Carroll entered into an agreement with the Township of Mt. Laurel to sell them approximately 14 acres of land he owns. The agreement was never consummated because Carroll was unable to satisfy a condition of sale (he needed a Letter of Interpretation from the State Department of Environmental Protection that showed “no greater degree of constraint caused by wetlands on the property than that shown” on prior environmental reports). A year later, the Township passed a resolution creating a preserved corridor in an area that included Carroll’s property and indicated that it would “take immediate steps to notify property owners along this corridor that the Township is communicating with an open space consultant to define the proper amount of property…to adequately protect…from commercial uses, including traffic and the noise therefrom.”
Carroll filed a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, alleging that the resolution effected an “uncompensated regulatory taking of his private property[,]…which has totally deprived him of all economically beneficial use of his land and economically impacted him by interfering with his legitimate and distinct investment-backed expectations for it.” Carroll claimed that prior to the resolution the property was zoned in an industrial district and residential uses were prohibited. He claims the change in designation effectively prohibits all uses – industrial, commercial and residential – on his property. The District Court dismissed the complaint on ripeness grounds and Carroll appealed.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals noted that a Court cannot determine whether a regulation goes too far unless it knows how far the regulation goes. Therefore, a taking claim is not ripe until the governmental entity charged with implementing the regulation has reached a final agency decision with respect to the property at issue and the property owner has attempted to obtain just compensation under applicable state law.
The Court noted that Carroll never sought approval to develop the property, nor has he applied for variances from the perceived zoning restrictions. Therefore, the extent of the restriction, if any, on the property, is still unknown. As a result, Carroll’s claim is not yet ripe for review.
Carroll v. Township of Mt. Laurel, 2009 WL 524720 (C.A. 3 (N.J.) 3/3/2009).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/083156np.pdf
