[brief] Reversal of the trial court’s December 8, 2022 Order is warranted.  III.  The Trial Court Erred In Concluding The Planning Board Lacked Jurisdiction To Grant Site Plan Approval Of The Permitted Compatible, Integrated, Two Uses On The Property.  (5T 25-11 to 28-7).  In light of the above, the trial court erred in concluding the Planning Board lacked jurisdiction to consider the Application.  The trial court further erred in failing to order the Planning Board to grant site plan approval with customary and reasonable conditions.  As demonstrated, the two principal uses in Plaintiff’s proposed site plan are permitted on the Industrial Zone lot without need for a use variance, and the site plan fully conforms with the applicable ordinances.  If a use variance is required for approval of a site plan application under the MLUL, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d), then jurisdiction lies solely with the Zoning Board of Adjustment.  However, the facts at bar demonstrated a use variance was not necessary.  Accordingly, there was no need for Zoning Board interpretation.  Rather, the authority and jurisdiction to consider the site plan application submitted by Plaintiff lies exclusively with the Planning Board.  Westampton Ordinances § 149-7 (“The Land Development Board is authorized to adopt bylaws governing its procedural operation.  It shall also have the following powers and duties: . . . To administer the provisions of the Land Subdivision Ordinance . . . and the Design and Site Plan Review Ordinance in accordance with the provisions of said ordinances and the [MLUL].”); §196-3 (“[T]he applicant shall submit six copies of the preliminary site plan to the administrative official, who shall . . . transmit the site plans to the Land Development Board for review except for those site plans connected with a use variance which shall be submitted to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. ”).  “While site plan review gives the board wide discretion to assure compliance with the objectives and requirements of the site plan ordinance, ‘it was never intended to include the legislative or quasi-judicial power to prohibit a permitted use. ’”  PRB Enterprises, Inc. v. South Brunswick, 105 N.J. 1, 7 (1987) (quoting Lionel’s Appliance Center, Inc. v. Citta, 156 N.J. Super. 257 (1978)).  Here, the Planning Board was obliged to consider and approve the submitted site plan application unless there were deviations from other applicable ordinance standards that could deprive the Planning Board of jurisdiction or otherwise justify denial.  Pizzo Mantin Group v. Randolph Twp. 261 N.J. Super. 659, 228-229 (App Div. 1993), affirmed as modified, 137 N.J. 216 (1994).  The MLUL specifically provides that “[t]he planning board shall, if the proposed subdivision complies with the [subdivision] ordinance and this act, grant preliminary approval to the subdivision. ”  Pizzo., 137 N.J. 216, 226 (1994) (citing N.J.S.A. 40:55D–48).  Plaintiff’s proposed site plan abides by the applicable Ordinances and does not present any deviations from those Ordinances that could deprive the Planning Board of jurisdiction or otherwise justify its denial of the application.  Therefore, the Planning Board was required to grant site plan approval at this juncture.  The trial court erred not only in finding that the Planning Board lacked jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s site plan application, but also in failing to order the Planning Board to grant site plan approval.  **CONCLUSION**