TOWN OF LAUDERDALE-BY-THE-SEA, APPELLANT,
v.
SEA COLONY, INC., APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed that a town's resolution imposed a ministerial duty to process a development site plan, making mandamus an appropriate remedy to compel such processing.
A municipality's resolution language created a ministerial duty to process a site plan application submitted before the resolution's effective date, enforceable by mandamus.
[1] A municipality's resolution language may impose a ministerial duty to process development applications submitted before the resolution's effective date, enforceable throu…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSea Colony submitted a development site plan to the Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea for approval. After more than three months without processing or res…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Plain Language Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this case, Sea Colony, Inc. submitted a development site plan to the Town of Lauderdale-By-The-Sea (the “Town”) for approval. When more than three months passed and the Town had failed to process the site plan and to respond to letters requesting such processing, Sea Colony filed a petition for writ of mandamus, insisting the language of recently-adopted resolution 2005-08 imposed a ministerial duty on the Town to process its application. The trial court agreed and granted the petition. We affirm the trial court’s decision, finding no error in the trial judge’s reading of the resolution’s language and no merit in the Town’s claim that mandamus was not an appropriate vehicle for resolution of the dispute between it and Sea Colony. In our view, the plain language of the resolution supports Sea Colony’s claim that since its site plan was submitted prior to the date of the resolution, the Town was bound to review it. In so holding, we express no opinion regarding whether Sea Colony’s application should be approved or denied; neither do we venture to opine which zoning standards should be applied by the Town during the application process.
Affirmed.
STEVENSON, C.J., and POLEN, J., concur. TAYLOR, J., dissents without opinion.