality must identify and disclose the actual contemplated owner or operator of the retail store facility whose wasterwater discharge permitting was issued by the Department.

Irshad Learning Center v. County of DuPage

Full Case Name
IRSHAD LEARNING CENTER, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF DUPAGE, Defendant
Description

Institution purchased property to build a structure for religious and educational activities. Neighbors objected based on noise and light pollution concerns. Institution alleged religious discrimination after County denied the permit. Institution and County both moved for summary judgment. Court found no evidence to support a denial based on impact on adjacent properties. Court also found no evidence that permit was denied on religious grounds; however, the denial substantially burdened the plaintiff's religious exercise. Court found that the denial was arbitrary.

Date
03-29-2013
Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Jurisdiction
United States
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
DuPage County, IL
Disputed Act

Religious and educational institution purchased property with the intent to build a structure at which to conduct its regular activities. Neighbors objected based on noise and light pollution concerns. Institution alleged religious discrimination after County denied the conditional use permit for the property. Institution and County both moved for summary judgment.

Holding
The Court found there is no evidence to support a denial based on impact on adequate supply of light or air to adjacent properties. The Court also found no evidence that the permit was denied on religious grounds; however, the denial substantially burdened the plaintiff's religious exercise. Finally, the Court found that the denial was arbitrary because it did not comply with relevant zoning criteria.

City of Airway Heights v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

Full Case Name
The City of Airway Heights, Respondent, v. The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, Defendant, Spokane County et al., Appellants, Brigitta Archer, Respondent; Brigitta Archer, Respondent, v. The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, Defendant, Spokane County et al., Appellants
Description

The Court affirmed the conclusion of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board (GMHB) that Airway Height's ordinances allowing residential development near the city's airforce base violated Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA). The court adopted the GMHB’s definition of “incompatible development” as a “development that is incompatible with a military installation's ability to carry out its current or future missions.”

Date
04-12-2016
Court
Washington Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Washington
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Airway Heights, Washington
Disputed Act

The 2009 Fairchild Air Force Base Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) was a voluntary collaborative planning effort between local communities, federal officials, residents, business owners, and the military. The JLUS identified residential development near military airport bases as concerning because it brought objections from residents about safety, noise, and light pollution, which endangered the long term viability of the military airport bases. Washington State also had passed a statute, Washington State's Growth
Management Act, which aligns with the conclusions of the JLUS study. The City of Airway Heights adopted ordinances to approve residential development near the local Airforce Base. The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board invalidated the ordinances because it found they violated the Washington State's Growth Management Act.

Holding
The Court affirmed the conclusion of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board (GMHB) that Airway Height's ordinances allowing residential development near the airforce base violated Washington State's Growth Management Act. However, the Court reversed the lower court's agreement with some of the findings of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board. Since the Court affirmed one of the three reasons on which the GMHB invalidated the challenged ordinances, the Court concluded that it also affirmed the result of GMHB' s decision and order invalidating the City's ordinances.

Texas Department of Transportation v. City of Sunset Valley

Full Case Name
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Michael W. Behrens, Robert L. Nichols, John W. Johnson, and Ric Williamson, Appellants, v. CITY OF SUNSET VALLEY, Terrance R. Cowan, and Donald Hurwitz, Appellees
Date
08-30-2002
Court
Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Texas
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Sunset Valley, TX
Disputed Act

City and city officials filed action against Texas Dept. of Transportation (TxDOT) concerning highway expansion. District Court awarded city damages and fees; declared TxDOT violated administrative regulations regarding noise and lighting, enjoined private nuisance, and enjoined equal protection violations from use of flood lights and failure to erect city limit signs.

Holding
Declaratory judgement that TxDOT and officials violated environmental regulations relating to noise and lighting from highway expansion was not warranted; Nuisance claims against TxDOT for use of high mast floodlights were not barred by sovereign immunity.