Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant's final identification of the subject areas as "coastal erosion hazard areas" pursuant to ECL article 34 did not create any basis for the plaintiffs' challenge to the statute and regulations as unconstitutionally vague (see, ECL 34-0103; 6 NYCRR part 505 et seq.; Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. v Department of Envtl. Conservation, 71 N.Y.2d 186, 191; see also, Matter of City of Utica v Water Pollution Control Bd., 5 N.Y.2d 164, 168-169). The final identification, standing alone, did not constitute an unconstitutional taking of the subject properties (see, e.g., United States v Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121, 126-127; Matter of Wedinger v Goldberger, 71 N.Y.2d 428, 439-440, cert denied 488 U.S. 850). Moreover, the Legislature expressly provided an administrative appeal procedure in order to contest the inclusion of property in the coastal erosion hazard area (see, ECL 34-0108; 34-0112; 6 NYCRR 505.10, 505.21). Since, under the procedure, the defendant agency must first reconsider the boundaries based upon technical data, it should be given the opportunity to do so prior to any judicial review of the determination (see, Unemployment Commn. v Aragon, 329 U.S. 143, 155; Young Men's Christian Assn. v Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 N.Y.2d 371, 375; Aldrich v Pattison, 107 A.D.2d 258, 267-268). As a result, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint based upon the failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Mangano, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.