Lost Lake Holdings LLC v. Town of Forestburgh, 7:22-cv-10656

Background

Plaintiffs (Lost Lake Holdings LLC, Mishconos Mazah LLC, and individuals) purchased the site of the planned Lost Lake Resort in Forestburgh, NY, after it had been previously approved for upscale, seasonal resort development by another developer.
Plaintiffs, who are Hasidic Jews, allege town officials began discriminating against them based on religion after their purchase, blocking their efforts to develop the property.
Plaintiffs submitted multiple building permit applications; the Town's Building Inspector denied almost all, citing inconsistencies with past approvals, leading to an appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), which affirmed the denials.
The Town Board subsequently suspended existing permits and required plaintiffs to submit new plans for further environmental review, but plaintiffs did not seek a variance or modification from the Town Board.
Plaintiffs filed federal suit, alleging constitutional, Fair Housing Act, and state law violations, and sought annulment of the ZBA's decision and other relief.
Defendants moved to dismiss the land use claims, arguing they were unripe under new Second Circuit precedent because plaintiffs failed to obtain a "final decision" on their development proposal by not seeking available variance relief.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the land use claims ripe for judicial review?	Plaintiffs argued their claims were ripe because no further administrative action (variance) was necessary, citing futility and discrimination exceptions.	Defendants argued the claims were unripe since plaintiffs did not seek a variance or a final decision from the Town Board on the development proposal.	Claims were unripe; plaintiffs failed to pursue a variance, as required.
Should the futility exception to ripeness apply?	Plaintiffs contended seeking a variance would be futile due to hostility and the Town Board's attitude, making further application pointless.	Defendants maintained that futility was not established since the Town Board retained discretion to grant variances and had not precluded such applications.	Futility exception did not apply; no clear showing Town Board would deny all applications.
Does the discrimination exception to ripeness apply?	Plaintiffs alleged discriminatory treatment independent of the land use decision, implicating the exception for such claims.	Defendants argued any alleged harm flowed from land use decisions, not an independent injury, so the exception didn't apply.	Discrimination exception did not apply; no independent non-land use injury alleged.
Is the court bound by its previous ripeness ruling?	Plaintiffs claimed law of the case doctrine and ripeness as a prudential doctrine precluded reconsideration.	Defendants pointed to intervening precedent from the Second Circuit justifying reconsideration.	The court reversed its prior ruling due to new Second Circuit precedent (BMG Monroe).

Key Cases Cited

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (final decision requirement for ripeness of land use claims)
Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Commission, 402 F.3d 342 (futility exception to final decision requirement)
Sunrise Detox V, LLC v. City of White Plains, 769 F.3d 118 (discrimination exception to ripeness)
Field Day, LLC v. County of Suffolk, 463 F.3d 167 (distinguishes facial vs. as-applied challenges)
Pakdel v. City & County of San Francisco, 594 U.S. 474 (clarifies finality in takings context)
Village Green at Sayville, LLC v. Town of Islip, 43 F.4th 287 (applies final decision/futility standards post-BMG Monroe)