light trespass

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 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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

Landowner applied to the town Board of Adjustment for a special use permit to develop a medical clinic. The Board denied the application based on concerns for the neighborhood, including light pollution from the parking lot.