Sherman v. Town of Chester
752 F.3d 554
| 2d Cir. | 2014Background
- Sherman sought subdivision approval for Mare-Brook, a 385-unit development, on land already zoned residential.
- Over more than a decade, the Town revised zoning regulations, imposed moratoria, and required new studies and fees after Sherman had complied with prior requirements.
- The Town’s actions delayed approvals, forced repeated resubmissions, and caused substantial financial strain on Sherman, who spent about $5.5 million beyond his $2.7 million purchase price.
- The District Court dismissed Sherman’s takings claim as unripe under Williamson County, ruling there was no final decision and futility was not shown.
- This appeal reverses that dismissal, holding the takings claim ripe because of the Town’s repetitive, unfair procedures designed to prevent a final decision, and remands other federal claims for reconsideration.
- Sherman died during the appeal, with his widow substituted as personal representative for purposes of the case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Sherman’s takings claim ripe despite no final decision? | Sherman argues futility/unfair procedures justify excusing final decision. | Town contends Williamson County final decision prong requires a final decision. | Yes; final decision not required due to futile and unfair procedures. |
| Is the takings claim ripe under the state-procedure prong when removal occurred? | State procedure for compensation cannot be required before federal review due to removal. | Removal requires state-procedure exhaustion before federal review. | Ripeness satisfied; removal does not bar federal takings claim. |
| Does Sherman state a non-categorical regulatory taking under Penn Central? | Town’s decade-long obstruction constitutes a taking under Penn Central factors. | Town argues no taking or insufficient linkage to Penn Central factors. | Sherman states a non-categorical taking under Penn Central. |
| Is the six-year/three-year statute of limitations issue resolved by continuing-violation reasoning? | Aggregated acts over years toll the limitations period. | Only acts within three years should count under §1983. | Limitations do not bar the claim; continuing-violation theory applied. |
| Should the non-takings claims (§1981/§1982, due process) proceed or be dismissed? | Watertight federal claims should survive ripeness resolution. | Some claims fail to state a claim or are barred. | §1981/§1982 claims rejected; due process claim dismissed; other claims remanded for reconsideration. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson County Reg'l Plan. Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (two-prong ripeness test for takings claims)
- Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey, 526 U.S. 687 (1999) (final decision and repetitive procedures; suitability for timing of takings claims)
- San Remo Hotel, L.P. v. City and Cnty. of S.F., 545 U.S. 323 (2005) (alternative forum for compensation claims; state and federal takings interplay)
- MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo Cnty., 477 U.S. 340 (1986) (finality and piecemeal litigation concerns in regulatory taking analysis)
- Tahoe Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) (resisting per se takings rules; Penn Central framework preferred for moratoria)
- Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (Penn Central three-factor test for regulatory takings)
- Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Comm'n, 402 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2005) (finality/futility exceptions to Williamson County final decision)
- Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head, 724 F.3d 533 (4th Cir. 2013) (removal and ripeness; futility analysis in takings context)
- National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) (continuing violation doctrine in timely claims; aggregate acts permitted)