general illumination

Dewberry v. Kulongoski

Full Case Name
Susan DEWBERRY, Carole Holcombe, Suzanne Danielson, Arnold Buchman, Don Heath, and Dale Schaffner, Plaintiffs, v. The Honorable Theodore R. KULONGOSKI, Governor of the State of Oregon, Other Executive Officers in the State of Oregon, and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, Defendants
Description

A group of individual plaintiffs challenged the validity of the gaming compact entered into by the State of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians (the Tribes), which allowed development of the Hatch Tract by the Tribes for gaming purposes. The Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing and dismissed the case.

Date
12-21-2005
Court
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
Jurisdiction
United States
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Florence, Oregon
Disputed Act

A group of individual plaintiffs challenged the validity of the gaming compact entered into by the State of Oregon and the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians (the Tribes), which allowed development of the Hatch Tract by the Tribes for gaming purposes. The plaintiffs alleged that they would be harmed by the Tribes' casino on the Hatch Tract through higher taxes, reduced property values, increased traffic congestion, increased air, noise and light pollution, and the detrimental effect on local businesses.

Holding
The District Court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the Tribes' right to conduct gaming under the State of Oregon's gaming compact. The Court further held that the Tribes had not waived their sovereign immunity and had not consented to the suit. The Court dismissed the case.
Disposition

Hall v. City of Ridgeland

Full Case Name
Dr. Charles HALL, Janet H. Clark, Beatrice Langston Berry, Kate Sharp, Belinda Boozer, William Murphy, Carol Murphy, Steve Hanneke, Mary Ellen Martin, Mary S. Godbold, Bobby J. Stokes, Kevin Camp, Gary E. Payne, Maria Rosa Gutierrez, Denise Michelle Wilson, Mary Bishoff, John Austin Evans, Mel Evans, Larry Stowe, Paige Stowe and Kim H. Loper v. The CITY OF RIDGELAND, Mississippi, Madison County Land Company, LLC, Southern Farm Bureau Brokerage Company, Inc., Bailey-Madison, LLC, 200 Renaissance, LLC, 100 Renaissance, LLC and Renaissance at Colony Park, LLC
Description

The Court found that although plaintiff residents had the standing to challenge an ordinance granted by the City of Ridgeland about the construction of a thirteen-story office building near them, the City's decision to allow construction of the building was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial evidence.

Date
06-10-2010
Court
Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Mississippi
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Ridgeland, Mississippi
Disputed Act

A group of Ridgeland residents challenged the legality of an ordinance issued by the City of Ridgeland to allow developers to construct a thirteen-story office building near them. The residents' concerns about the construction of the commerical development included ingress and egress access issues, depreciation of home values, the height of the building, and after-dark light pollution. The City of Ridgeland argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the ordinance.

Holding
The Court held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the issuance of the conditional use allowing construction of the building. The Court also held that the City of Ridgeland's ordinance approving the construction of the building near the plaintiff residents was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by substantial evidence.
Disposition

Bitterrooters for Planning, Inc. v. Montana Department of Environmental Quality

Full Case Name
BITTERROOTERS FOR PLANNING, INC., and BITTERROOT RIVER PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION, INC. Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, an agency of the State of Montana, Defendant and Appellant, STEPHEN WANDERER and GEORGIA FILCHER, Defendants, Intervenors and Appellants
Description

The Court found that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act because it only considered the environmental impacts to water quality of the construction and operation of the wastewater discharging permit issued to the facility.

Date
09-05-2017
Court
Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Montana
Defendants
Incident Location
Ravalli County, Montana
Disputed Act

The plaintiffs alleged that the Montana Department of Environmental Quality's wastewater discharge permitting process for an unnamed retail store facility violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) because it did not consider the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the facility other than water quality. Public comments organized by the Department of Environmental Quality included light pollution, noise pollution, and soil pollution, as well as others.

Holding
The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reversed the District Court's summary judgment that Montana Department of Environmental Quality violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act because it did not consider the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the facility other than water quality. The Court affirmed the District Court's summary judgment that the Department of Environmental Quality must identify and disclose the actual contemplated owner or operator of the retail store facility whose wasterwater discharge permitting was issued by the Department.

City of Airway Heights v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

Full Case Name
The City of Airway Heights, Respondent, v. The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, Defendant, Spokane County et al., Appellants, Brigitta Archer, Respondent; Brigitta Archer, Respondent, v. The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, Defendant, Spokane County et al., Appellants
Description

The Court affirmed the conclusion of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board (GMHB) that Airway Height's ordinances allowing residential development near the city's airforce base violated Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA). The court adopted the GMHB’s definition of “incompatible development” as a “development that is incompatible with a military installation's ability to carry out its current or future missions.”

Date
04-12-2016
Court
Washington Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Washington
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Airway Heights, Washington
Disputed Act

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.

Holding
The Court affirmed the conclusion of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board (GMHB) that Airway Height's ordinances allowing residential development near the airforce base violated Washington State's Growth Management Act. However, the Court reversed the lower court's agreement with some of the findings of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board. Since the Court affirmed one of the three reasons on which the GMHB invalidated the challenged ordinances, the Court concluded that it also affirmed the result of GMHB' s decision and order invalidating the City's ordinances.

Friends of Black Forest Preservation Plan, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners

Full Case Name
FRIENDS OF THE BLACK FOREST PRESERVATION PLAN, INC., a Colorado non-profit corporation; Richard Babcock; Jennifer Babcock; Brenda S. Baldry; Karen R. Coppeak; Remi Y. Gagne; Charlotte R. Gagne; Leif Garrison; James C. Kesser; Sharon Kesser; James A. Orban; Patricia E. Orban; Laura N. Spear; Timothy J. Spear; Wallace J. Stenhaug; Sandra A. Stenhaug; and Margaret J. Whitley, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF EL PASO COUNTY, Colorado; and Black Forest Mission, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees
Description

The Board of County Commissioners granted a special use permit to a company to build a greenhouse in a preservation area. There were initial concerns by residents about light pollution and other effects from the construction. However, the company re-submitted a plan that addressed these concerns. The Board made findings that the re-submitted plan was consistent with the Master Plan for the preservation area, and the Court concluded the Board was allowed to make this finding.

Date
04-07-2016
Court
Colorado Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Colorado
Defendants
Incident Location
El Paso County, CO
Disputed Act

The Board of County Commissioners approved a special use permit for Black Forest Mission, LLC (BFM) to build a greenhouse or set of them in the Black Forest preservation area. Some residents initially objected to BFM's plan for the building of the greenhouse because of concerns related to light pollution, obstruction of views, and traffic congestion, however, BFM revised its plan to address these concerns and resubmitted its plan to the Board of County Comissioners. The plaintiff, Friends of Black Forest Preservation Plan, Inc., objected to the Board of County Comissioners approving BFM's updated plan by arguing it was inconsistent with the Master Plan for the preservation area.

Holding
The Court concluded that the Board of County Commissioners' finding that BFM’s special use application was “consistent with the applicable Master Plan” was supported by competent evidence. Moreover, the Court found that the Master Plan for the preservation area was advisory so the Board of County Commissioners was allowed to exercise its discretion in its findings.
Disposition

Kretschmann Farm, LLC v. Township of New Sewickley

Full Case Name
KRETSCHMANN FARM, LLC, and Donald Kretschmann and Rebecca Kretschmann, husband and wife, Appellants v. TOWNSHIP OF NEW SEWICKLEY and Board of Supervisors of New Sewickley Township, Beaver County, Pennsylvania v. Cardinal PA Midstream, LLC and PennEnergy Resources, LLC
Description

Township allowed for the construction of a gas compressor station adjacent to landowners' farm. Landowners appealed on the basis that evidence that the station will negatively affect public health and welfare was not considered and that they were denied the opportunity to present additional evidence. Court found that evidence lacked probative value. Court also found the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not permitting expansion of the record.

Date
01-07-2016
Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Beaver County, PA
Disputed Act

Township Board's and trial court's decisions allowed for the construction of a gas compressor station adjacent to landowners' farm. Landowners appealed on the basis that evidence that the station will negatively affect public health and welfare was not considered and that they were denied the opportunity to present additional evidence. The township's conditions for the gas compressor station already required the station to minimize nighttime lighting.

Holding
The Court found that the landowners' evidence lacked probative value; they did not meet their burden of showing that the station would negatively affect public health and welfare in any unexpected way. The Court also found the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not permitting expansion of the record.
Disposition

Delaware Riverkeeper Network v. Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

Full Case Name
DELAWARE RIVERKEEPER NETWORK; Maya Van Rossum, the Delaware Riverkeeper, Petitioners v. SECRETARY OF the PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Respondents. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co., Intervenor
Description

Proposed natural gas pipeline project would impact wetlands. State found the project to be water dependent and the least environmentally damaging option. An environmental organization filed a petition for review. Court found that it has jurisdiction, State's interpretation of water dependency should be upheld, and that State's rejection of a compression alternative was reasonable and nonarbitrary.

Date
08-30-2017
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Jurisdiction
United States
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Pike County, PA; Wayne County, PA
Disputed Act

A proposed interstate natural gas pipeline project would impact exceptional-value wetlands. The State found the project to be water dependent and the least environmentally damaging option. An environmental organization filed a petition for review.

Holding
The Court found that it has jurisdiction, the State's interpretation of water dependency should be upheld, and that the State's rejection of a compression alternative was reasonable and nonarbitrary, as the alternative would lead to light and noise pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Petition for review was denied.
Disposition

Hillstrand v. City of Homer

Full Case Name
Nancy J. HILLSTRAND, Appellant, v. CITY OF HOMER, Appellee
Description

City sought land to expand a water treatment plant. Property owner objected due to impact on access to her property and because the buffer portion of the land would be taken in fee. Court held that the City did not need to complete a final plat by a specific date, that the decision to take buffer land in fee was not arbitrary, and that emininent domain does not prevent the City from taking a fee interest in the buffer land.

Date
10-30-2009
Court
Alaska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Alaska
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Homer, AK
Disputed Act

City sought land through eminent domain to expand a water treatment plant. Property owner objected due to the impact on access to her property and because the part of the land to be used as a buffer would be taken in fee simple interest. Moreover, the plaintiff property owner had requested a deeper buffer than the city proposed to build in order "to preserve the land's appearance from the road and to minimize light pollution from the facility."

Holding
The Court held that the City did not need to complete a final plat by a specific date, that the decision to take buffer land in fee was not arbitrary, and that emininent domain does not prevent the City from taking a fee interest in the buffer land.
Disposition

Arthur Land Co., LLC v. Otsego County

Full Case Name
ARTHUR LAND COMPANY, LLC v. OTSEGO COUNTY
Description

Property owner sought to rezone land from residential to business. Application was denied by County Board of Commissioners due to potential adverse effects. The court held that the property owner was entitled to de novo review by trial court.

Date
02-08-2002
Court
Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Michigan
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Ostego County, MI
Disputed Act

Property owner sought to rezone property from residential to business to build service/gas station and was denied by County Board of Commissioners due to increased traffic, noise, and light pollution concerns. Property owner filed complaint alleging violation of substantive due process and confiscatory taking.

Holding
Court of Appeals held that property owner was entitled to de novo review by trial court.
Disposition

Ring v. Moore County

Full Case Name
Glen Lewis RING, Wanda Joyce Ring, William Thomas Ring and Pamela Ann Ring, Plaintiffs, v. MOORE COUNTY, Camp Easter Management, LLC and Bob Koontz, Defendants.
Description

Landowners brought suit against county for rezoning adjacent land without proper notice. The court ruled that the landowners failed to allege sufficient injury to challenge the county's ordinance.

Date
12-19-2017
Court
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Moore County, NC
Disputed Act

Landowners brought suit against county for rezoning adjacent land, alleging inadequate or improper notice of rezoning and injury to landowners' use of their land. Specifically, the plaintiff's complaint mentioned light pollution.

Holding
Landowners failed to allege sufficient injury to establish standing in order to challenge the county's ordinance.
Disposition