In Hampton Hills Villas Condo. Bd. of Managers v. Town of Amherst Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 13 A.D.3d 1079 (4th Dept. 2004), a determination by the Commissioner of Building of the Town of Amherst regarding a dual use driveway was appealed to the ZBA, which upheld the commissioner's determination. The court wrote in Hampton Hills: "Under a zoning ordinance which authorizes interpretation of its requirements by the board of appeals, specific application of a term of the ordinance to a particular property is . . . governed by the board's interpretation, unless unreasonable or irrational" (Matter of Frishman v. Schmidt, 61 NY2d 823, 825, 462 N.E.2d 134, 473 N.Y.S.2d 957 [1984]; see Matter of J.H., Jr., & E.T., Sr. Wurz Realty Partnership v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Vil. of N. Y. Mills, 249 AD2d 984, 985, 672 N.Y.S.2d 557 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 813, 703 N.E.2d 764, 680 N.Y.S.2d 906 [1998]; Matter of Saglibene v. Baum, 246 AD2d 599, 600, 668 N.Y.S.2d 39 [1998]). Here, the ZBA's interpretation of the zoning ordinance is neither unreasonable nor irrational, and we therefore reverse the judgment and dismiss the petitions. (Id. at 1080.)