Are two final denials of development applications sufficient to ripen a regulatory takings claim, where the government asserts that it might grant a third application if modified in some unspecified way?

QUESTION PRESENTED PPI Enterprises applied twice to the Town of Windham for a permit to develop its vacant, “limited industrial”-zoned property that sits sixty feet above the adjacent road. The Town twice denied the application based on its aversion to PPI’s grading plan that requires blasting rock, a routine process in the Granite State. PPI pursued every possible appeal of the denials, to no avail. Left with an inaccessible vacant lot, PPI alleged a federal takings claim that reached the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The court never reached the merits, instead deeming the case unripe due to the Town’s assertion that it might grant a _ third application that includes new unidentified mitigation measures. Based solely on the Town’s assertion, the court below held “as a matter of law” that the two application denials did not “present a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue.” The question presented is: Are two final denials of development applications sufficient to ripen a regulatory takings claim, where the government asserts that it might grant a third application if modified in some unspecified way?