Court Opinion

ID: 9597060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:55:12.533659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:36.622641
License: Public Domain

Nichols, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I feel constrained to dissent from the majority ruling on the mandamus issue.
In a Virginia case (City of Richmond v. Randall, 215 Va. 506 (211 SE2d 56)), on all fours with the present case, after affirming the trial court’s finding of unreasonableness, the Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the trial court’s remand to the zoning board and held (p. 511): "The presumption of legislative validity attaches not only to zoning ordinances adopted by legislative bodies, but also to actions on applications for special use permits where legislative bodies are empowered by law to take such actions. And here, too, the linchpin of the presumption is reasonableness. When a landowner whose special use permit has been denied shows that the existing zoning ordinance, as applied to his land, is invalid, and that the use he requested is *30reasonable, he has made a prima facie showing that the legislative action denying his permit was unreasonable. The burden then shifts to the legislative body to produce evidence showing that the denial was reasonable.” And on p. 512, the court held: "In the exercise of its power to order such action, a court may not usurp the legislative prerogative. 'Zoning is properly a legislative function’ and 'this court will not substitute its judgment for that of the Board ...’ Boggs v. Board of Supervisors, 211 Va. 488, 492 (178 SE2d 508) (1971). But when the evidence shows that the existing zoning ordinance is invalid and the requested use reasonable, and when, as here, the legislative body produces no evidence that an alternative reasonable use exists, then no legislative options exist and a court decree enjoining the legislative body from taking any action which would disallow the one use shown to be reasonable is not judicial usurpation of the legislative prerogative.” See also 82 AmJur2d 945, § 361.
Where, as here, the existing zoning has been declared invalid and no zoning exists on the property, a mandamus against the building inspector to issue a permit does not amount to a judicial zoning. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Undercofler concurs in this dissent.