Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.
In determining whether to grant an application for an area variance, Village Law § 7-712-b (3) (b) requires a zoning board of appeals to engage in a balancing test, weighing "the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted" against "the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant" ( see, Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, 86 N.Y.2d 374, 384; Matter of Rosof v. Bailin, 237 A.D.2d 612; Matter of Johnson v. Village of Westhampton Beach, 244 A.D.2d 335). Applying this test, we find that the determination of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Incorporated Village of Lawrence (hereinafter Board of Zoning Appeals) to uphold the grant of the area variance was supported by substantial evidence on the record when read as a whole ( see, Matter of Johnson v. Village of Westhampton Beach, supra; Matter of Rosof v. Bailin, 237 A.D.2d 612, supra, citing Matter of Sasso v. Osgood, supra).
Although the petitioners argue that the Board of Zoning Appeals erred in granting Linda Calandrillo's application for a use variance, the need for such a variance became academic by Calandrillo's conformance with the applicable provision of the Village Code, and no use variance was granted.
Bracken, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.