In Matter of Ward v. Bennett (79 NY2d 394, 583 N.Y.S.2d 179 [1992]), the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals affirmed the denial of the petitioners' application for a building permit to build a single-family house in the bed of a mapped street which was unopened and undeveloped. The petitioners claimed that they were deprived of the use of their property without just compensation in violation of the United States Constitution and the New York State Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that the takings claim was not ripe for determination, reasoning that the petitioners could seek to demap the street under the City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure. The Court of Appeals reversed, stating: "the ripeness doctrine does not impose a threshold barrier requiring pursuit of all possible remedies that might be available through myriad government regulatory and legislative bodies. Indeed, we have said such a requirement might create a bureaucratic nightmare' and undue hardship. An aggrieved property owner could be effectively blocked from seeking meaningful judicial review of a confiscation claim until, for example, a change in governing law--a possibly excessively burdensome course of action, such as is presented in this case. Indeed, the relevant alternative relief here is available only through an elaborate demapping procedure, which is costly, cumbersome, lengthy and requires the final approval of the New York City Council, the ultimate legislative body of the City." (Matter of Ward, 79 NY2d at 400-401.) The Court of Appeals noted, "This is not a case where some measure of administrative relief could still be obtained from the same governmental agency whose determination was being challenged, thus blocking judicial review for lack of ripeness." (Id. at 400.)