DocketNumber: Case Number NC910080
Judges: <underline>PFEIFFER, J.</underline>
Filed Date: 6/4/1991
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The Plaintiff's property is identified as Lot 70 on Jamestown Tax Assessor's Plat 7, and is located in what is known as the "rural water district" in Jamestown. On or about January 10, 1991, the Plaintiff sought permission from the Board to have the town water system extended to and tied into his property. The Plaintiff's need for municipal water apparent stems from the fact that his lot is not large enough to safely accommodate a septic system along with a water well. On January 22, 1991, a hearing was held by the Board in regard to Plaintiff's application for an extension of the existing water line at which time the Board voted to deny the application.
The Plaintiff now contends that the Board denied his application without giving any explanation or specific reasons for the denial thereof. He also argues that General Laws 1956 (1990 Reenactment) §
The Plaintiff unquestionably has a right to seek judicial review of the Board's decision in this instance, however, for the reasons which follow, relief in the form of mandamus is improper. In the first place, an extraordinary writ of mandamus is an inappropriate form of relief because the Board's decision with respect to either the grant or denial of a request for an extension of the water line is discretionary in nature. Furthermore, an allegation of an abuse of discretion by the Board in denying Plaintiff's application would involve a review of the Board's actions, which is not a function of a mandamus proceeding.
The law in Rhode Island regarding the prerequisites to the issuance of a writ of mandamus is clear. Mandamus shall issue "only where the petitioners have a clear right to have the act done which is sought by the writ; and where the respondents have a ministerial, legal duty to perform such act without discretion to refuse . . ." The Bionomic Church of Rhode Island v.Gerardi,
The Plaintiff relies on both Gerardi and Wood v. Lussier,
Lussier is distinguishable from the instant case by virtue of the court's finding in that case that the issuance of a building permit is a ministerial duty in some instances. The court stated that "when an application for a building permit conforms to all of the conditions imposed by the applicable law, the duty of the local building inspector to issue the requested permit is merely ministerial. ." Lussier, 416 A.2d at 694. However, if in the exercise of the discretion vested in him, the building inspector determines that an application does not meet all of the requirements imposed by the building ordinance then mandamus would not lie to compel him to issue the permit. Id.
(citing Littlefield-Alger Signal Co. v. County of Nassau,
In the case presently before the court, the Board had discretion in deciding whether to grant the plaintiff's request for an extension of the water line. Therefore, since the Board's actions were discretionary and not ministerial, a mandamus proceeding is not the appropriate remedy.