Watten Ponds Developer Sues - What Happens Next?
- admin0129213
- 2 days ago
- 3 min read
Updated: 6 minutes ago
This post is part of a 3 part series, see the other two posts here:
What's Happened So Far?
As you might remember, a group of 400 local residents requested that the City of Shorewood require an environmental assessment worksheet (EAW) for the Watten Ponds development, and the City Council voted 4-1 to grant the residents’ request, ordering the developer to complete the EAW.
What a Writ of Certiorari Means—and What Happens Next
Rather than cooperating with the Council’s decision, the Watten Ponds developer has instead filed a legal action – technically called a writ of certiorari – asking the Minnesota Court of Appeals to review and overturn the Council’s decision. The developer, in short, is trying to get out of having to do the EAW.
The court in this kind of case does not re-run the entire case from scratch. It’s not a trial. Instead, the Court of Appeals reviews “the record” to determine whether the city:
Followed the law
Applied the correct legal standards
Made a decision supported by the evidence
This is an important distinction: the court generally gives deference to the city’s decision-making. It is not enough for the developer to argue “the city was wrong.” They must show the City’s action was essentially without support – that they acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law.
What Are the Possible Outcomes?
There are a few primary paths forward:
Affirmation (City Wins)
The court upholds the city’s decision. This is the most common outcome when the record is solid and the city followed proper procedures. After affirmation, the developer would then have to complete the EAW.
Reversal (Developer Wins)
The court determines the city made a legal error and overturns the decision. This can result in outright rejection of the EAW or a requirement the City reconsider under corrected legal standards. If the EAW is rejected, then the City would move to reviewing and approving or rejecting the subdivision application.
Remand (Sent Back to the City)
The court finds issues but does not fully resolve the case. Instead, it sends the matter back to the City for further proceedings consistent with the court’s guidance. The City then could either vote again to approve the EAW or could vote to deny it.
Ok, So What Does That All Mean?
So there are 3 possible ultimate outcomes - the Court of Appeals can say "no EAW" and then the City moves directly into deciding whether to approve the development, or the Court of Appeals can say "redo the decision" by providing the Council with instructions and then requiring the Council to start the EAW deicsion process all over, or the Court of Appeals can say the Council's decision stands and the developer would have to do the EAW.
What won’t happen is damages. The Court of Appeals cannot make the City pay the developer.
What Evidence Does the Court Consider?
The Court of Appeals hears “appeals”, or someone’s gripe about a decision that another court or governmental body has already made. It does not make the initial decision, it just reviews and second-guesses someone else’s decisions. In this case, the decider was the Shorewood City Council, and the Court of Appeals job is to review that decision.
As a result, the Court of Appeals makes its decision on “the record” that the Council had. The Court of Appeals does not look for new evidence, it does not have witnesses, etc.
So What’s “the Record”?
The record is the body of information that the City has received or developed to make its decision – it’s what City staff and residents have given to the Council. The Court of Appeals won’t do “discovery” – they won’t hunt for new information or evidence, they review based on what information the Council had available. The record so far is nearly 1,000 pages.