ECOGEN, LLC v. Town of Italy
2006 WL 1966734, 438 F. Supp. 2d 149, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46678 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A local land-use moratorium will not be found to violate substantive due process on its face if it bears a conceivable rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, and an as-applied challenge is not ripe until a final decision has been rendered on a property owner's application for an exemption, unless applying for an exemption would be futile.
Facts:
- Ecogen, LLC, an independent power producer, identifies ridge tops in the contiguous Towns of Prattsburgh and Italy, New York, as viable locations for large-scale wind energy projects.
- Ecogen determines that a critical electrical substation for both the Prattsburgh and Italy projects would be most suitably located, from an engineering standpoint, within the Town of Italy.
- In anticipation of these projects, Ecogen acquires property rights and easements to an assemblage of properties in both towns, proceeding with the Prattsburgh Project which depends on the Italy substation.
- On June 8, 2004, the Town of Italy Board enacts a moratorium prohibiting the construction or erection of "wind turbine towers, relay stations and/or other support facilities" for an initial period of six months.
- The Town Board states the moratorium's purpose is to protect the town's scenic and aesthetic attributes and property values by allowing time to adopt comprehensive zoning regulations.
- The moratorium includes a provision allowing applicants to seek an "extraordinary hardship" exception from the Board.
- The Town of Italy Board repeatedly renews the moratorium, extending its duration to approximately two years by March 2006.
- Ecogen claims the moratorium prevents it from completing the Prattsburgh Project and risks losing millions in tax credits, but does not apply for a hardship exception, instead sending letters to town officials objecting to the substation's inclusion.
Procedural Posture:
- Ecogen, LLC commenced an action in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking relief from the moratorium.
- Ecogen moved the District Court for a preliminary injunction to prevent the defendants from enforcing or continuing the moratorium as it related to the construction and operation of an electrical substation.
- Defendants (the Town of Italy, its Town supervisor, and the Town Board) moved to dismiss Ecogen's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a local moratorium on wind turbine facilities, including substations, violate a developer's substantive due process rights on its face when the town asserts aesthetic concerns as a legitimate governmental purpose, or is an as-applied challenge ripe for review when the developer has not sought a hardship exception but claims futility?
Opinions:
Majority - Larimer, District Judge
No, a local moratorium on wind turbine facilities, including substations, does not violate a developer's substantive due process rights on its face because it bears a conceivable rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, and an as-applied challenge is not ripe for review when the developer has not sought a hardship exception and has not demonstrated that doing so would be futile. The court first addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss, distinguishing between facial and as-applied challenges. Facial challenges, which assert a statute is invalid in all circumstances, are ripe upon enactment. As-applied challenges, which argue a statute is unconstitutional as applied to a particular property, generally require a 'final decision' from the government entity, typically after at least one application for permission has been denied. For the facial challenge, the court applied the rational basis test, which requires the challenger to establish that the moratorium bears no rational relationship to any legitimate governmental purpose. The court acknowledged that aesthetic concerns are a valid subject of municipal regulation in New York. It found that prohibiting wind power substations is rationally related to the Town's stated legitimate purpose of restricting wind towers and preserving aesthetic character, even if a substation itself might be unobtrusive. The court emphasized that it does not judge the wisdom or efficacy of the means, only whether a 'conceivably rational basis' exists, and that the plaintiff has a heavy burden to "negative every conceivable basis" supporting the moratorium. For the as-applied challenge, the court found it not ripe because Ecogen had not applied for a hardship exception, which is usually required for a 'final decision.' The futility exception, which can bypass the final decision requirement, was deemed inapplicable here because it demands that the prospect of refusal be 'certain,' not merely 'doubtful,' and Ecogen's allegations of hostility did not meet this high bar. Regarding the moratorium's duration, the court recognized that an unreasonably lengthy moratorium could violate due process. While noting the Supreme Court's skepticism of moratoria lasting over one year, it ruled that the Town must either enact a comprehensive zoning plan or render a decision on Ecogen's hardship exception application within 90 days, after which Ecogen may refile its complaint and seek injunctive relief if the Town fails to act.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high threshold for successfully mounting a facial substantive due process challenge against local land-use regulations. It illustrates that federal courts grant substantial deference to municipalities when reviewing ordinances under the rational basis test, requiring challengers to "negative every conceivable basis" for the regulation, effectively limiting judicial intervention in local zoning decisions. Furthermore, the decision underscores the strict application of the ripeness doctrine for as-applied challenges, emphasizing the need for property owners to exhaust available administrative remedies, including seeking variances or exceptions, before federal courts will intervene, even in the face of alleged governmental hostility. The court's conditional dismissal, however, demonstrates judicial concern for potentially excessive delays, implying that even legitimate moratoria have duration limits beyond which they may become unconstitutional.
