Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the proceeding on the ground that it was not commenced within the 30 days prescribed by Town Law § 267 (7) (see also, Matter of Ada's Constr. Servs. v Scheyer, 128 A.D.2d 869). The fact that the petitioners had successfully moved by order to show cause dated September 6, 1988, to extend this time period, which is clearly a Statute of Limitations (see, South Woodbury Taxpayers Assn. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 79 A.D.2d 633), is of no avail, inasmuch as the court was without the authority to grant that relief (see, CPLR 201; Matter of Sengstacken v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 87 A.D.2d 651).
In light of our determination, we do not address the propriety of the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals granting the intervenor's application for a width variance. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.