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.
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.
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.
The Court found that the proposed overflight easement of plaintiffs' property, granting Humboldt County the right to, among other things, "regulate or prohibit light emissions that might interfere with pilot vision" as a condition for plaintiffs obtaining a building permit to make "minor alterations to their residence," did not as a matter of law effect a taking under Fifth Amendment jurisprudence or California law, and the plaintiffs failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to establish the practical effect of the easement was to bring about such a taking. The Court dismissed the case.
Plaintiffs, whose property is located within a zone over which aircraft from Arcata-Eureka Airport routinely fly, challenge the constitutionality of a Humboldt County general plan requirement that they provide an aircraft overflight easement as a condition for obtaining a building permit to make minor alterations to their residence, arguing that the easement requirement constitutes a taking of their property without payment of just compensation. The overflight easement grants the County the right to, among other things, "regulate or prohibit light emissions that might interfere with pilot vision."
The Court found that plaintiffs may be entitled to compensation because they were unable to develop their land residentially due to an avigation easement restricting the light, height of structures, smoke, and electrical emissions coming from their land for the purpose of ensuring a safe flight path for aviators taking off and landing at the Hill Air Force Base in Utah. The Court remanded the case to the trial division to determine which tracts of land had been subjected to the easement by the United States and to calculate the correct amount of compensation.
Plaintiffs, owners of land near Hill Air Force Base, Utah, brought suit against the United States for compensation due to an avigation easement restricting the light, height of structures, smoke and electrical emissions coming from their land for the purpose of ensuring a safe flight path for aviators taking off and landing at the Air Force Base.