Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin May 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 9 <br />Case Note: <br />Washington Gas had also sought a declaration that Maryland's mandatory <br />referral procedure applied to the LNG project. Maryland's mandatory refer- <br />ral statute exempts certain public utility projects from local zoning review. <br />(See Md. Code Ann., Land Use § 20-301). Washington Gas argued that, as a <br />privately owned public utility, mandatory referral plainly applied to its <br />proposed extension. <br />The district court abstained from resolving that count under the "abstention <br />doctrine" articulated in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U.S. 315, 63 S. Ct. 1098, <br />87 L. Ed. 1424 (1943). Under that doctrine, . "courts may abstain when the <br />availability of an alternative, federal forum threaten[s] to frustrate the <br />purpose of a state's complex administrative system. " Specifically, Burford <br />abstention is permissible when: <br />[FJederal adjudication would `unduly intrude' upon `complex state <br />administrative processes' because either: (1) 'there are difficult ques- <br />tions of state law whose importance transcends the result in the case then <br />at bar'; or (2) federal review would disrupt `state efforts to establish a <br />coherent policy with respect to a matter of substantial public concern.' <br />Here, the Court of Appeals agreed that the Burford abstention was <br />appropriate. The court found it appropriate because the resolution of <br />Washington Gas' mandatory referral county turned on whether Maryland's <br />mandatory referral statute should have been applied. The answer to that <br />depended on the construction of the state land use statute —and specifically <br />the definition of `privately owned public utility." <br />rc erin's '=si nts all <br />it - f =r • nin <br />::tin = violat stat <br />tin ct <br />Residents claim agenda item failed to <br />specify the nature of the business to be <br />discussed <br />Citation: Anolik v. Zoning Bd. of Review of City of Newport, 2013 <br />WL 1314947 (R.I. 2013) <br />RHODE ISLAND (04/02/13)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether the information contained in a published agenda item suf- <br />ficiently satisfied the requirements of the Rhode Island's Open Meet- <br />ings Act, § 42-46-6(b). <br />© 2013 Thomson Reuters <br />