Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/01/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin to appeal the decision and that there was no adequate remedy at law for any such arbitrary or unlawful refusal. The town appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Mandamus was an extraordinary remedy that could be used to compel a public official to perform a purely ministerial duty imposed by law. This form of relief was not appropriate m a doubtful case or where there was some other remedy available. The court's ability to award mandamus was extremely limited. For this form of relief to be granted, it was required that the duty to be enforced had"be one in which the public official "must act as a mat- ter of course, without the exercise of his own judgment or discretion." If the official duty involved the "necessity on the part of the officer to make soine investigation, to examine evidence and form his [or her] judg- ment thereon," mandamus could not be awarded to compel performance of that duty. The court noted that doing so would "improperly transfer to the court the discretion the law...committed to the officer." Under the town's subdivision ordinance, the land development official that reviewed subdivision applications was required to "conduct an initial review of. the application and preliminary plat of the proposed subdivi- sion for completeness and technical accuracy." Given that and, applying the mandamus standard, the appeals court found that Centex's petition should not have been granted. The court stated that the decision made by the town official involved: considerable investigation of the submitted plans; determinations of the conditions existing on the subject land and in the surrounding area; and the exercise of discretion and judgment in ap- plying the applicable statutes, ordinances and regulations. Further, the court found that an adequate alternate remedy existed: Centex's declaratory judgment request. A declaratory judgment provid- ed a mechanism for "resolving uncertainty in controversies over legal rights without [first] requiring one party to invade the asserted rights of another." Here, this meant that the court could decide the unresolved disputes related to the correct process for handling a subdivision" appli- cation. If Centex was dissatisfied with the court's decision in that matter, it could appeal. " illtimately, the court decided that accepting a subdivision application was not a purely ministerial act, and, thus, the town official could not be com- pelled to do so by mandamus. The decision of the lower court was reversed. See also: In re Horan, 271 Va. 258, 634S.E.2d 675 (2006). ~.~~' _;fJf~Mil!:i~iiiiP~~ 12 98 \ \ )