Case Title: Ancient Art Tattoo Studio v. City of Virginia Beac

Citation: 

Docket Number: 011299

State: virginia

Court: Virginia Supreme Court

Date: 2002-04-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Present:  All the Justices 
 
ANCIENT ART TATTOO STUDIO, 
LTD., ET AL. 
 
v.  Record No. 011299  OPINION BY JUSTICE CYNTHIA D. KINSER 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
APRIL 19, 2002 
CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH, ET AL. 
 
FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF VIRGINIA BEACH 
Frederick B. Lowe, Judge 
 
 
In this appeal, we consider whether the circuit court 
erred in denying mandamus relief to petitioners who sought 
approval of applications to operate tattoo establishments.  
Because we conclude that a zoning administrator’s decision 
on the applications involved the performance of a 
discretionary duty, we will affirm the circuit court’s 
judgment. 
FACTS AND MATERIAL PROCEEDINGS 
 
In a petition for a writ of mandamus, Ancient Art 
Tattoo Studio, Ltd. (Ancient Art) challenged the validity 
of an ordinance of the City of Virginia Beach (the City) 
that has prohibited the operation of tattoo establishments 
within the City limits since 1965.  The circuit court ruled 
that the ordinance at issue, Virginia Beach City Code § 23-
51, is inconsistent with the City’s authority to regulate 
the conduct of tattoo parlors as set forth in Code § 15.2-
912, and also with the provisions of Code § 18.2-371.3.1  
Thus, the court held that, to the extent that the City’s 
denial of Ancient Art’s previously filed application for a 
business license and certificate of occupancy to operate a 
tattoo parlor was premised on Section 23-51, the permits 
should be issued.  However, the court stated that Ancient 
Art must satisfy any other legitimate requirements of the 
City’s ordinances. 
 
Joseph M. Dufresne, president of Ancient Art, then 
filed another application to obtain the required permits to 
operate a tattoo parlor.2  The City’s interim zoning 
administrator (Zoning Administrator) advised Dufresne that, 
in light of the circuit court decision invalidating 
Virginia Beach City Code § 23-51, she could not make a 
determination on the application until she had conducted 
further research.  Ancient Art then filed a petition for a 
supplemental writ of mandamus to require the Zoning 
Administrator to grant the requested approval immediately.  
In the petition, Ancient Art alleged that it had complied 
                     
1 Virginia Beach City Code § 23-51(b) provided that 
“[i]t shall be unlawful for any person in the city to 
operate a tattoo establishment or engage in the practice or 
business of tattooing as a tattoo operator or as a tattoo 
artist.” 
 
2 Ancient Art subsequently filed an application in its 
name. 
 
2
with all the provisions of the City’s zoning ordinance and 
that, therefore, issuing the required certificates is “a 
perfunctory ministerial procedure” that is generally 
handled “at the counter.”  Ancient Art asserted, however, 
that the Zoning Administrator purposefully delayed approval 
of its applications in order to allow the City sufficient 
time in which to amend its zoning ordinance so as to 
preclude the operation of tattoo establishments in certain 
zoning districts. 
 
At a hearing on Ancient Art’s supplemental petition, 
the court heard testimony from Dufresne and the Zoning 
Administrator.  According to Dufresne, the Zoning 
Administrator stated that “she had 90 days to make a 
decision, and she was instructed [by the City Attorney’s 
office] to take the full 90 days.”  However, the Zoning 
Administrator disputed Dufresne’s assertion and instead 
testified that she had been requested not to issue permits 
for tattoo establishments “over the counter.”  She 
acknowledged that businesses performing temporary tattooing 
and body piercing had been previously classified as 
“personal service establishments” that are permitted in the 
City’s RT-2 Resort Tourist District.  See Virginia Beach 
City Code §§ 1510 and 1511.  However, the Zoning 
Administrator explained that, because of the invalidation 
 
3
of the City’s ordinance banning tattoo establishments and 
the absence of any other ordinances specifically addressing 
the practice of tattooing, she needed time to determine the 
appropriate classification for a tattoo parlor.  She also 
stated that she was aware of and could not ignore the fact 
that the City had pending amendments to its zoning 
ordinance regarding the classification and location of 
tattoo parlors.  Nevertheless, she admitted that if she 
“had to make a decision today, . . . [the] tattoo parlors 
can go into place.” 
 
The circuit court denied the petition, concluding that 
the City should have a reasonable period of time in which 
to consider Ancient Art’s applications and enact 
appropriate zoning regulations relating to the location and 
operation of tattoo establishments.  The court subsequently 
entered an order memorializing this ruling. 
 
On April 24, 2001, a few days before entry of the 
court’s final order, the City adopted several amendments to 
its zoning ordinance.  The amendments permit the operation 
of tattoo parlors in the City’s B-2 Business District with 
a conditional use permit.  However, the amendments 
specifically prohibit the operation of tattoo parlors in 
the City’s RT-2 Resort Tourist District, where Ancient Art 
had originally planned to open a tattoo establishment. 
 
4
 
Ancient Art appeals from the denial of its petition 
for a supplemental writ of mandamus.  It contends that the 
Zoning Administrator is not authorized to take up to 90 
days to rule on pending applications.  Instead, relying on 
Virginia Beach City Code § 103(e), Ancient Art asserts that 
the issuance of a certificate of occupancy is mandatory 
upon the applicant’s compliance with the requirements of 
the City’s zoning ordinance, and that the Zoning 
Administrator cannot delay approval in order for the City 
to enact zoning changes.  Thus, Ancient Art argues that, 
because it satisfied all existing zoning requirements, the 
circuit court should have granted a writ of mandamus 
directing immediate approval of Ancient Art’s pending 
applications. 
ANALYSIS 
 
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that may be used 
“to compel performance of a purely ministerial duty, but it 
does not lie to compel the performance of a discretionary 
duty.”  Board of County Supervisors v. Hylton Enters., 
Inc., 216 Va. 582, 584, 221 S.E.2d 534, 536 (1976) (citing 
Griffin v. Board of Supervisors, 203 Va. 321, 328, 124 
S.E.2d 227, 233 (1962)); accord Town of Front Royal v. 
Front Royal & Warren County Indus. Park Corp., 248 Va. 581, 
584, 449 S.E.2d 794, 796 (1994); Early Used Cars, Inc. v. 
 
5
Province, 218 Va. 605, 609, 239 S.E.2d 98, 101 (1977).  A 
writ of mandamus may be issued only when there is a clear 
right to the relief sought, a legal duty to perform the 
requested act, and no adequate remedy at law.  Hylton 
Enters., 216 Va. at 584, 221 S.E.2d at 536; Richmond-
Greyhound Lines v. Davis, 200 Va. 147, 151-52, 104 S.E.2d 
813, 816-17 (1958). 
 
Applying these principles, we conclude that Ancient 
Art was not entitled to a writ of mandamus.  After the 
circuit court decided that the City’s long-standing 
ordinance banning the operation of tattoo establishments 
was not valid, the Zoning Administrator had to look to the 
City’s zoning ordinance to determine, for the first time, 
how tattoo parlors should be classified for the purpose of 
deciding in which zoning districts those establishments 
could be located.  Unlike the situation in Town of 
Jonesville v. Powell Valley Village Limited Partnership, 
254 Va. 70, 77-78, 487 S.E.2d 207, 212 (1997), where the 
town had no zoning regulations in effect after its zoning 
ordinance was declared void ab initio, the City’s zoning 
ordinance was not affected by the court’s ruling and 
provided the framework for the Zoning Administrator’s 
decision on Ancient Art’s applications.  Contrary to 
Ancient Art’s argument, tattoo establishments did not, 
 
6
after the ban was invalidated, automatically fall into the 
category of “personal service establishments” that are 
permitted in the RT-2 Resort Tourist District, see Virginia 
Beach City Code § 1511, merely because establishments 
providing temporary tattoos, body piercing, and permanent 
make-up had previously been given that classification.  
This is so even if Ancient Art is correct in its assertion 
that permanent make-up “is nothing more than tattooing by 
another name.” 
 
Thus, in the absence of any zoning regulation 
regarding the operation or location of tattoo parlors, or a 
definition of the term “personal service establishments” in 
the City’s zoning ordinance, the determination as to how to 
classify a tattoo parlor necessarily involved the exercise 
of discretion by the Zoning Administrator.  Even if Ancient 
Art had complied with all other zoning requirements, the 
Zoning Administrator’s decision, in these circumstances, 
remained discretionary and was not the performance of a 
purely ministerial duty.  As this Court stated many years 
ago: 
 
[I]t is well settled that mandamus will not lie to 
compel the performance of any act or duty necessarily 
calling for the exercise of judgment and discretion on 
the part of the official charged with its performance. 
 
. . . . 
 
 
7
 
[W]here the official duty in question involves the 
necessity on the part of the officer of making some 
investigation, and of examining evidence and forming 
his judgment thereon mandamus will not lie. 
 
Thurston v. Hudgins, 93 Va. 780, 783, 20 S.E. 966, 967-68 
(1895) (citations and quotation marks omitted), quoted in 
Richlands Medical Assoc. v. Commonwealth ex rel. State 
Health Comm’r, 230 Va. 384, 386-87, 337 S.E.2d 737, 739 
(1985). 
 
Relying on our decision in Planning Commission v. 
Berman, 211 Va. 774, 180 S.E.2d 670 (1971), Ancient Art 
nevertheless contends that the Zoning Administrator 
purposefully delayed making a decision on its applications 
so that the City would have time to amend its zoning 
ordinance in order to preclude the location of tattoo 
parlors in certain zoning districts.  In Berman, the 
petitioners sought approval of a site plan and issuance of 
a building permit for a free standing restaurant in a 
zoning district that permitted such restaurants as a matter 
of right.  We concluded that the evidence supported the 
trial court’s decision that the reasons given for denying 
approval of the site plan were “purely ‘technical’ and 
constituted an effort to illegally control the use of the 
land contrary to the existing zoning law[.]”  Id. at 775-
76, 180 S.E.2d at 671-72.  The denial of approval was not 
 
8
predicated on the applicant’s failure to comply with zoning 
regulations, but on the desire of the planning commission 
to prevent any further increase in the number of free 
standing franchise restaurants on a particular street.  Id. 
at 776, 180 S.E.2d at 672. 
 
Ancient Art overlooks a significant difference between 
the facts in Berman and those in the present case.  There, 
the restaurant was to be located in a zoning district that 
permitted free standing restaurants as a matter of right.  
Once the applicant complied with any other zoning 
requirements, approval of the site plan and issuance of the 
building permit were purely ministerial acts.  In contrast, 
the City’s zoning ordinance did not specifically permit the 
operation of a tattoo parlor as a matter of right in any 
particular zoning district.  Rather, the right to operate 
such an establishment in a particular zoning district, 
specifically the RT-2 Resort Tourist District, depended on 
its classification under the City’s zoning ordinance.  As 
already noted, that determination was a discretionary act. 
 
The Zoning Administrator also was not required to make 
a decision “over the counter” as Ancient Art argues.  Under 
Code § 15.2-2286(A)(4), the Zoning Administrator had 90 
days in which to respond to Ancient Art’s applications.  
The provisions of Virginia Beach City Code § 103(e) do not 
 
9
alter or reduce that 90-day period.  Instead, Section 
103(e) merely requires the Zoning Administrator to “issue 
such certificate if [she] finds that all of the 
requirements of this ordinance have been met[.]”  To make 
the finding that Ancient Art had satisfied all requirements 
of the City’s zoning ordinance, the Zoning Administrator 
first had to determine the appropriate classification for a 
tattoo establishment. 
 
Our decision is not altered by the Zoning 
Administrator’s testimony that, if she “had to make a 
decision today,” she would issue the certificate.  She was 
not required, under the provisions of either Code § 15.2-
2286 or Virginia Beach City Code § 103(e), to make a 
decision on the day that Ancient Art submitted its 
applications.  Nor was Ancient Art entitled to a decision 
under the City’s existing zoning ordinance before the 
enactment of the amendments.  See Parker v. County of 
Madison, 244 Va. 39, 42, 418 S.E.2d 855, 857 (1992)(the 
obligation to act in accordance with the new law, not the 
former, is not affected by the mere filing of an 
application before the new law becomes effective).  
Additionally, we note that the circuit court’s order 
specified that the denial of mandamus relief was without 
prejudice to Ancient Art’s right to file a petition for a 
 
10
writ of mandamus if the City failed to act on Ancient Art’s 
pending applications within 60 days of March 26, 2001. 
 
Thus, we conclude that mandamus was not an appropriate 
remedy to obtain the relief sought by Ancient Art.  
Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in denying 
Ancient Art’s petition for a supplemental writ of mandamus, 
and we will affirm the circuit court’s judgment. 
Affirmed. 
 
11