A contested feature of the Shawmut Hills development would require no municipal approvals if the 32 proposed townhomes were being built just three miles away, outside of Grand Rapids.

Grand Rapids regulates wetland buffer zones through its zoning ordinance, although it does not regulate wetlands itself. This designates the area within 75 feet of the wetland as protected space, prohibiting activities like paving, grading, new construction, and removing plant life. 

The developer of the project, Adam Rogalski, received a special land use permit from Grand Rapid’s Planning Commission to reduce that setback to 25 feet. A group of neighbors is appealing the decision in Kent County 17th Circuit Court.

“If the developer disturbs these features, or if he hits groundwater (as is likely on this lot)—none of his stormwater plans will work as effectively as advertised. This poses a direct risk to neighboring properties like mine,” said Ben Irwin, one of the neighbors bringing the lawsuit, via email.

Rogalski did not immediately return a request for comment Thursday afternoon.

Wetlands—areas such as swamps, marshes, and bogs where water covers the soil—are important for drainage, providing habitat for local species and preventing erosion. The parcel contains four wetlands and a stream.

The diminished wetland buffer is not their only frustration with the 32-unit residential development at 2450 7th St. The suit names increased traffic and significant changes to the character of the neighborhood. But violation of Grand Rapids’ wetlands ordinance is the first challenge named in the lawsuit.  

The neighbors named in the lawsuit, who all have property adjacent to the planned site, also contend there are more wetlands on the site than what the developer has identified.

Developers not involved with the project, who spoke off the record, said stormwater standards have never been higher and reviews from city engineers provide a check against any concern.

“It’s just another ‘not in my backyard,’ and they will throw anything at the wall to get it to stop…” one developer said of the backlash. “Those are the people who already have a house. So if you go back in time, who was opposed to your development getting built?”

Several other communities in Kent County have smaller requirements than Grand Rapids. The Michigan Department of Energy, Great Lakes, and Environment (EGLE) regulates wetlands that are either five acres or larger or are connected to a Great Lake or Lake St. Clair, or an inland lake, pond, stream, or river. All communities have to comply with state wetlands regulations, which require a permit before building.

Walker, which borders Grand Rapids to the west, lacks any ordinance requiring a buffer between residential buildings and wetlands, although it mandates a 25-foot buffer between buildings and moving water. Residential buildings can go right up to the edge of a wetland, said Meghann Gorby, Walker zoning administrator, but certain structural features are required, like the elevation of walkout basements or egress windows, to prevent flooding.

“Our ordinance is otherwise silent on having a setback,” said Gorby.

Ada Township requires at least 50 feet of buffer between the high water mark of any “riparian feature,” wetlands included, and new construction, which includes a 25-foot natural vegetation zone and a 15-foot transition zone, said Ada Township Planning Director John Said via email.

Rockford’s zoning code requires 25 feet of “undisturbed open space” between a planned unit development and the edge of any wetland or river.

Although Cascade Township’s zoning code designates wetlands as a natural feature to be protected as much as practically possible when considering any site plan, the township does not have a minimum or specified setback requirement, said Dan Swallow, Cascade Township planning director via email.

The city of Kentwood also does not have a setback requirement from wetlands, said Lisa Golder, community development director via email.

Reducing the wetland setback in Grand Rapids requires either administrative approval or a special land use permit from the Planning Commission.

With an administrative thumbs up, the protected area can be reduced to within 50 feet of the wetland, so long as the natural environment is as little altered as possible, and the new construction significantly incorporates natural features and vegetation.

To reduce it to a 25-foot setback, the Planning Commission must approve. In addition to the conditions for the 50-foot setback, the applicant has to show that there’s no alternative, and the plan results in no loss to “loss of habitat, hydrologic function, or erosion control.”

The lawsuit appealing the Planning Commission argues the development fails to meet these requirements, citing a 12-page report by Elise Tripp, a wetlands scientist hired by the neighbors.

Flooding is a pervasive issue in the neighborhood, Irwin said, and he cited wetland scientists as saying a 25-foot buffer is inadequate for preventing contamination and flooding. His family had spent tens of thousands of dollars to waterproof their basement.

“Last year, our backyard was flooded for weeks—it was the closest water has ever come to getting in our house. A house north of us had two feet of water in its basement—water that drained onto their property from the same stream the developer wants to pretend isn’t there,” Irwin said via email. “All of these problems will be substantially worsened by pouring hundreds of tons of concrete on top of a lot with wetlands, streams, and a high water table.”

The suit claims that if the 75-foot buffer were required, Rogalski could build 22 units on the parcel, as opposed to the 32 planned. Irwin said Rogalski failed to show that there was no alternative to his current site plans, calling it driven by greed.

Rogalski reduced the number of units from 43 to 32 in February.

The city of Grand Rapids did not comment on the case, but confirmed details of its wetland ordinances.

“The intent of these regulations is to reduce the effect of the built environment by preventing chemical, physical, and biological degradation of water systems,” said a city spokesperson via email. “These systems provide flood control, reduce pollution, maintain and enhance water quality, support fish and wildlife habitat, and preserve open space. Protection areas are assigned to buffer high‑value environmental features, and innovative stormwater management techniques allow sites to be developed while preserving environmental functions and values.”

Write to juliana@grherald.com