Reston Inn & Conference Center Venture v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Virginia Circuit Court

Reston Inn & Conference Center Venture v. Board of Zoning Appeals

23 Va. Cir. 33, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 422

CourtVirginia Circuit Court

DecidedNovember 26, 1990

DocketCase No. (Law) 101141

StatusPublished

This text of 23 Va. Cir. 33 (Reston Inn & Conference Center Venture v. Board of Zoning Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Virginia Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reston Inn & Conference Center Venture v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 23 Va. Cir. 33, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 422 (Va. Super. Ct. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE THOMAS S. KENNY

I have not entered the writ of certiorari in this case because it appears that it may not be timely. The petition was filed November 16, but the action complained of was taken on October 9, 1990. Section 15.1-497 provides that such a petition must be filed within thirty days "after the filing of the decision in the office of the board."

If the "filing of the decision" was subsequent to the October 9 decision, [the] petition [should be revised] to reflect that fact.

Also, I believe the proposed writ is overbroad in the documentation it requires the board to produce. The purpose of the writ is to procure before this court the record on which the Board based its decision; it is not a substitute for discovery. I would not include items 7 through 11 mentioned in [the] proposed writ, nor would I include staff memoranda, drafts or supplements from item 6.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE THOMAS S. KENNY

I have not entered the writ of certiorari in this case because it appears that it may not be timely. The petition was filed November 16, but the action complained of was taken on October 9, 1990. Section 15.1-497 provides that such a petition must be filed within thirty days "after the filing of the decision in the office of the board."

If the "filing of the decision" was subsequent to the October 9 decision, [the] petition [should be revised] to reflect that fact.

Also, I believe the proposed writ is overbroad in the documentation it requires the board to produce. The purpose of the writ is to procure before this court the record on which the Board based its decision; it is not a substitute for discovery. I would not include items 7 through 11 mentioned in [the] proposed writ, nor would I include staff memoranda, drafts or supplements from item 6.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 Va. Cir. 33, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 422, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reston-inn-conference-center-venture-v-board-of-zoning-appeals-vacc-1990.