DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
In making a determination whether to grant an area variance, a zoning board must "engage in a balancing test, weighing the benefit to the applicant against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variance is granted" ( Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, 98 N.Y.2d 304, 307, citing Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384). To annul an administrative determination made after a hearing, the court must conclude that the determination is not supported by substantial evidence on the record when read as a whole ( see Matter of Lahey v. Kelly, 71 N.Y.2d 135; Owens v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Islip, 255 A.D.2d 587). The record demonstrates that the determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Freeport (hereinafter the Zoning Board) was not supported by substantial evidence and that the benefit to the petitioners in approving their application outweighed the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community ( see Village Law § 7-712-b[b]; Matter of Ifrah v. Utschig, supra at 307-308; Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, supra; Owens v. Zoning Bd. Of Appeals of the Town of Islip, supra). Moreover, the Planning Board of the Incorporated Village of Freeport (hereinafter the Planning Board), in two separate decisions dated May 13, 1986, and January 22, 1998, respectively, approved a subdivision of the petitioners' property which effectively created the substandard parcel which is the subject of the petition. Thus, the Planning Board's actions effectively sanctioned the subdivision, and contributed, in part, to the creation of the petitioners' difficulties ( see Shaughessy v. Roth, 204 A.D.2d 333, 335, citing Matter of Lund v. Edwards, 118 A.D.2d 574). The Zoning Board has failed to set forth its reasons for reaching a different result on essentially the same facts ( see Matter of Tall Trees Constr. Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Town of Huntington, 97 N.Y.2d 86, 93; Jensen v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the Village of Old Westbury, 130 A.D.2d 549, 550).
The appellants' remaining contention is without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., LUCIANO, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.