Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2000

Home

Z.B. February 10~ 2000 -- Page 7 Algonquin was located in a W-3 zone. W-3 zones were intended primarily for transportation and limited business uses. Algonquin's facility was classi- fied as a petroleum refinery, which was a use not permitted in any zone. How- ever, Algonquin's facility was a valid nonconforming use because it existed before the city zoning ordinance was amended to exclude petroleum refineries. The facility had vaporizers that converted the liquid natural gas. Algonguin wanted to replace three vaporizers with newer models ag..d build a structure to house a compressor. Thenew modifications only in~reased the rate of production. Natural gas facilities were subject t~ federal regulation under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution: AlgOnquin'applied for and received a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory C~)m- mission (FERC) for the modifications. The city did not participate in the issu- ance of the certificate.. :..-: ,':."... '-. ii - ~.:. .:-~ ,.':' - ,~.. ~ After receiving the'certifiCate, Alg!)nquin representatives met with city of- ficials to discuss the proposed .constru'ction. The city's building official stated the proposed modifications required a' zoning variance., i.-. : Algonquin, believing federal law~.preempted the zon'm, g ordinance, pro- ceeded with construction. The ~ity respo, nded with a cease, and desist order. Algonquin sued. 'i DECISION: Judgment for Algonquin; Federal law preempted the local regulations, and Algonquin could proceed with construction. ~ Congress clearly gave FERC exclusive jurisdiction Over the interstate trans- portation and sale of natural gas. FERC's regulatory scheme covered sales, facility construction and location, and safety standards. Because of FERC's regulations, there was no room for local zoning or building code regulations. The Providence zoning ordinanceI and building' c~)de were preempted be' cause they directly conflicted with federal regulatory provisions. Algonquin's modifications met all federal requn'ements, including those relating to siting and construction standards. Al~gugh !a local regulation that had only an indi- rect effect on the facility was not p.reempted, the regulations opposed by Algonquin regulated aspects of the pr~)ject clearly covered by federal law. Citation: Algonquin LNG V" l~a, :U.'~. Distri'ct Cou'rtfo:r the District of Rhode Island, No. 99-575-T (2000). I ': ' ' ' See also: Schneidewind v. ANR Pip'el?ne Co., 485 :U.S.'295'(1985). see also: Northern Border Pipeline Co. v. Jackson County, 512 F. Supp. 1261 (~981). Variance -- Landowner is denied area variances OIq20 (01/13/00) -- Perez applied to the Cleveland Building Commission for a variance to operate a daycare facility~ She also applied for buffer distance and landscape variances. The commissioner denied her request.