individual

Plaintiff filed a suit against defendant company, alleging its drilling and gas exploration activities constituted a private nuisance because it interfered with the use and enjoyment of her private property. Part of plaintiff's nuisance claim is about construction lights placed near her home, which she testified at trial ran twenty-four hours a day and prevented her from sleeping.

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."

Palmer Township Board of Supervisor (Board) enacted a zoning ordinance to allow digital advertising signs and billboard. The Board then later amended the number of hours the digital billboards could be illuminated, from 17 to 24 horus a day without providing notice. Plaintiff residents of the Township filed a "land use appeal" with the trial court, arguing that the Board's amended hours for digital sign illumination represented a "substantial amendment" to the ordinance which required additional notice requirements. The trial court had found the plaintiffs' "use and enjoyment" of their property had been impacted by the erection of a digital billboard near them as it illuminated their bedrooms at night which interfered with their ability to sleep. However, the trial court found held that the illumination hours change to the ordinance was not substantial and so the Township was not required to advertise a summary of the change.

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."

Individuals applied for a permit for a bed and breakfast on their property in a residential neighborhood. The City Planning Commission approved the permit subject to conditions in spite of neighbors' concerns over the impact on the neighborhood. The permit was later denied by the City Council; the denial was reversed by the district court.

Company applied to lease land from individuals for the purpose of building and operating a natural gas well. The township Board of Supervisors granted the conditional use permit after holding a hearing at which neighboring property owners expressed concerns over the adverse effects of the project, including traffic, noise, light pollution, potential well employees with criminal records, and property values. The permit was denied by the trial court.

Under the APA, organizations and individuals who list, visit, and recreate near proposed mines challenged agency decisions allowing Oregon Resources Corp. to operate chromite mines; stated extraction of chromium will impact wetlands and wildlife. Plaintiffs alleged irreparable harm, including light pollution which would impact human habitation.

Developer sought to rezone property to Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground (RVP) and in response the County adopted an ordinance to amend the zoning plan. Neighboring property owner challenged the rezoning ordinance, citing potential increase of traffic, litter, noise, and light pollution. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that the County's rezoning of property to include the RVP was invalid because it rendered the zoning plan "internally inconsistent." The Administration Commission adopted the ALJ's ruling.

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."

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.”