Whether a takings claim is ripe when a city makes a final decision under existing ordinances denying a land use permit, or whether a property owner is required to submit subsequent development proposals for consideration under future or later-adopted regulations to ripen the claim?

QUESTION PRESENTED The City of South Burlington, Vermont, established “Habitat Blocks” where all development is banned to preserve open space. It enacted an “interim” land use ordinance that restricted development between 2018 and 2022 while it contemplated the location of its Habitat Blocks. During that period 835 Hinesburg Road, LLC, submitted a development proposal for the construction of commercial and light industrial buildings on its 113.8-acre parcel of undeveloped land, which complied with all elements of the interim ordinance. The City formally rejected the plan as intruding partially into potential future Habitat Blocks. 835 Hinesburg filed a federal lawsuit claiming the City’s rejection effected an unconstitutional taking without compensation. The district court dismissed the takings claim as unripe because 835 Hinesburg did not submit a second development proposal under subsequently adopted regulations that included the Habitat Blocks. The Second Circuit affirmed. The question presented is: Whether a takings claim is ripe when a city makes a final decision under existing ordinances denying a land use permit, or whether a property owner is required to submit subsequent development proposals for consideration under future or later-adopted regulations to ripen the claim?