Berens v. Planning Board

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berens v. Planning Board

101 A.D.2d 838, 475 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18506

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMay 14, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 101 A.D.2d 838 (Berens v. Planning Board) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Berens v. Planning Board, 101 A.D.2d 838, 475 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18506 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Village of Sands Point, dated October 25, 1982, which granted to The Community Synagogue final approval of a certain subdivision, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Harwood, J.), dated April 14, 1983, which denied their petition. 11 Judgment affirmed, with costs. I The standard for judicial review of a determination by a village planning board is whether the determination “is illegal, in whole or in part” (Village Law, § 7-740). Upon review of the record, it is clear that the Planning Board’s determination herein was not illegal but rather was based upon a reasonable interpretation of the term “high water mark”, that is, the mean of all the high tides over a certain period of time (see, generally, Borax Cons, v Los Angeles, 296 US 10). Moreover, the record indicates that the customary surveying practice in the Village of Sands Point was to calculate the location of the high-water mark by reference to the mean high-water line. “To give effect to such uniform practice is not * * * to delegate arbitrary powers to surveyors to determine property lines; rather it is the obverse, namely, to recognize that property lines are fixed by reference to long-time surveying practice” (Dolphin Lane Assoc, v Town of Southampton, 37 NY2d 292, 297). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Planning Board of the Village of Sands Point, dated October 25, 1982, which granted to The Community Synagogue final approval of a certain subdivision, petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Harwood, J.), dated April 14, 1983, which denied their petition. 11 Judgment affirmed, with costs. I The standard for judicial review of a determination by a village planning board is whether the determination “is illegal, in whole or in part” (Village Law, § 7-740). Upon review of the record, it is clear that the Planning Board’s determination herein was not illegal but rather was based upon a reasonable interpretation of the term “high water mark”, that is, the mean of all the high tides over a certain period of time (see, generally, Borax Cons, v Los Angeles, 296 US 10). Moreover, the record indicates that the customary surveying practice in the Village of Sands Point was to calculate the location of the high-water mark by reference to the mean high-water line. “To give effect to such uniform practice is not * * * to delegate arbitrary powers to surveyors to determine property lines; rather it is the obverse, namely, to recognize that property lines are fixed by reference to long-time surveying practice” (Dolphin Lane Assoc, v Town of Southampton, 37 NY2d 292, 297). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

101 A.D.2d 838, 475 N.Y.S.2d 297, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berens-v-planning-board-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack