BT Holdings, LLC v. Village of Chester
670 F. App'x 17
| 2d Cir. | 2016Background
- BT Holdings owned property annexed into the Village of Chester and sought to develop it.
- BT Holdings alleged a regulatory taking under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the Village’s lack of zoning (for a period) prevented any use.
- District court dismissed the takings claim as unripe for failure to obtain a final, definitive local decision under Williamson County.
- On appeal, the parties revealed the property had been zoned (RS–Technology Overlay District) after briefing but before oral argument.
- BT Holdings argued the zoning enactment did not moot the appeal because it suffered a temporary taking while the property was unzoned for about three years; it produced no record evidence it formally applied for zoning or variances before the Village Board.
- The Second Circuit treated the ongoing claim as moot and rejected the temporary-taking claim for failure to satisfy the Williamson County ripeness requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ripeness of regulatory takings claim | Filing futile because property was unzoned; no point in applying for site plan/variance | Plaintiff must obtain a final, definitive local decision before federal review | Claim is unripe under Williamson County; dismissal affirmed |
| Mootness after zoning enacted | Zoning enactment does not moot appeal because of prior three-year period without zoning | Zoning now applied, so no ongoing injury; plaintiff can seek local remedies | Ongoing claim is moot because property is now zoned |
| Temporary (past) taking for unzoned period | Plaintiff asserts a temporary taking for the period it could not use the land | Plaintiff failed to apply for rezoning/variance; no final adverse local decision in record | Temporary-taking claim fails for lack of required local application and final decision |
| Reliance on proposed zoning amendments | Village Board’s rejection of BT’s proposed amendments shows denial of relief | Proposed amendments are not a final decision about application of regulations to the property | Rejection of amendments cannot substitute for a final decision; ripeness not met |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Org. for Marriage, Inc. v. Walsh, 714 F.3d 682 (2d Cir. 2013) (ripeness review standard)
- Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Comm’n, 402 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2005) (plaintiff bears burden to show a final, definitive local decision)
- Renne v. Geary, 501 U.S. 312 (1991) (presumption against federal review absent affirmative record showing)
- Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (two-step ripeness test for regulatory takings requiring final decision and state compensation rule)
- Tann v. Bennett, 807 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2015) (mootness doctrine: case is moot when no live controversy remains)