Unsurprisingly, attorneys representing the town of Carroll say the lawsuit should end without allowing the Jones Family and Sealand Waste to reargue whether the town should have to compensate the landfill owners for lost property value.

Years in court have ruled out using the 54 acres owned by the Jones family as a landfill. The open question was whether or not the 2007 law banning landfills in Carroll is a regulatory taking – and if it is, whether or not the town has to compensate the Jones family and Sealand Waste for the money they claim to have lost. State Supreme Court Justice Grace Hanlon recently ruled on two motions in the case – one on behalf of the landfill’s owners that the town of Carroll should compensate the landfill owners because the 2007 law is an unconstitutional taking of the value of their property and one on behalf of the town seeking to have the landfill owners’ takings claim dismissed.

“The submitted affirmations contain speculative and contradictory information, which has raised a question of fact, which prevents this court from granting summary judgement on behalf of the town of Carroll,” Hanlon wrote in her ruling. “The town of Carroll’s motion is denied. … The plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement must be denied, since the plaintiff has failed to show a per se taking or a taking under the Penn Central factors.”

Hanlon’s decision only puts to rest Motions 11 and 12 in the case. Hanlon’s ruling, according to Daryl Brautigam and Alan Knauf, didn’t deal with an argument they made that a use variance granted by the Carroll Zoning Board of Appeals precludes the town from arguing there is no regulatory taking. Brautigam and Knauf have filed a thirteenth motion asking Hanlon to allow them to reargue the point through existing briefs and arguments.

Attorney Jeffrey Stravino of Hodgson Russ in Buffalo argues on the town’s behalf that the motion to allow Knauf and Brautigam to reargue the takings claim is a way for the landfill owners to “take a second bite at the apple” as well as to raise new arguments that weren’t raised in initial court filings.

Stravino has previously argued the Jones family and Sealand haven’t proven the property has been stripped of all economically beneficial use or is otherwise not capable of alternative uses. The Joneses’ and Sealand have argued in court filings that building a residential home is unprofitable, installing a septic and well system is too expensive and a solar project would not work on the site. Stravino argues that there are other suitable uses for the site, including seasonal and year-round residential housing, including single-family, modular, and manufactured homes, and recreational vehicles; recreational uses, including hunting, hiking, and camping; and storage facilities, including garages, pole barns, and yard storage. He also argues there is no regulatory taking since the property’s value hasn’t decreased much over the past 18 years.

“The mere fact that the court did not explicitly address this argument in its Memorandum Decision does not warrant reargument,” Stravino wrote.