BMG Monroe I, LLC v. Village of Monroe, 93 F.4th 595

BMG Monroe I, LLC ("BMG") sought to develop a 181-unit residential subdivision, the Smith Farm Project, in the Village of Monroe, NY.
The Smith Farm Project required departures from existing zoning codes, which BMG pursued by obtaining conditional approvals tied to strict architectural criteria and design features.
Between 2017 and 2018, BMG applied for building permits for five lots but was denied due to alleged non-compliance with those architectural conditions.
BMG appealed denials for two lots (45 and 46) to the Village Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), but was unsuccessful; for the remaining three lots (1, 2, 3), no ZBA appeal was made.
BMG withdrew a variance application for the newly proposed designs before the Planning Board could make a decision.
BMG then brought suit in federal court, alleging discriminatory animus by the Village in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and Fair Housing Act; the District Court dismissed the claims as unripe and lacking standing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ripeness of BMG’s federal claims	Claims are ripe; further variance/appeal would be futile	Claims unripe; meaningful application for variance required	Claims unripe: BMG must seek at least one meaningful variance application
Futility exception to ripeness requirement	Futile since Village signaled unwillingness to grant	No evidence of absolute refusal; Board was considering	Futility not established; skepticism alone is insufficient
Need for second variance after initial approvals	Not required due to past approvals or futility	Required since BMG wanted to change earlier conditions	Second variance required for new architectural features
Standing to bring Fair Housing/Equal Protection claim	BMG can assert rights due to alleged discriminatory animus	BMG lacks standing for rights of Hasidic Jewish community	Not reached; dismissed on ripeness grounds

Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Comm'n, 402 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2005) (establishes need for finality—including seeking a variance—before zoning claims are ripe)
Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (sets ripeness standard for land use challenges)
Pakdel v. City & County of San Francisco, 141 S. Ct. 2226 (U.S. 2021) (addresses when a land use dispute is considered ripe for federal court review)
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1997) (explains importance of a final land use decision for ripeness)
Southview Assocs., Ltd. v. Bongartz, 980 F.2d 84 (2d Cir. 1992) (burden on developer to show futility if second application not made)