Opinion
June 9, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Campbell, J.).
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the petitioner's contentions, we discern nothing improper in the respondent's construction of Code of Huntington § 198-68, nor in its application of that provision to the petitioner's 108-foot radio tower. The record reveals that the Board has previously construed and applied the subject provision to both amateur and commercial towers of similar size, and this consistency in interpretation and application must be upheld absent a showing that it is irrational or unreasonable (see, Matter of Johnson v. Joy, 48 N.Y.2d 689; Matter of Albano v Kirby, 36 N.Y.2d 526; Shoreham-Wading Riv. Cent. School Dist. v Town of Brookhaven, 107 A.D.2d 219; appeal dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 990). No such showing was made in this case.
Code of Huntington § 198-68 provides for the issuance of a special use permit under certain limited circumstances. "Entitlement to a special exception is not a matter of right" (Matter of Tandem Holding Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 43 N.Y.2d 801, 802), and an exception may only be secured upon a showing of compliance with those standards set forth in the zoning ordinance (see, Matter of Roginski v. Rose, 97 A.D.2d 417, affd 63 N.Y.2d 735; Matter of Wen Liz Realty Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 94 A.D.2d 182). In this case, the petitioner has clearly failed to comply with the condition that his tower be set back a sufficient distance from all property lines, and the respondent Board has no power to waive or modify this requirement or to alter this condition under the guise of a variance (see, Matter of Cappadoro Land Dev. Corp. v. Amelkin, 78 A.D.2d 696, appeal dismissed 54 N.Y.2d 833).
We have considered the petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Hence, Special Term properly sustained the determination of the respondent Board and dismissed the proceeding. Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.