1

132911
SunriseDetoxv.CityofWhitePlains

UNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALS 1
FORTHESECONDCIRCUIT 2
AugustTerm,2013 3
(Argued:May8,2014 Decided:October2,2014) 4
DocketNo.132911 5
6
SunriseDetoxV,LLC, 7
PlaintiffAppellant, 8
v. 9
CityofWhitePlains,CityofWhilePlainsCommonCouncil,CityofWhitePlains 10
DepartmentofBuilding, 11
DefendantsAppellees. 12
13
Before: JACOBS,SACK,andLYNCH,CircuitJudges. 14
Theplaintiff,aproviderofmedicallysupervisedcareforindividuals 15
recoveringfromalcoholanddrugabuse,soughtpermissiontooperatea 16
treatmentfacilityinWhitePlains,NewYork.Afteradeterminationthatthe 17
facilitydidnotmeetapplicablezoningregulations,theplaintiffbroughtthissuit 18
undertheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct.TheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfor 19
theSouthernDistrictofNewYork(VincentL.Briccetti,Judge)dismissedthe 20
complaintforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction,concludingthattheplaintiff,by 21
decliningtoseekavarianceorappealthezoningdecision,hadfailedtoobtaina 22
2

finaldecisiononitsapplication.Becausewerejecttheplaintiffsargumentthat 1
itsallegationsofintentionaldiscriminationrelieveitfromthefinaldecision 2
requirement,thejudgmentofthedistrictcourtis 3
AFFIRMED. 4
JAMESK.GREEN,WestPalmBeach,FL 5
(RobertL.Schonfeld,MorittHock& 6
HamroffLLP,GardenCity,NY,onthe 7
brief),forPlaintiffAppellant. 8
LALITK.LOOMBA(PeterA.Meisels,John 9
M.Flannery,onthebrief),Wilson,Elser, 10
Moskowitz,Edelman&DickerLLP,White 11
Plains,NY,forDefendantsAppellees. 12
SACK,CircuitJudge: 13
SunriseDetoxV,LLC,appliedforaspecialpermitunderthezoning 14
ordinanceofWhitePlains,NewYork,toestablishafacilityforindividuals 15
recoveringfromdrugoralcoholaddiction.Inordertosatisfythezoning 16
regulationsinforceatitsidentifiedsite,Sunrisesoughttohaveitsproposed 17
facilitydesignatedacommunityresidence.Thecommissionerofthecitys 18
DepartmentofBuildingdeterminedthatthefacilitydidnotqualifyasa 19
communityresidenceandthat,asaresult,thecitycouldtakenofurtheraction 20
ontheapplicationuntilSunriseeitherappliedforavarianceorappealedthe 21
determination.Instead,Sunrisebroughtthisactionallegingintentional 22
discrimination,disparateimpactdiscrimination,andfailuretograntareasonable 23
3

accommodationinviolationoftheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(ADA),42 1
U.S.C.12101etseq.Becauseweconcludethatthedisputeisnotripe,weaffirm 2
thejudgmentofthedistrictcourt. 3
BACKGROUND 4
Sunrisewantstoestablishafacilityforindividualsrecoveringfrom 5
addictionat37DeKalbAvenue,WhitePlains,NewYork,inabuildingthatwas 6
formerlyusedasanursinghome.BecausethesiteislocatedinthecitysR22.5 7
zoningdistrict,Sunrisesproposedfacilitywouldhavetoqualifyasa 8
communityresidenceoradomiciliarycarefacilityandbegrantedaspecial 9
permitfromthecitysCommonCouncilinordertooperatewithinthecitys 10
zoningordinance.
1
Theordinancedefinesacommunityresidenceas 11
[a]residentialfacilityforthementallydisabledoperated 12
pursuanttotheNewYorkStateMentalHygieneLaw 13
andregulationspromulgatedthereunder,includingan 14
alcoholismfacility,ahostel,ahalfwayhouseandany 15
othersuchfacilityasdefinedinsuchregulations,and 16
anysimilarfacilitiesoperatedunderthesupervisionof 17
federaldepartmentsandagencies. 18
CityofWhitePlains,N.Y.ZoningOrdinance2.4(1981)(hereinafter 19
Ordinance),availableathttp://www.cityofwhiteplains.com/index.aspx?nid=120 20
(lastvisitedOct.1,2014). 21

1
Thenursinghomesestablishmentpredatedthecurrentordinance,anditwas
grantedaspecialpermittocontinueoperationasadomiciliarycarefacility.
4

OnJune15,2012,Sunrisesubmitteditsapplicationforaspecialpermitfor 1
itsproposedfacility,whichitstyledacommunityresidence,tothecity 2
DepartmentofBuilding.SeeOrdinance6.3.Inacoverletter,Sunrisestated 3
thattheresidencewouldoperateasashortterm,medicallymonitoredfacility 4
treatingadultswhohaveaprimarysubstanceusedisorderwhichrequires 5
medicaldetoxification,withamaximumcapacityof33bedsandanaverage 6
clientstayof5.7days.J.A.89,90.Havingdetermined[theapplication]tobe 7
complete,Ordinance6.3,thecommissioneroftheDepartmentofBuilding 8
forwardedSunrisesproposaltotheCommonCouncil. 9
Theapplicationwasdeemedofficiallysubmittedandreceivedatthe 10
CommonCouncilsearlyJulymeetingandwasthenforwardedtothePlanning 11
Board,inaccordancewiththeproceduressetoutinthezoningordinance. 12
Ordinance6.3,6.4.1.ThePlanningBoardunanimouslyrecommended 13
approvalforaperiodofoneyear,findingthattheproposedcommunity 14
residencemeetsthespecialpermitrequirementsofthezoningordinance.Letter 15
ofMichaelQuinn,Chairman,PlanningBoard,toMayorandCommonCouncilof 16
WhitePlains(July27,2012)(J.A.177).ThecitysDepartmentofLawalso 17
reviewedtheapplication,andapublichearingwassetforSeptember4,2012. 18
5

Aspublicoppositiontothefacilitymountedthroughthesummerof2012, 1
however,Sunrisesoughttodelaythehearing.Aftertwoadjournmentsandtwo 2
opensessions,theCommonCouncilendedpublichearingsonDecember3,2012. 3
Sunrisethenchangedtack,writingtothemayorofWhitePlainsandthe 4
CommonCounciltorequest[]areasonableaccommodationtotreatSunrises 5
proposeduseasaCommunityResidence.LetterofSunrisetoMayorand 6
CommonCouncilofWhitePlains,at1(Dec.19,2012)(J.A.119).Atitsnext 7
meeting,theCommonCounciladoptedaresolutionpermittingthelettertobe 8
considereddespiteitslatesubmissionandallowinganadditionaltwoweeksfor 9
publiccomment. 10
TheCommonCouncilalsoreferredtheapplicationbacktothePlanning 11
BoardforreconsiderationinlightofSunrisesletter.Theboardreiteratedits 12
viewthatSunrisesproposalmettheordinancesspecialpermitrequirements. 13
Butlocalresidentsarguedthattheproposedfacilitydidnotqualifyasa 14
communityresidence.Theyassertedinletterssubmittedduringtheextended 15
publiccommentperiodthattheproposednumberofbedsandshortclientstays 16
madethefacilityashortterminpatienttreatmentfacilityratherthana 17
communityresidenceunderstatelaw.SeeN.Y.MentalHyg.Law1.03(28) 18
6

(statingthatacommunityresidenceprovides...ahomelikeenvironmentand 1
room,boardandresponsiblesupervisionforthehabilitationorrehabilitationof 2
individualswithmentaldisabilitiesaspartofanoverallservicedeliverysystem 3
butalsoinclude[s]anintermediatecarefacilitywithfourteenorfewer 4
residents). 5
OnFebruary27,2013,afterreviewingSunrisessupplementedapplication, 6
thecommissioneroftheDepartmentofBuildingissuedareviseddetermination. 7
Henotedthatthedepartmenthadinitiallyconcludedthattheproposedfacility 8
mostcloselymatchedtheCommunityResidencedefinitioninthezoning 9
ordinance,butexplainedthatthenewlysubmittedinformationhadleditto 10
reconsider.LetterfromDamonA.Amadio,Commr,DeptofBldg.,toMayor 11
andCommonCouncilofWhitePlains,at12(Feb.27,2013)(J.A.12931).The 12
department,hewrote,hadnowdeterminedthattheservicesprovidedbySunrise 13
wereproperlyclassifiedasCrisisServices,sothattheclosestappropriate 14
zoningordinanceclassification...[wa]sHospitalsorSanitariaausenot 15
permittedintheR22.5zone.Id.at3(J.A.131).Thecommissionerinformed 16
Sunrisethatitwouldhavetoeitherseekavarianceorappealthedepartments 17
7

determinationtotheZoningBoardofAppealsinordertoproceedwithits 1
application.Id.;seealsoOrdinance6.4.5.2. 2
SunrisedidnotseekrelieffromtheBoardofAppeals.Instead,itfiledthis 3
lawsuitonMarch11,2013,allegingthatthecityintentionallydiscriminated 4
againstitanditsprospectiveclients;thatthecommissionersinterpretationof 5
communityresidencedisparatelyimpactedSunriseanditsprospectiveclients; 6
andthatthecityfailedtoofferareasonableaccommodationbyallowing 7
Sunrisesproposeduseoftheproperty. 8
SunrisefiledamotionforapreliminaryinjunctiononMarch20,2013.On 9
April30,2013,thecitycrossmovedtodismissthecomplaintpursuanttoRule 10
12(b)(1).OralargumentwasheldonJuly8,2013.Atthecloseofargument,the 11
districtcourt(VincentL.Briccetti,Judge)dismissedthecaseforlackofsubject 12
matterjurisdiction,concludingthatSunrisesclaimswereunripeforadjudication 13
bythecourtbecausetheypresentedazoningdisputeastowhichtherehasbeen 14
nofinaldetermination.Tr.ofOralArgumentat63,SunriseDetoxV,LLCv.City 15
ofWhitePlains,No.13Civ.1614(VB)(S.D.N.Y.July8,2013)(relyingonMurphyv. 16
NewMilfordZoningCommn,402F.3d342(2dCir.2005)).Thedistrictcourtalso 17
concludedthatthefutilityexceptiontothefinaldeterminationrequirementdid 18
8

notapplybecauseSunrisehadshownneitherthattheBoardofAppealslacked 1
jurisdictiontograntavarianceortoreversethecommissionersdetermination, 2
northattheBoardofAppealshadduginitsheelsandmadeclearthatallsuch 3
applicationswillbedenied.Id.at64.JudgmentwasenteredonJuly10,2013. 4
Sunriseappeals,arguingthatthedisputeisripeforadjudicationandthat 5
thecityviolatedtheADAbyintentionallydiscriminatingagainstitsprospective 6
clientsandfailingtomakeareasonableaccommodation.
2
7
DISCUSSION 8
ThisCourtreviewsdenovothedismissalofacomplaintunderRule 9
12(b)(1).Shabajv.Holder,718F.3d48,50(2dCir.2013).Thedistrictcourts 10
determinationthatanissueisnotripeisalsorevieweddenovo.UnitedStatesv. 11
BroadcastMusic,Inc.,275F.3d168,178(2dCir.2001). 12
Because[r]ipenessisajurisdictionalinquiry,landownersbringing 13
zoningchallengesmustmeetthehighburdenofprovingthatwecanlooktoa 14
final,definitivepositionfromalocalauthoritytoassesspreciselyhowtheycan 15
usetheirpropertybeforethisCourtmayentertaintheirclaims.Murphy,402 16
F.3dat347.Sunrisearguesthatthisfinaldecisionrequirementdoesnotapplyto 17

2
Becauseitsbriefmakesnoargumentregardingdisparateimpact,Sunrisehaswaived
thatissueonappeal.SeeGrossv.Rell,585F.3d72,95(2dCir.2009).
9

zoningchallengesundertheADAbasedonallegationsofintentional 1
discriminationbecausethosecause[]auniquelyimmediateinjuryrendering 2
suchclaimsripefromtheactofdiscrimination.AppellantsBr.22.Inthe 3
alternative,Sunrisecontendsthatitssuitisripeeitherbecausethecity 4
constructivelydenieditsapplicationorbecausefurtherpursuitoftheapplication 5
wouldhavebeenfutile.Weconcludeotherwise. 6
TheSupremeCourthasarticulatedspecificripenessrequirements 7
applicabletolandusedisputes,Murphy,402F.3dat347,inparticularholding 8
thatatakingsclaimisnotripeuntilthegovernmententitychargedwith 9
implementingtheregulationshasreachedafinaldecisionregardingthe 10
applicationoftheregulationstothepropertyatissue,WilliamsonCnty.Regl 11
PlanningCommnv.HamiltonBankofJohnsonCity,473U.S.172,186(1985). 12
AlthoughWilliamsonCountyinvolvedachallengetoaregulatorytaking,the 13
finaldecisionrequirementhasnotbeensostrictlyconfined.Murphy,402F.3d 14
at34950(citingopinionsfromtheThird,Seventh,andNinthCircuits).Wehave 15
previouslyextendedthefinaldecisionrequirementtozoningchallengesbased 16
onsubstantivedueprocess;FirstAmendmentrightsofassemblyandfree 17
exercise;theReligiousLandUseandInstitutionalizedPersonsActof2000 18
10

(RLUIPA),42U.S.C.2000ccetseq.;andastateanaloguetoRLUIPA,the 1
ConnecticutActConcerningReligiousFreedom(CACRF),Conn.Gen.Stat. 2
52571b.SeeSouthviewAssocs.v.Bongartz,980F.2d84,9697(2dCir.1992) 3
(substantivedueprocess);Murphy,402F.3dat352(FirstAmendment,RLUIPA, 4
andCACRF).Forthereasonsthatfollow,wedeclinetoadoptacategoricalrule 5
exceptingfromthefinaldecisionrequirementanycaseinwhichalandowner 6
allegesintentionaldiscrimination. 7
Wehavepreviouslycharacterized[t]hepurposeoftheripeness 8
requirementasensur[ing]thatadisputehasgeneratedinjurysignificant 9
enoughtosatisfythecaseorcontroversyrequirementofArticleIIIoftheU.S. 10
Constitution.Doughertyv.TownofN.HempsteadBd.ofZoningAppeals,282F.3d 11
83,90(2dCir.2002).WilliamsonCountysfinaldecisionrequirementhelps 12
distinguishbetweenthosecasesinwhichaplaintiffhassufferedaconcreteand 13
particularized,actualorimminentinjury,Lujanv.DefendersofWildlife,504U.S. 14
555,560(1992),andthoseinwhichtheinjuryismerelyspeculativeandmay 15
neveroccur,dependingonthefinaladministrativeresolution,Dougherty,282 16
F.3dat90;seeWilliamsonCnty.,473U.S.at191([T]hefactorsofparticular 17
significanceinthe[takings]inquiry....simplycannotbeevaluateduntilthe 18
11

administrativeagencyhasarrivedatafinal,definitivepositionregardinghowit 1
willapplytheregulationsatissuetotheparticularlandinquestion.).Inother 2
words,anonfinaldecisiononhowaparceloflandmaybeuseddoesnot 3
ordinarilygiverisetoaninjurythatissufficientlyconcreteandparticularizedto 4
satisfyArticleIII. 5
Sunriseargues,however,thattherearelimitstotheprincipleannounced 6
inWilliamsonCounty,andthatdistinctionsbetweentherightsatissueinthatcase 7
andinthisoneillustratethoselimits.SunrisepointsoutthatWilliamsonCounty 8
involvedaclaimofregulatorytakingthatis,aclaimthatthedenialofthe 9
landownersdevelopmentproposalwastantamounttoatakingoftheowners 10
propertyforpublicpurposes,thatundertheConstitutionentitledtheownerto 11
compensation.SeeLucasv.S.C.CoastalCouncil,505U.S.1003,1017(1992); 12
PennsylvaniaCoalCo.v.Mahon,260U.S.393,415(1922).Insuchacase,Sunrise 13
argues,thelandownerseekscompensationforaharmthatisinherentinthe 14
denialofthepermititself,whichisnotcompleteuntiltheproposedlanduseis 15
finallyanddefinitelyforbidden.Here,incontrast,Sunriseclaimsthatitwasthe 16
victimofanactofdisabilitydiscriminationforbiddenbyfederallaw,andthat 17
12

theinjuryfromsuchdiscriminationisexperiencedassoonastheofficialacts 1
withadiscriminatorymotivation. 2
Theargumentisnotwithoutappeal.Generally,whenapublicofficial 3
violatesconstitutionalorstatutoryrightsofcitizenstoequaltreatment,weallow 4
resorttothefederalcourtstovindicatethoserights,withoutrequiringthe 5
offendedpersontoexhaustpotentiallyavailablestateremediesfirst.SeePatsyv. 6
Fla.Bd.OfRegents,457U.S.496,516(1982);Doev.Pfrommer,148F.3d73,78(2d 7
Cir.1998).Insuchcases,however,thevictimofdiscriminationnormallyseeks 8
compensation,intheformofmoneydamages,fortheviolationofhisorher 9
rights. 10
Weneednotaddressherewhetherapropertyownerwhoclaimedthata 11
localofficialvetoedhisorherdevelopmentprojectoutofhostilitybasedonthe 12
ownersrace,gender,disability,orthelike,inviolationoffederalstatutoryor 13
constitutionallaw,couldseekimmediaterecompenseinfederalcourtfromthat 14
officialforthedignitaryoremotionalharminflictedbytheofficialeveninthe 15
absenceofafinaldecisiononthedevelopmentproposalorwithoutpursuingan 16
administrativeappealofthataction.Thatquestionisnotpresentedinthiscase, 17
becauseSunrisedoesnotseekcompensatorydamagesfromtheofficialwhoit 18
13

claimsactedoutofdiscriminatorymotivation,butratherseeksaninjunction 1
blockingthedisapprovalandauthorizingconstructionofitsproject.Regardless 2
ofthebasisoftheclaimthatthelocalactionviolatedfederalrights,therelief 3
soughtbringsthecasesquarelywithinthecompassofWilliamsonCountyandits 4
progeny. 5
EvenifitweretruethatthechallengedrejectionbytheBuilding 6
Departmentwastheproductofadiscriminatorymotivationonthepartofthe 7
officialwhoissuedit,thatillegalactwouldnotnecessarilyrequire,asaremedy, 8
theissuanceofapermittoSunrise.IfSunriseproceedswithitsapplication,the 9
rejectionmaybereversed,andtheprojectmaybepermittedtoproceedorthe 10
applicationmayberejectedonother,nondiscriminatorygrounds.Onlyafter 11
Sunrisecompletestheprocesswillitbeknownwhethertheallegedly 12
discriminatorydecisionoftheofficialhadanyeffectatallonSunrises 13
application. 14
Wethink,therefore,thataplaintiffallegingdiscriminationinthecontextof 15
alandusedisputeissubjecttothefinaldecisionrequirementunlesshecanshow 16
thathesufferedsomeinjuryindependentofthechallengedlandusedecision. 17
Thus,forexample,aplaintiffneednotawaitafinaldecisiontochallengea 18
14

zoningpolicythatisdiscriminatoryonitsface,Jacksonv.OkaloosaCnty.,Fla.,21 1
F.3d1531,1541(11thCir.1994),orthemanipulationofazoningprocessoutof 2
discriminatoryanimustoavoidafinaldecision,GroomeRes.Ltd.v.Parishof 3
Jefferson,234F.3d192,199200(5thCir.2000).Inthosecases,pursuitofafurther 4
administrativedecisionwoulddonothingtofurtherdefine[the]injury,andthe 5
claimshouldnotbesubjecttotheapplicationoftheWilliamsonripenesstest. 6
Dougherty,282F.3dat90. 7
Thisisnotsuchacase.Sunriseallegesthatthecommissioners 8
determinationthatitsfacilitydidnotqualifyasacommunityresidenceandthe 9
CommonCouncilsfailuretotakefurtheractiononitsapplicationthereafter 10
causeditimmediateinjury.AppellantsBr.2425.Butinlightofadministrative 11
avenuesforreliefoutlinedinthezoningordinanceandthecommissionersletter, 12
weconcludethatneitheroftheseactsgaverisetoaninjuryindependentofthe 13
citysultimatelandusedecision.Sunrisemustthereforeprov[e]thatwecan 14
looktoafinal,definitivepositionfromthecityregardingitsapplicationbefore 15
wemayentertainitsclaims.Murphy,402F.3dat347. 16
ThatSunrisehasfailedtodo.WehavepreviouslyinterpretedWilliamson 17
Countyascondition[ing]federalreviewonapropertyownersubmittingatleast 18
15

onemeaningfulapplicationforavariance.Id.at348.Byforgoingtheavenues 1
forreliefoutlinedinthecommissionersreviseddetermination,Sunrisedeprived 2
thecityoftheopportunitytoissueafinaldecision.SeeOrdinance6.4.5.2 3
(barringthecityfromtakinganyfurtheractiononanapplicationuntilthe 4
applicantprocuresallrequiredvariances).Afederallawsuitatthisstagewould 5
inhibitthekindofgiveandtakenegotiationthatoftenresolveslanduse 6
problems,andwouldinthatwayimpairortruncateaprocessthatmustbe 7
allowedtorunitscourse.InlightofSunrisesmidstreamabandonmentofthe 8
zoningprocess,itsclaimisnotyetripe. 9
NorcanweexcuseSunrisesfailuretocomplywiththefinaldecision 10
requirementbycharacterizingthecitysresponsetoitsrequestforareasonable 11
accommodationasconstructivelydenyingitsapplication.First,because 12
Sunrisesrequestsoughtthesameresultasitsspecialpermitapplication,wedo 13
notthinkthatthecityignoredtherequestbyincorporatingitintothe 14
application.SeeOxfordHouse,Inc.v.CityofVirginiaBeach,825F.Supp.1251,1261 15
(E.D.Va.1993)(statingthatthezoningprocess,includingthehearingson 16
applicationsforconditionalusepermits,servesCongressspurposetoprovide 17
municipalitieswiththeopportunitytoadjusttheirgenerallyapplicablerulesto 18
16

allowhandicappedindividualsequalaccesstohousing).Second,wehave 1
explainedthattoprevailonareasonableaccommodationclaim,plaintiffsmust 2
firstprovidethegovernmentalentityanopportunitytoaccommodatethem 3
throughtheentitysestablishedproceduresusedtoadjusttheneutralpolicyin 4
question.Tsombanidisv.W.HavenFireDept,352F.3d565,578(2dCir.2003). 5
Again,Sunrisesfailuretopursueavarianceortoappealthecommissioners 6
determinationdeprivedthecityofthisopportunity. 7
NordowethinkthatrequiringSunrisetopursueanadministrativeappeal 8
oranapplicationforavariancewouldnecessarilybefutile.ThecitysBoardof 9
Appealsdoesnotlack[]discretiontograntvariances,Murphy,402F.3dat349; 10
seealsoOrdinance10.3.5.AndSunrisesownfailuretosubmit[]atleastone 11
meaningfulapplicationforavariancepreventsusfromdeterminingwhether 12
theboardhasduginitsheelsandmadeclearthatallsuchapplicationswillbe 13
denied,Murphy,402F.3dat348,349;seealsoOrdinance6.4.5.2,soastopermit 14
ustotreatthematterappealedfromasripeforjudicialconsideration.Wethus 15
seenobasisintherecordtoapplythefutilityexceptiontothefinaldecision 16
requirementinthiscase. 17
17

CONCLUSION 1
WehaveconsideredSunrisesremainingargumentsandhavefoundthem 2
tobewithoutmerit.WethereforeAFFIRMthejudgmentofthedistrictcourt 3
dismissingSunrisesclaimsforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdiction. 4