residential neighborhood

Plaintiff company applied for a conditional use permit to construct a natural gas production complex within the Borough of Jefferson Hills (the Borough). In deciding against the permit, the Borough considered as evidence the testimony of residents of another municipality regarding the impacts to their health, quality of life, and property which they attributed to a similar facility constructed and operated by the same company in their municipality. 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 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.

Plaintiff company sought to develop a tract it owned which bordered a local creek. The City's Board of Adjustment denied the development because it determined that it was located in a "Conservation Overlay District" and subject to certain "performance controls" intended to protect important environmental resources within the city. After plaintiff filed an appeal of the Board's decision in court, adjacent property owners filed for intervention claiming that the development would result in increase traffic, light pollution, noise, and loss of value to their properties. Plaintiff objected that the intervenors lacked standing.

The City's Board of Standards and Appeals granted a variance of its Zone Resolution, permitting the erection of an illuminated sign "one hundred feet long and twelve feet high on the roof of the premises of stores" in "a district zoned for residence purposes." The owners of adjacent apartment houses filed a suit against the City's Board of Standards and Appeals decision, claiming "that this enormous illuminated sign, burning throughout the night in the rear of their apartments, would have a most serious effect on their property, causing tenants to vacate."

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.”

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.

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.

City Commission approved developer's subdivision preliminary plat. Neighbors filed complaints alleging the developer's environmental assessment inadequately addressed potential increased traffic, decreased water quality, flooding, and light pollution. District Court found the approval of the plat unlawful for failure to address groundwater and surface pollution concerns. Developer appealed.

City approved plans for a 37-lot subdivision. Nearby residents and a neighborhood association opposed the subdivision due to incompatibility with the City's growth policy, ecological concerns, traffic, and light pollution; they then petitioned for judicial review. District Court found City's decisions to be arbitrary and capricious. City and developer appealed.