Opinion ID: 2674691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Final Decision Prong

Text: Sherman concedes that the Town has not reached an official final decision. He argues instead that he does not need to meet this requirement because seeking a final decision would be futile. “[T]he finality requirement is not mechanically applied. A property owner, for example, will be excused from obtaining a final decision if pursuing an appeal to a zoning board of appeals or seeking a variance would be futile. That is, a property owner need not pursue such applications when a zoning agency lacks discretion to grant variances or has dug in its heels and made clear that all such applications will be denied.” Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Comm’n, 402 F.3d 342, 349 (2d Cir. 2005). Additionally, “[g]overnment authorities, of course, may not burden property by imposition of repetitive or unfair land‐use procedures in order to avoid a final decision.” Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 621 (2001); see also MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo Cnty., 477 U.S. 340, 350 n.7 (1986) (“A property owner is of ‐19‐ SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER course not required to resort to piecemeal litigation or otherwise unfair procedures in order to obtain this determination.”). While these two exceptions to the finality requirement – futility and unfair/repetitive procedures – are distinct concepts, in this case, the analyses for the two are the same. Sherman argues that seeking a final decision would be futile because the Town used – and in all likelihood will continue to use – repetitive and unfair procedures in order to avoid a final decision. The final decision requirement “follows from the principle that only a regulation that ‘goes too far,’ results in a taking under the Fifth Amendment.” Suitum, 520 U.S. at 734 (internal citations omitted). Normally, “[a] court cannot determine whether a regulation has gone ‘too far’ unless it knows how far the regulation goes.” MacDonald, 477 U.S. at 348. However, in this case, Sherman is not challenging any one regulation. Rather, he argues that the repeated zoning changes and other roadblocks – the “procedure he ‐20‐ SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER had to endure” – constituted a taking. See Appellant’s Brief at 27. A final decision is not necessary to evaluate whether that obstruction itself constituted a taking. In Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. v. City of Monterey, the Ninth Circuit ruled that seeking a final decision would be futile under similar circumstances. 920 F.2d 1496, 1506 (9th Cir. 1990). In that case, the property owners submitted a proposal to develop their property with 344 residential units. Id. at 1502. The plan was denied by the planning commission, and the city planners stated that a proposal with 264 units would be received favorably. Id. When the owners submitted a new 264‐unit plan, it was denied, and the city planners this time stated that a proposal with 224 units would be received favorably. Id. When the owners submitted a new 224‐unit plan, it was denied as well. Id. That decision was appealed to the city council, which referred the project back to the planning commission with a request that it consider a 190‐unit plan. Id. The ‐21‐ SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER owners submitted a new 190‐unit plan, which was also denied. Id. The owners once again appealed to the city council, which approved the plan so long as fifteen conditions were met. Id. at 1503. The owners submitted a new plan which substantially met those conditions. That too was denied by both the planning commission and the city council. Id. at 1504, 1506. Yet none of this constituted a “final decision.” The Ninth Circuit ruled that the property owners did not need to meet the final decision prong of Williamson County. Id. at 1506. The court reasoned that “[r]equiring [the owners] to persist with this protracted application process to meet the final decision requirement would implicate the concerns about disjointed, repetitive, and unfair procedures expressed in MacDonald . . . .” Id. (internal citations omitted). Requiring Sherman to persist with a similar protracted application process would implicate these same concerns. For years, ‐22‐ SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER every time Sherman submitted or was about to submit a proposal for MareBrook, the Town changed its zoning regulations, sending Sherman back to the drawing board. It retroactively issued a six month moratorium on development that appears to have applied only to Sherman’s property. That six month moratorium was extended for another year until after Sherman sued the Town. Town officials also repeatedly asked Sherman to resubmit studies and plans that had already been approved. The District Court adopted a narrower view of futility than the Ninth Circuit’s: that while “the ripeness doctrine does not require litigants to engage in futile gestures such as to jump through a series of hoops, the last of which is certain to be obstructed by a brick wall, the presence of that brick wall must be all but certain for the futility exception to apply.” Sherman v. Town of Chester, No. 12 Civ. 647, 2013 WL 1148922, at  (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 20, 2013) (internal alteration omitted). Applying that standard to our case, the court ‐23‐ SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER below concluded, “Here, all that is known is that Plaintiff has jumped through many hoops – more, perhaps, than sound policy should require – and there are one or more hoops in the future. The inference that there is a brick wall at the end is hard to establish, and it is not established here, though it is a close case.” Id. This analysis does not account for the nature of the Town’s tactics. The Town will likely never put up a brick wall in between Sherman and the finish line. Rather, the finish line will always be moved just one step away until Sherman collapses. In essence, the Town engaged in a war of attrition with Sherman. Over ten years, Sherman was forced to spend over $5.5 million on top of the original $2.7 million purchase. As a result, he became financially exhausted to the point of facing foreclosure and possible personal bankruptcy. Moreover, at no point could Sherman force the Town to simply give a final “yay or nay” to his proposal. When asked at argument, the Town’s counsel could not name one way Sherman could have ‐24‐ SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER appealed any aspect of the Town’s decade of maneuvers in order to obtain a final decision. See Oral Arg. Tr. at 21:20‐22:9. “We are mindful that federal courts should not become zoning boards of appeal . . . .” Sullivan v. Town of Salem, 805 F.2d 81, 82 (2d Cir. 1986). Every delay in zoning approval does not ripen into a federal claim. Unfortunately, it is no simple task to distinguish procedures that are merely frustrating from those that are unfair or would be futile to pursue. But when the government’s actions are so unreasonable, duplicative, or unjust as to make the conduct farcical, the high standard is met. And it was met in this case. Seeking a final decision would be futile because the Town used – and will in all likelihood continue to use – repetitive and unfair procedures, thereby avoiding a final decision. Sherman is therefore not required to satisfy the first prong of Williamson County. This conclusion is consistent with the principles behind Williamson County. The final decision requirement ‐25‐ SHERMAN V. TOWN OF CHESTER ensures that a court knows how far a regulation goes before it is asked to determine whether that regulation “goes too far.” In this case, we are not dealing with any one regulation but the Town’s decade of obstruction. A final decision is not necessary to evaluate whether that obstruction was itself a taking.