Laserfiche WebLink
M E M O R A N D U M <br />WRIT OF MANDAMUS <br />The Court is denying the petition for two reasons, (1).. <br />on the merits, defendants have not acted arbitrarily, capriciously <br />nor did they proceed on an erroneous application or theory of law, <br />and, (2) having exercised their discretion, and having made a <br />decision, a review of the action taken by defendants is not sub- <br />ject to review by mandamus. <br />ON THE MERITS <br />Testimony taken at trial indicates that the decision of <br />defendants was not arbitrary, capricious nor was it based upon an <br />erronneous :application or theory of existing law. There was sub- <br />stantial evidence tending to show that to permit plaintiffs to tie <br />into the existing water main would be detrimental to the health, <br />safety and welfare of citizens in that area. Plans are underway <br />to install additional water mains and equipment, which will provide <br />ample water to all residence of Little Canada, including plaintiffs. <br />Plaintiffs will ultimately be permitted to finish their apartment <br />complex and will have adequate water supply. In the interim, a two <br />year moratorium seems reasonable and necessary. The decision of the <br />City Council was reached after considerable study by experts. These <br />facts differ materially from those in Enright vs. City of Bloomington, <br />295 Minn. 186, 203 N.W.2d 396 (1973). <br />Unfortunately, the area was previously zoned so as to permit <br />construction of an apartment complex such as plaintiffs' and which they <br />are now in the process of erecting. The Court agrees that plaintiffs <br />