PB-24-13 IMMC Health/CACS Block: 172.02 Lot: 6

or more lots which (1) proposes new development within the scope of a development specifically permitted by ordinance as a minor site plan; (2) does not involve planned development, any new street or extension of any off-tract improvement which is to be prorated pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-42; and (3) contains the information reasonably required to make an informed determination as to whether the requirements established by ordinance for approval of a minor site plan have been met.” N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46.1 provides that “Minor site plan approval shall be deemed to be final approval of the site plan by the board, provided that the board or said subcommittee may condition such approval on terms ensuring the provision of improvements, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40: 55D-38, 40:55D-39, 40:55D-41 and 40:D-53” As such if the applicant meets the standards set forth in the ordinances, the planning board lacks the authority to deny approval of the site plan. PRB Enters., Inc. v. S. Brunswick Planning Bd., 105 N.J. 1, 7 (1987); Dunkin' Donuts of N.J., Inc. v. Twp. of N. Brunswick Planning Bd., 193 N.J. Super. 513, 515 (App. Div. 1984). 11. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-60 permits a planning board to grant variances from the bulk regulations of a zoning ordinance and other zoning deviations that do not require a “d” variance as part of site plan or subdivision review. The variance proofs are the same as for “c” variances as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70. A c (2) variance may be granted when the purposes of zoning are advanced and the benefits of deviating from the ordinance requirements outweigh any detriments. The benefits derived from granting a “c (2)” variance must include benefits to the community as a whole, not just the applicant or property owner A ‘c” variance must address the “negative criteria,” and affirmatively demonstrate that the variance can be granted “without substantial detriment to the public good” and “without