United States District Court, D. Connecticut
TIMOTHY G. MARTIN Plaintiff,
v.
TOWN OF SIMSBURY, ET AL. Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION
TO DISMISS
KARI
A. DOOLEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
This
action arises out of the Plaintiff's effort to develop a
piece of property in Simsbury, Connecticut (the
“Property”). The Defendants include the Town of
Simsbury (the “Town”), employees of the Town and
certain members of both the Zoning Board and the Wetlands
Commission. The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF No.
83)[1]
asserting that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over the constitutional “takings” claim (Count
One and Count Two) because the Plaintiff had not exhausted
his state court remedies prior to commencing this action. The
Defendants further asserted that the Plaintiff has not
adequately pleaded an inverse condemnation claim (Count
Seven). For the following reasons, the Motion to Dismiss
Counts One, Two and Seven is DENIED.
Procedural
History
The
Plaintiff commenced this action on June 15, 2016 against the
Town and other Town officials alleging federal constitutional
claims of a regulatory taking and violations of substantive
and procedural due process and equal protection under
sections 1983, 1985, and 1988 of title 42 of the United
States Code, as well as state law claims. By motion dated
September 15, 2016, each Defendant sought dismissal of the
case on a variety of bases, to include questions of subject
matter jurisdiction, as well as claims that the Plaintiff had
failed to state a claim upon which relief might be granted
(ECF No. 25). The omnibus motion was granted by the Court
(Hall, J.) on May 2, 2017 (ECF No. 58) on the limited issue
of ripeness. The other issues raised in the motion to dismiss
were not addressed in the Court's decision.
The
Plaintiff appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals, which vacated the decision and remanded the case
for further proceedings on May 29, 2018 (ECF No. 67). On
remand, the Defendants again moved to dismiss the complaint
(ECF No. 83) raising the issues that were not previously
decided. Briefing on the Motion to Dismiss was extended over
the course of several months. The Court heard oral argument
on the Motion to Dismiss on March 21, 2019. Following a
hearing on the Motion to Dismiss, the Court granted the
motion, in part, and dismissed Count One, Equal
Protection[2] and Due Process; Count Two, Supervisory
Liability, to the extent the claim encompasses the Equal
Protection and Due Process claims in Count One; Count Three,
Conspiracy; Count Four, Intentional Infliction of Emotional
Distress; Count Five, Negligence; and Count Six, Negligent
Infliction of Emotional Distress. The Court reserved on the
motion with respect to Count Seven, Inverse Condemnation;
Count One, Regulatory Taking; and Count Two, Supervisory
Liability, to the extent the claim encompasses the Takings
claim in Count One. Separately, the Court also took up the
issue of whether the claims against Defendant Mr. Beach
should be dismissed for failure to effect service, and
whether the Plaintiff should be given more time to do so. By
Order (ECF No. 136) dated June 19, 2019, all remaining claims
against Defendant Mr. Beach were dismissed.
Allegations
As
previously summarized by the Court (Hall, J.), the
Plaintiff's allegations are as follows:
“Martin
owns a parcel of land (“the Property”) in
Simsbury, Connecticut, which was designated by the Simsbury
Assessor's Map D03, Block 208, Lot 003A. The lot was
created under the “Free/First Cut” section of the
Simsbury Zoning Regulations. Former Simsbury Compliance
Officer … Howard Beach (“Beach”) helped
design the map for the land split, and subsequently approved
and signed the map before it was filed in the Town
Clerk's office as Town of Simsbury map #3976
(“map”). The Property was then appraised by the
Town Assessor at a value of $118, 000, and subsequently taxed
at approximately $3, 200 per year.
“On
some unspecified date, Martin applied to the Farmington
Valley Health District (“FVHD”) for a septic
permit on the Property. The FVHD and the defendants then
demanded that Martin “unnecessarily” redesign the
proposed system several times, which he did. The FVHD and the
defendants still rejected his septic permit application
because they claimed that his soil test results were
erroneous. The FVHD and the defendants rejected Martin's
offer to retest the soil on the condition that the FVHD would
issue the septic permit if the second test had a consistent
result. Martin appealed to the State of Connecticut Health
Department, with the result that Martin retested the soil in
the presence of an indifferent sanitarian, the Town of
Simsbury attorney, and the engineer who did the original
tests. The test results were consistent with his original
tests, and the septic permit was issued.
“Martin
alleges that no other applicant was ever forced to go to such
lengths or expense to verify the accuracy of soil tests
performed by licensed engineers. Next, Martin alleges that
the Town and Beach informed Martin by letter on January 30,
2015, that, although the official approved inland wetlands
map for the Town of Simsbury did not place the Property on
wetlands, they would not issue a building permit until Martin
had conducted a full wetlands investigation of the Property.
Martin alleges that there are no inland wetlands on or near
the Property according to the official inland wetlands map.
The Town of Simsbury, Michael Glidden
(“Glidden”), the Zoning Enforcement Officer,
Hiram Peck, the Town Planner, and Beach were aware of an
unofficial and unapproved map of the wetlands for years, but
Martin alleges that he was the only person that they ever
imposed it on. Martin spent several months pleading with them
that it was unfair and unconstitutional to make him test for
wetlands when no one else in the area had to do so. Beach
retired, and his successor, Glidden, also required Martin to
conduct a full wetlands investigation of the Property. Martin
alleges that at least dozens, if not hundreds, of lots in the
town were developed with the approval of Beach, Glidden, and
Peck as their supervisor, and despite their location on the
unofficial wetland map. These other individuals were not
required to do a wetlands investigation because their
property was not located on the official inland wetlands map.
Instead of performing a wetlands investigation, Martin chose
to apply for a building permit.
“Glidden
responded to the application March 4, 2015, insisting that
Martin do the wetlands testing before a building permit could
issue, but also informing Martin that the Property was not,
in fact, a building lot. Glidden determined that the Property
had never been approved as a building lot because it lacked
the required 200 feet of street frontage. Glidden's
letter also threatened criminal action against Martin for
advertising to sell the Property because it was an unapproved
lot. Martin filed an appeal of Glidden's rejection, first
with the Inland Wetlands Agency for the Town of Simsbury, and
then with the Connecticut State Superior Court, but both
denied the appeal. The Superior Court dismissed Martin's
case because he had not exhausted all available
administrative remedies. On April 11, 2016, Martin requested
that the Town of Simsbury Conservation Commission (“the
Commission”) give him a definitive answer as to whether
his application would be considered under the unofficial
inland wetlands map. Martin alleges that the Conservation
Commission, and defendants Winters, Cunningham, Levy,
MacCormac, Morrison, Beinstein, and Reiger voted to evaluate
the Property under the unofficial inlands wetland map, and
admitted that the official/approved map was erroneous and
they were acting contrary to law. Martin was unaware of any
appeal process from this decision, and letters to the Town of
Simsbury Attorney and the Conservation Committee received no
response.
“Finally,
Martin filed an appeal of Glidden's decision that the lot
was not a legal building lot with the Town of Simsbury Zoning
Board of Appeals (“ZBA”). The ZBA affirmed
Glidden's decision. The defendants suggested that Martin
merge the Property with a neighboring property, or apply for
a rear lot subdivision, which might allow him to develop the
Property. Martin then applied to the ZBA for a variance of
the required road frontage for the Property, but this too was
rejected.” Martin v. Town of Simsbury, No.
3:16-CV-00933 (JCH), 2017 WL 1702354, at *1-2 (D. Conn. May
2, 2017), vacated, 735 Fed.Appx. 750 (2d Cir. 2018)
(citations omitted).
As a
result, the Plaintiff further alleges, specifically in Count
Seven, that the property cannot be utilized as a residential
single family building lot, the lot is
“worthless”, and that he has been denied the
benefit of owning the property.
Takings
...