Washington, District of Columbia 2021-09-15 17:35:47 –
The City of Washington has filed a motion to dismiss at a disadvantage. Petition and warrant for discretionary appeal Submitted by a real estate owner who is trying to transform the abandoned Washington Racket Club into a new parcel called Powell Place. The city also filed a motion to withdraw the petition from court records.
These filings, recently received by the Beaufort County High Court, were accompanied by a response to the warrant issued on July 30. The court may consider the board’s decision.
The petition for certiorari was filed by Powell Property East LLC, Maven LLC, Dale Peel, and William “Bill” Peel. Their property is near the corner of Avon Avenue and Atkins Drive. The city council has denied the Powell Place reserve platform twice this year. In both cases, the City Planning Commission recommended that the city council approve the parcel.
The petitioner told the court that “whether the due process is entitled or the decision (of the city council) is based on competent, important and substantive evidence throughout the record, is impartial in nature, and the decision is arbitrary. It’s not a target and a whim. “
Reasons for the city to file a petition to dismiss a petition and warrant include a lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter. In a motion, the city wrote that a certiorari denial of subdivision was “only available if the applicable subdivision rules provide that the decision is quasi-judiciary.” ..
“The city’s applicable regulations govern administrative decisions, not quasi-judicial decisions,” the motion said. “And the procedure before the Washington City Council follows the administrative decision-making process of the city’s subdivision regulation. Therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case, and the petition and warrant are dismissed with prejudice. Should be. “
Second, the city said the petitioner should be allowed to dismiss on the grounds that he “could not fulfill the positive burden of establishing his position on record and in the face of the petition.”
The city also said, “The warrant should be dismissed because it did not claim that it could provide relief as a matter of law.” If we consider that the facts alleged in the petition are true and supported by the records submitted by the city, then the petitioner is not eligible for the remedies required as a matter of law. “
Citing state law, the city motioned to remove the warrant from the record of “failure to provide allegations” in the numbered paragraph. The content of each paragraph is, as practicable, limited to a single-situation statement. That “paragraph may be referenced by number in all subsequent complaints.”
The city said it “clearly did not follow the long-standing procedural rules that allowed for the orderly presentation of allegations and responses.”
The discretionary appeal was filed on July 30, and the city initially filed a description of Powell Place’s property procedures within 30 days of that time. On August 10, the city requested an extension. The response deadline has been extended to September 13th.
The city finally responded to the warrant with allegations of dismissal and strike, and recording minutes from the June city council meeting.
Powell Place: City seeks to have writ dismissed – Washington Daily News Source link Powell Place: City seeks to have writ dismissed – Washington Daily News