Hear No Evil ... Why Developers Disguise Big Developments as Small, and the City Lets Them

Why play by the rules it's so much cheaper if you don't?

Like any profession, property developers have a lot of tricks of the trade, ways to cut corners and sneak by requirements. For example, it's obvious that a development with many houses has more impact on neighbors and the environment than a small one - 20 new houses is more damaging than 2. Smaller developments are also easier for cities to approve since many fewer people are affected by, and will object to, 2 houses than 20. It's divide and conquer, a slow drip, for cities that wish to approve any and all development. See our blog "Shorewood Planning Commission v. The People of Shorewood" for more.

Why Play by the Rules When It's So Much Cheaper Not To?

So the law requires large developments to do more to control their impact than small ones. For example, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), which protects wetlands, rivers and lakes, has one set of rules for developments of 1 or 2 houses and stricter rules for developments of 3 or more. A large development like this one would even have to build a separate stormwater treatment facility - you know, the kind that would have prevented the city from spending $6 million to fix Strawberry Lane, a path we're on again here.

If you're a developer, wouldn't you like to make your big development look small to avoid the big development rules? Of course. That's why many laws look at the overall development plan, even if only the first few houses are presented, to prevent developers from playing the big development/small development shell game.

But not always. Take Shorewood's Watten Ponds development. Watten Ponds is a large development made to look small - 4 to 10 houses planned but formally presented to the City of Shorewood as just 2, conveniently under the size that would trigger much greater requirements.

Surely, then, the City is requiring the development to be reviewed based on its full scope, right?

Surely not. The City is evaluating this as a 2 house project even though the Planning Department knows it's likely more. For example, the picture below was prepared by Andrew Budde, the City Engineer. In Mr. Budde's words, the pink highlighted area is "Land owned by the same developer and likely a future phase. Confirm utility needs and dept of sewer." The City is planning for 8 to 10 houses while reviewing it as two.

Ed. Note: The blue circle was added by KSB and was not in Mr. Budde's original.

The developer's own engineer also stated that the developer would develop a larger area, as shown below. The blue highlighted area, which results in 3 or 4 houses, was part of the original engineer's analysis but has been omitted from the current proposal - the proposal that squeaks under the 3 house threshold for greater review. Ed. Note: blue box added by KSB.

Lies, Damn Lies, and City Planning

Not only did the City's Planning Department fail to review this project based on its true size, but they also neglected to inform the MCWD about the true size - even though they know that different rules apply for larger developments. If you're thinking, "they sold us out to benefit the developer" then you're paying attention.

Jake Griffiths, the City Planner, sent the development proposal for 2 homes to MCWD without notifying them that the development was actually likely to be larger.

In a later document sent to Mr. Griffiths, the MCWD stated "Based on MCWD’s understanding of the project scope, Gravity Investment, LLC is proposing a one to two lot split with a new single family home on each new lot of record." Mr. Griffiths seems never to have informed the MCWD about their lack of information or about the city's belief that the entire "likely" scale of the project was much larger - and thus that the MCWD was potentially applying the wrong set of rules.

And so the MCWD remained in the dark. Residents discussed the project with MCWD the week of January 19, 2026, and even then, 2.5 months after their letter quoted above, the MCWD had no idea that the project was actually larger than 2 homes. After, MCWD asked Mr. Griffiths about the city's requirement that the developer provide a plan to take city water to the north properties, absolute proof of more than 2 homes, and Mr. Griffiths responded that the city only recommended that the developer provide city water to the north lots, a statement that is false.

So Many Questions

So many questions. The City informed the MCWD about this project and forwarded the developer's application to the MCWD - an application that the City appears to have known was incomplete in a way that may substantially reduce the environmental obligations of the developer - environmental obligations designed to protect surrounding Shorewood neighbors and the local Shorewood environment. Why did the City not inform the MCWD that the developer intended to build more houses? Not even a quick "BTW, fyi, the developer owns attached plots for 6 or 8 other houses that they are likely to develop, too"?

Several weeks later, when the MCWD clearly stated that they were evaluating the project under what is potentially the wrong set of rules, why did the City not alert them? Or at least give them information so the MCWD could decide for themselves? These regulations exist for us, why is the City not helping us enforce them? Why is the Watten Ponds development, an extremely inefficient project that provides a small number of very large, expensive homes and very little additional housing while requiring a great deal of land - so important to the City?