Residential neighbors challenged ordinance which allowed oil and gas operations and permit issued for a gas well nearby pursuant to the ordinance. The Court held that landowners failed to establish that natural gas drilling was incompatible within the zoning district or that the ordinance violated Environmental Rights Amendment to Pennsylvania Constitution; Zoning board was not required to perform pre-enactment environmental studies.
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.
Environmental activists brought action against the federal government challenging Bureau of Land Management's approval of applications for drill permits in the San Juan Basin as in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Court held BLM's approval of applications did not violate NEPA nor NHPA, and dismissed the case.
Environmental activists brought action against federal government challenging the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of applications for permit to drill in the San Juan Basin, alleging that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to analyze indirect effects of fracking on Chaco Park, a National Historic site, including light pollution from nighttime drilling activity.
The County granted Loyola College a special exception to build a retreat center on a property in the Resource Conservation zone in Maryland. Residents filed a suit against Loyola College, objecting to its proposed use of property in that zone. Loyola College proferred testimony that their use of the property would have minimal impact on the zone, including light pollution. The Court found the county could grant Loyola College a special exception to use the property for a retreat center and did not need to compare its potential adverse effects to other similiarly zoned locations in the jurisdiction.
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."
The Court found that, in approving the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority’s proposal, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service complied with the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rocky Flats Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act.
Plaintiffs alleged that the approval by the defendant United States Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Jefferson Parkway Public Highway Authority (JPPHA) application violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Rocky Flats Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. Plaintiffs sought an order holding unlawful and setting aside the FWS’ decision to enter into the land exchange and transfer the corridor to JPPHA. The plaintiffs' concerns about the highway include "increased noise and artificial light" which could negatively impact wildlife by "interfering with the ability to avoid danger, locate food, reproduce, migrate, avoid collisions, and evade predators."
Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendant companies, which held leasehold rights to develop oil and gas underlying the plaintiffs' properities, as they alleged the shale development by defendants caused them to lose the "use and enjoyment" of their properties. The Court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of defendant companies because it agreed with the finding that "effects on the surface owners resulting from the horizontal drilling were within the implied rights to use the surface granted by virtue of the severance deeds, and did not impose a substantial burden on the surface owners."
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."