43 F.4th 287
2d Cir.2022Background
- In 2006 Islip rezoned a 7.29-acre parcel for Village Green, conditioned by covenants and restrictions (C&R) requiring owner-occupied condominiums and connection to an off‑site sanitary treatment plant (STP).
- Village Green struggled to satisfy the C&Rs and in May 2014 applied to modify them to build rental apartments (including affordable units) with an on‑site STP; local public hearings featured racially coded opposition.
- The Planning Board failed to act (3–3 tie) in May 2016; the Town Board reserved decision on June 30, 2016 and scheduled a vote for November 17, 2016.
- At the November 17 meeting the supervisor moved to approve but no one seconded the motion; a December 8, 2016 resolution recorded that the motion “fails for lack of second,” and the town attorney told Village Green he was treating that failure as a denial and that no further proceedings would be held.
- Village Green filed federal claims (FHA, §1981, §1982, §1983/equal protection, substantive due process, takings, state human rights law) alleging discriminatory denial; the district court dismissed for lack of ripeness under Williamson County. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded, holding the dispute ripe.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Village Green’s federal land‑use discrimination claims are ripe under Williamson County’s final‑decision requirement | Village Green: Town treated failed motion as a denial and the town attorney confirmed no further proceedings, so a final decision exists | Town: No formal vote occurred; no definitive municipal decision; further proceedings were possible | Held: Ripeness satisfied — the failed motion, official resolution, town attorney’s statement, and absence of further proceedings amounted to a final, definitive decision |
| Whether the final‑decision requirement applies to FHA, §1981, §1982, and state fair‑housing claims in land‑use context | Village Green relied on Mhany to argue limits on final‑decision requirement | Town argued the final‑decision rule governs land‑use challenges generally | Held: Final‑decision requirement applies to these statutory claims in this context |
| Whether the futility exception excuses exhaustion of local remedies here | Village Green argued seeking a formal vote or further proceedings would be futile | Town disputed futility | Held: Court did not decide futility because it found a final decision had already been made |
| Whether a town attorney’s statement and a resolution recording a failed motion can constitute a final decision | Village Green: combined acts show the Town Board reached a definitive position | Town: Town attorney cannot bind the Board; lack of public vote means no final action | Held: Combined record (resolution + town attorney’s statement + no further action) shows the Board reached a definitive, final position |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson Cnty. Reg. Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (U.S. 1985) (establishes final‑decision and state‑exhaustion ripeness test for takings)
- Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (U.S. 2019) (overruled Williamson County’s state‑procedures exhaustion rule but left final‑decision requirement intact)
- Sunrise Detox V, LLC v. City of White Plains, 769 F.3d 118 (2d Cir. 2014) (applied final‑decision rule to ADA‑based land‑use challenge; rejected ripeness where administrative avenues were abandoned)
- Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Comm’n, 402 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2005) (ripeness requires meaningful application and allows futility exception in narrow circumstances)
- Mhany Mgmt., Inc. v. Cnty. of Nassau, 819 F.3d 581 (2d Cir. 2016) (standing in rezoning/FHA challenge where final rezoning decision was undisputed)
- Sherman v. Town of Chester, 752 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 2014) (recognized futility exception to final‑decision requirement where administrative review would be pointless)
- Suitum v. Tahoe Reg’l Planning Agency, 520 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1997) (emphasizes need for a definitive decision from a discretionary regulatory body)