The court found that an illuminated sign created light trespass on a neighboring hotel, which was considered a nuisance that materially affected their guests at night. The court restrained the business from operating the sign after midnight.
R.C. Maxwell Co., rents the roof of Crossan Co.'s building for the purpose of putting up signs. One of the signs is illuminated and its light shines on the bedroom windows of the neighboring building, the Shelburne hotel. The Shelburne hotel's complaint is that this light trespass from the illuminated sign detrimentally affects their business because it disturbs their guests.
The Court affirmed the trial court's findings that the Town's ordinance, which banned internally illuminated signs, is consistent with the requirements of the State Constitution and is a reasonable exercise of the Town's police power. The Court also affirmed the trial court decisions in favor of the Town's denial of the permit for an internally illuminated sign to plaintiff Asselin and granting an injunction requested by the Town enforcing the sign illumination ordinance against plaintiff Cardiff & Company's internally illuminated signs.
The defendant, the Zoning Board of adjustment (ZBA) of the Town of Conway, denied a permit application for an internally lit sign to plaintiff Asselin because it was in violation of the town's ordinance which banned signs “illuminated from within." The trial court found the sign illumination provision valid and upheld the ZBA’s decision. In this consolidated case, another plaintiff, Cardiff & Company (Cardiff), also objected to the town's ordinance and was enjoined by the town from using his internally illuminated sign. The trial court issued a temporary injunction enforcing the ordinance’s regulation of Cardiff’s sign.
The Borough of Lebanon Planning Board/Board of Adjustment (the Board) denied plaintiff company's application for conditional use variances to the zoning code for off-premises billboard signs "illuminated by five 400-watt lamps mounted at the bottom, facing upwards, located three feet below the face of the sign and six feet away from it." The Court reversed the trial court's decision in favor of plaintiff because it found the trial court did not provide sufficient deference to the Board's finding that light spillover was a justifiable concern and that the plaintiff's illumination compliance with the zoning code was imperfect.
The Borough of Lebanon Planning Board/Board of Adjustment (the Board) denied plaintiff company's application for conditional use variances to the zoning code for off-premises billboard signs "illuminated by five 400-watt lamps mounted at the bottom, facing upwards, located three feet below the face of the sign and six feet away from it." The Board's denial was "because of the significant amount of light spillover along the edges of the sign face." The trial court ruled in favor of plaintiff, finding the Board had conducted an improper denial of the variances.
The Court affirmed the trial court ruling which dismissed the case in favor of the City of Tucson's Outdoor Lighting Code regulating light fixtures mounted on the bottom of existing billboards. The Court found that no constitutional rights of the plaintiff company were violated and the proper standard of review was rational basis since plaintiff was not a member of suspect class.
Upon remand of Whiteco Outdoor Advertising v. City of Tucson, 193 Ariz. 314, the trial court found that plaintiff had failed to establish its substantive due process or equal protection rights were violated by the City of Tucson's Outdoor Lighting Code provision, which banned light fixtures mounted on the bottom of existing billboards.
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.
The Court vacated the lower court decision dismissing the plaintiffs' claim that the City's Board of Standards and Appeals had no proper basis for a variance of its Zone Resolution regulating illuminated roof signs. The City's variance would have allowed a store to erect on the roofs of its premises an illuminated sign which would have been one hundred feet long and twelve feet high. The Court found that the "permitted use of glaringly bright electric lights would be so annoying to occupants of adjacent properties used exclusively for residential purposes as practically to constitute a nuisance to them; it would also affect adversely the value of property in this residental district."
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."
The Court found that defendant Wells Fargo Bank had breached its contract with plaintiff Minnesota Vikings Football Stadium by installing mounted illuminated signs on the rooftops of its office towers because the contract between the parties "unambiguously prohibits" this. The Court granted plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction requiring defendant to remove the mounted illuminated signs and prohibiting them from installing other mounted illuminated signs.
Plaintiff Minnesota Vikings Football Stadium, LLC brought suit against defendant Wells Fargo Bank for breach of contract after Wells Fargo began installing mounted illuminated roof top signs on its office towers located next to the Stadium. The contract between parties had allowed rooftop signs for Wells Fargo, but did not state that the signs could be illuminated. Plaintiff alleged defendant's illuminated signs "adversely affected the Stadium's image" and sought a permanent injunction requiring defendant to remove the mounted illuminated signs and prohibiting them from installing other mounted illuminated signs.