Schleger v. Sokolov

OPINION OF THE COURT

George A. Murphy, J.

This proceeding arises out of the respondent Board’s refusal, by a divided vote, to grant a brief extension to petitioners so they could comply with a direction to place and protectively cover a pipe in front of their property to facilitate the continued flow of spring or other water along a nearby ditch. The petitioners contend that this refusal was an arbitrary and *432illegal deprivation of their right to the beneficial use of their property pursuant to a 1982 grant of their application to subdivide a single lot into two separate lots.

"Zoning laws are by…