
    KEY BISCAYNE GATEWAY PARTNERS, LTD, Appellant, v. VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE and Village Council for the Village of Key Biscayne, Appellees.
    No. 3D14-1762.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    July 29, 2015.
    . Lipcon, Margulies, Alsina & Winkleman, P.A., and Michael A. Winkleman, for appellant.
    Weiss Serota Helfman Cole Bierman & Popok, P.L., and Laura K. Wendell and John J. Quick, for appellees.
    Before SALTER, LOGUE, and SCALES, JJ.
   LOGUE, J.

Key Biscayne Gateway Partners, Inc., seeks review of the trial court’s order dismissing its amended complaint, which sought a writ of mandamus directing the Council and Village of Key Biscayne to approve a proposed site plan. The complaint for the writ of mandamus was based upon allegations of misconduct by the Council and Village.

Mandamus, of course, will lie only to command the performance of a ministerial act. Town of Manalapan v. Rechler, 674 So.2d 789, 790 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (“Mandamus is defined as a remedy to command performance of a ministerial act that the person deprived has a right to demand, or a remedy where public officials or agencies may be coerced to perform ministerial duties that they have a clear legal duty to perform.”). Under the applicable ordinance, the Village approves a site plan by vote of its council after a quasi-judicial public hearing concerning whether certain criteria are met. In these circumstances, mandamus will not he because the Village’s decision to approve the site plan involves quasi-judicial fact finding and quasi-judicial discretion. See id. (“A duty or act is defined as ministerial when there is no room for the exercise of discretion, and the performance being required is directed by law.”).

Accordingly, we affirm the order of dismissal. In doing so, we do not reach and do not decide any issues relating to the alleged misconduct of the Council and the Village.

Affirmed.  