[brief] I.  The Planning Board Had Jurisdiction To Rule On Plaintiff’s Site Plan Application.  (5T 27-24 to 28-2).  Defendant mistakenly contends that the issue on appeal is whether Zoning Board review is necessary given the “differing interpretations” of the relevant ordinances.  (Db12-13).  However, the issue is and always was solely whether the Planning Board had jurisdiction to rule on Plaintiff’s site plan application.  The reason the Planning Board determined that it did not have jurisdiction was not because of any differing ordinance interpretations; rather, it was because it incorrectly found that a use variance was necessary for site plan approval.  In support of its contention, Defendant relies in part on *DePetro v. Township of Wayne Planning Board*, 367 N.J. Super. 161 (App. Div. 2004).  (Db13).  The court in *DePetro* stated that “[t]he functions of a municipal Planning Board are enumerated and legislatively limited,” and “do not include the resolution of a challenge to the interpretation of an ordinance such as that brought by plaintiffs. ”  *DePetro*, 367 N.J. Super. at 169.  In *DePetro*, the plaintiffs, “residents of the Township of Wayne and shareholders in an entity that competes with the self-storage facility business of defendant [...],” appealed from trial court orders “upholding, with modifications, a grant by the Township of Wayne Planning Board of preliminary and final site plan approval for the construction of a self-storage facility by [...]. ”  *Id.* at 164.  The court found that the plaintiffs’ “challenge to the interpretation of a zoning ordinance, raised within a proceeding in the Planning Board to approve a site plan, was statutorily unauthorized,” and that the plaintiffs, therefore, “lacked standing to appear before the Planning Board, because the issues that [the] plaintiffs sought to raise there were beyond that Board’s statutory jurisdiction. ”  *Id.* at 169.  Here, however, unlike in *DePetro*, Plaintiff did not seek a determination as to whether its proposed use was permitted in the “I” Zone.  Rather, Plaintiff sought approval of its site plan application for a by-right permitted use, which fits squarely in the jurisdiction of the Planning Board.  The plain language of [...] Ordinance § 250-4 defines “principal use,” and allows mixed use of more than one principal commercial or industrial use if the Planning Board finds that the uses are “part of a single site plan,” which Plaintiff properly demonstrated in its site plan.  (Pa3-Pa13).  Assuming for the sake of argument that the Planning Board had to make an interpretation of the ordinances, a fact which Plaintiff categorically denies, it had the statutory authority to do so under the Municipal Land Use Law.  Defendant’s argument that Zoning Board interpretation is necessary given the “differing interpretations” of the relevant zoning ordinances, therefore, merely distracts from the real issue on appeal, which is whether the Planning Board had jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s site plan Application.  The plain language of the Ordinances make clear that the Planning Board did have jurisdiction to hear the Application for permitted by-right uses, and that the trial court erred in finding otherwise.