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."
Plaintiff private school filed an application for a special permit with the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Town of Trumball (Commission) for the installation of four light poles, seventy feet in height, to illuminate the school’s primary athletic field. The Comission denied the special permit after considering concerns from resident neighbors of the private school that allowing the lights would adversely affect the "use and enjoyment" of their properties.
Defendant company installed a light pole with a protective, adjustable shield in its parking area so that its light shines into the plaintiff's bedroom windows of his residence at night, so plaintiff filed a nuisance suit. The trial court dismissed the nuisance suit because it found that defendant's light was in compliance with the City's Code. The Court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's nuisance claim because it found that plaintiff had demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact about the reasonableness of defendant's driveway light.
Defendant company installed a light pole with a protective, adjustable shield in its parking area so that its light shines up into the plaintiff's bedroom windows of his residence at night. Plaintiff requested that defendant adjust the shield so that the light was not directed into plaintiff's windows, but defendant refused. Plaintiff then filed a nuisance suit, claiming that defendant's light pole with shielding caused "excessive light." The trial court dismissed the nuisance suit because it found that defendant's light was in compliance with the City's Code.
Plaintiff filed a private nuisance suit against defendant company, alleging its drilling and gas exploration activities caused light pollution and noise which interfered with the use and enjoyment of her private property. The Court denied defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to plaintiffs intentional private nuisance claim because it found there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether its activities constituted a private nuisance.
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.
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. The Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of plaintiff's case, finding that because the change to the zoning ordinance resulted in a deprivation of plaintiffs' right to the use and enjoyment of their property, the change was a “substantial amendment” and the Township was required to advertise the change prior to enactment of the ordinance,
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.
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."
The Court found that construction and use of the proposed casino would have "potential long-term adverse impacts" to "land use" resulting from "lighting, noise, traffic, litter, the presence of multi-story buildings, the absence of buffers, and other operational characterstics of a casino." The Court also found that "lights, noise and activity" would disturb the nearby wildlife, "further degrading the woodlands' value as a habitat." The Court concluded that the State of NY and other plaintiffs had demonstrated that they were entitled to a permanent injunction that prevented the development of a casino by the Shinnecock Tribe.
The State of NY and other governmental plantiffs sought to permanently enjoin the Shinnecock Tribe from constructing a casino on a "non-reservation property" in the Town of Southamptom because they claim it would not be in compliance with New York anti-gaming and environmental laws, as well as concerns about the proposed casino development's health and enviromental effects on neighboring landowners and the Town.