[brief] B.  Applicant and Board described the Application as “Trifurcated”.  Applicant also argues that Plaintiffs are mis-identifying the application as “Trifurcated. ” (ADb26).  However, the two applications and request for relief were separated, and there are separate resolutions for each\(^3\).  This isn’t just a situation where they dedicated one meeting to subdivision issues only and other meetings for the site plan issues, with one comprehensive resolution; these applications are being dealt with separately, in other words bifurcated.  In fact, Applicant’s own arguments supports Plaintiffs’ description of the process.  In their opposition brief, Applicant stated “[t]he application submitted by [Applicant] on February 16, 2022… sought subdivision approval and site plan approval and the overall submission contained all of the required reports and materials specified in the MLUL and the [...] Ordinances 142-77 and 142-78. ” (ADb26).  Applicant then states “At the November 1, 2022, hearing, at the request of [Applicant], …. consideration of the site plan application and all of the issues related to it were deferred to a later date and the November 1, 2022, hearing was limited to the Zoning Board’s consideration of “drawing of lines” in connection with the Subdivision. ” (ADb26-ADb27).  --- \(^3\)  The site plan, currently under appeal in the Law Division, was granted on March 23, 2023 and a resolution of memorialization adopted on June 27, 2023.  Applicant in its opposition brief reiterated and admitted what Plaintiffs have been arguing; that Plaintiffs and other members of the public were not permitted to fully cross-examine or comment on the issues for subdivision as required by the MLUL and the township ordinances.  The Board improperly limited any cross-examination to the “drawing of lines” rather than the full scope of the subdivision application.  The Board’s argument is simply that all the required documents and information were submitted and reviewed by the Board as part of the combined application.  (BDb15).  As set forth in Plaintiffs’ initial brief, it is not enough to simply have the Board professionals review the documents and information.  It is the Board that must make a determination and make findings of fact and conclusions of law.  N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10(g).  The public is entitled to cross-examine the witnesses.  N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10(d).  Furthermore, in refusing to respond to a board member’s question on the documents submitted, the Applicant’s attorney stated “That is part of site plan…  Number one, that is part of the site plan review.  That’s in the file for that.  We’re working – you just need a supplemental submission related to the stormwater management that will be part of the site plan application going forward.  That’s not part of this application. ”  (1T41-16 to 1T14-23) (emphasis added).  Defendants are taking an opposite argument than what Applicant had advanced before the Board.  Finally, during the site plan hearings, the Board’s Planner, [...], had described this application as “trifurcated. ”  Defendant’s planner, [...], also agreed with the description of a “trifurcated” application.  Therefore, using the term “trifurcated” was not something made up by Plaintiffs, but by Defendants.  For these reasons, the Board’s approval of the application for preliminary and final major subdivision approval was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, and must be reversed and remanded for further proceedings.  **CONCLUSION**