[brief] THE RECORD DOES NOT DISCLOSE SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISION MAPS WHICH WERE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD  In order to avail themselves of the statute in question, N.J.S.A. § 40:55D-53(j) requires that any dedication be predicated “according to site plans and subdivision plats approved by the approving authority”  In its pleadings before the trial court the Plaintiff left off the site plans, subdivision plats and other maps which were attached to the 2004 and 2010 Planning Board Resolutions.  As such, the record does not show what those maps, site plans and subdivision maps revealed.  It was the plaintiff’s obligation to provide a complete set of documents - not the Borough’s obligation.  Plaintiff never Certified or provided any evidence that the maps it did finally submit to the trial court were indeed the site plans and subdivision plats approved by the planning board.  Plaintiff merely certified as Par. 6 and 7 of his Certification (Pa59) that the 2005 map and the 2010 map were recorded with the County Clerk, not that these were the “site plans and subdivision plans presented to and approved by the approving authority”.  The record is barren because plaintiff declined to provide either the site plans, subdivision plans or the transcripts which would have discussed the relevant applications and, quite possibly, whether there was any intent to dedicate the roads or not.  The “2010 map” extensively relied upon by the Developer was a “subdivision map recorded on July 12, 2012.  (See Pa 59, Par. 7 of [...] Certification and map recorded on July 12, 2012.  (See Pa 59, Par. 7 of [...] Certification Exhibit “F”172-173 “the 2010 map”)  The record does no reveal if this was the same map “approved” by the planning board.  The “site plan” map relied upon by the planning board in its 2010 approval Resolution, referred to a site plan at Sheet C-2, dated November 4, 2010.  (Pa212)  This map does not appear to be in the record.  Suffice it to say neither of these Site Plans or Major Subdivision maps or, for that manner, any of the maps relied upon by the Planning Board in its 2010 Resolution, relied upon a map “recorded on July 12, 2012" which was two years later.  There is no evidence that the July 12, 2012 map relied upon by Plaintiff was ever seen, let alone relied upon by the Planning Board.  Plaintiff and the trial court simply presumed, without competent evidence, that this was the relevant plat plan reviewed by the Planning Board.  The record is unclear what map or site plans the Planning Board relied upon or reviewed in 2005.  They may have been attached to the Resolutions, but Plaintiff did not supply them.  The maps reviewed and relied upon by the trial court were never revealed to be those relied upon by the planning board.  The maps relied upon by the trial court could not therefore properly serve as a legal evidentiary foundation for a roadway dedication.  The authenticity of the maps provided by Plaintiff is not the issue - the issue is what map the Planning Board reviewed and approved them.  If it was not the map offered by the Developer than the question remains - what map was presented before the Planning Board?  There is no competent evidence in the record that the map or site plans relied upon by the trial court were ever relied upon or even seen by the planning board or the Borough Engineers.  This was an error of the trial court.  POINT III