Dreher v. Doherty, 531 F. App'x 82

Plaintiffs Michael and Christina Dreher (pro se) challenged Town of Kent land‑use decisions, asserting federal constitutional claims (including takings, due process, equal protection).
The Drehers never filed a building proposal or applied for a zoning variance with the Town despite being told they could do so.
The District Court dismissed the federal claims for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction as unripe under Williamson County, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
The Drehers appealed the dismissal to the Second Circuit.
The Second Circuit considered whether the Drehers satisfied Williamson’s two‑pronged ripeness test for land‑use takings and related constitutional claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether federal claims are ripe when no variance or permit application was filed (Williamson prong 1)	Dreher argued filing would have been futile and thus unnecessary	Town argued plaintiffs never obtained a final decision because they declined to apply for a variance	Held: Not ripe — plaintiffs failed to seek a variance and futility exception does not apply because Town invited an application and mere doubt of denial is insufficient
Whether plaintiffs must pursue state procedures for just compensation before federal review (Williamson prong 2)	Dreher contended federal forum was proper without exhausting state remedies	Town argued New York provides adequate procedures (Article 78 or Eminent Domain Procedure Law) that must be used first	Held: Not ripe — plaintiffs did not pursue Article 78 or eminent domain procedures, so they failed Williamson’s second prong
Whether dismissal for lack of federal jurisdiction was proper and state claims should be retained	Dreher urged reversal of dismissal and retention of federal claims	Town argued dismissal was proper and district court may decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claims	Held: Affirmed — dismissal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction was proper; district court permissibly declined supplemental jurisdiction

Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (Sup. Ct. 1985) (two‑pronged ripeness test for takings claims)
Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Comm’n, 402 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2005) (variance application requirement; futility exception narrow)
Dougherty v. Town of N. Hempstead Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 282 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2002) (ripeness standards for land‑use claims)
Island Park, LLC v. CSX Transp., 559 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2009) (Eminent Domain Procedure Law as state remedy)
Vandor, Inc. v. Militello, 301 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 2002) (Article 78 as state procedure for takings claims)
Villager Pond, Inc. v. Town of Darien, 56 F.3d 375 (2d Cir. 1995) (state exhaustion required for physical and regulatory takings)