vacated

The Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trumball (Commission) denied the special permit of a private school for the installation of four light poles, seventy feet in height, to illuminate its primary athletic field, after considering concerns from resident neighbors of the private school that allowing the lights would adversely affect the "use and enjoyment" of their properties. The Court vacated the lower court's decision which had allowed the private school's case against the Commission because "a zoning commission has discretion to determine whether a proposal satisfies the requirements for a special permit."

The Court found the testimonial evidence of the residents from the other municipality about the effects of the company's construction site in their municipality to be "relevant and probative" to the municipality in this case denying the same company a conditional use permit for a construction site. Part of the residents' concerns from the other municipality was about bright lights and light pollution coming from the company's construction site.

Individuals applied for a permit for a bed and breakfast. City Planning Commission approved the permit in spite of neighbors' concerns. The permit was later denied by City Council; the denial was reversed by the district court. Court found City Council did not issue sufficient findings supporting its denial of the permit, and that the district court should have permitted Council to craft new findings of fact and conclusions of law capable of appellate review.

The Court vacated the Administration Commission decision, finding that reliance in part on neighboring landowner's layperson testimony regarding potential increase of traffic, litter, noise, and light pollution coming from the Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground was not considered substantial evidence. The Court also found that the County's ordinance amending the zoning plan did not make the zoning plan "internally inconsistent." The Court remanded the case to the Administration Commission for reinstatement of the ordinance allowing the Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground as an amended part of the County's zoning plan.

The Court vacated the lower court decision dismissing the plaintiffs' claim that the City's Board of Standards and Appeals had no proper basis for a variance of its Zone Resolution regulating illuminated roof signs. The City's variance would have allowed a store to erect on the roofs of its premises an illuminated sign which would have been one hundred feet long and twelve feet high. The Court found that the "permitted use of glaringly bright electric lights would be so annoying to occupants of adjacent properties used exclusively for residential purposes as practically to constitute a nuisance to them; it would also affect adversely the value of property in this residental district."

The Court held that Long Hill Township’s ordinance prohibiting neon commerical signs was an impermissible restriction on commercial advertising because there was no evidence of a "nexus between the aesthetics purposes and a total ban of neon." The Court vacated the lower court's decision finding the ordinance constitutional and also vacated defendants' convictions for violating the Township's ordinance.

Landowners brought action against the City for nuisance caused by lighting system at a nearby city park. Trial court dismissed landowners' petition. Court of Appeals held that landowners were entitled to amend their petition to plead claim of inverse condemnation on remand.

City of Tucson outdoor lighting code prohibited bottom-mounted lighting on billboards. Whiteco Outdoor Advertising sought to enjoin city from enforcing lighting code against their existing billboards. The Court held that the City's charter provides general police power to regulate billboard lighting.