TFE 81 Northfield Interpretation Request Application Digital Copy 1142416095411

RIDER TO APPLICATION SEEKING INTERPRETATION OF ZONING ORDINANCE PROPERTY: 81 Northfield Ave, West Orange, NJ APPLICANT: Northfield Avenue Realty Associates, LLC (“Applicant”) RE: DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP OF APPLICANT PURSUAN TO P.L. 1977, CHAPER 36 Listed below are the names and addresses of all owners of 10% or more of the stock/interests in the Applicant with respect to the above-referenced site plan and variance applications: Name: Percentage Interest: Francine Tajfel 100% 399 Monmouth Street East Windsor, New Jersey 08520 #1606948v1

WATERS, MCPHERSON, MCNEILL A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW SEcAUCUS — NEW YORK MEADOWLANDS OFFICE 300 LIGHTING WAY P.O. Box 1560 JAMES M. SPANARKEL, ESQ. SECAUCUS, NEW JERSEY 07096 E-mail Member of N.J. & N.Y. Bars (201) 863 - 4400 js@lawwmm.com www.lawwmm.com Direct Dial Fax (201) 319-5740 (201) 863-2866 November 4, 2024 Via UPS Overnight Diana Chandler-Zimmermann Zoning Board Secretary Township of West Orange 66 Main Street West Orange, New Jersey 07052 Re: Notice of Request for Interpretation of Zoning Ordinance Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(a) and N.J.S.A. 40:55D-72 (As Applicable) Applicant: Northfield Avenue Realty Associates, LLC 81 Northfield Avenue, Block 71.01, Lot 43 OB-1 Zone Dear Ms. Chandler-Zimmermann: This firm represents Northfield Avenue Realty Associates, LLC (“NAR”), owner of the real property located at 81 Northfield Ave, West Orange, New Jersey (designated as Block: 71.01, Lot: 43 on the Official Tax Map of the Township). This letter brief is submitted in support of the above-referenced request for interpretation of the Township of West Orange’s zoning ordinance, as described in greater detail below. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(a) and N.J.S.A. 40:55D-72 (to the extent applicable), NAR hereby respectfully requests that the Zoning Board of Adjustment (the “Board”) of the Township of West Orange (the “Township”) provide an interpretation of the Township’s Zoning Ordinance (the “Ordinance”) with respect to the scope of the definition of “Required accessory parking” as such term is set forth in 25 Attachment 2 — “Township of West Orange, Table of District Regulations, Part A: Permitted Uses Table of District Regulations (Subsection 25.7.1 of the Ordinance), and as such term relates to the “OB-1” zoning district set forth and described in the Ordinance. Specifically NAR seeks an interpretation determining that the onsite parking of certain vehicles that directly relate to a permitted office tenant’s use of the property, including the parking of such vehicles temporarily overnight when not in use, constitutes a permitted accessory use of said site, as expressly provided for in the Ordinance. While this instant request is not formally an #1606835v1

WATERS, MCPHERSON, MCNEILL Diana Chandler-Zimmermann ‘A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION November 4, 2024 Page 2 appeal of a prior denial of the Township Zoning Official, facts relating to such a recent denial at the property in question are presented here so as to appropriately frame, in the proper context, the relatively straight forward issue for which the instant interpretation is sought. Summary of Request for Interpretation As noted above, while not technically an appeal of a specific decision of the Township Zoning Official, NAR’s request for interpretation of the applicable provisions of the Ordinance is most efficiently presented by way of using an actual recent such decision to provide context and a very specific example for the instant request. When framed in this context, it is NAR’s belief that the interpretation of the Ordinance presented here is readily apparent, and the only rational conclusion to be drawn, and frankly, that a request of the obvious nature presented here, should not even require an interpretation to clarify. By way of direct background, NAR is the owner of the real property located at 81 Northfield Ave, West Orange, New Jersey (designated as Block: 71.01, Lot: 43 on the Official Tax Map of the Township) (the “Property” or the “Premises”)). The Property is in the “OB-1” (office building) zoning district, as set forth in Section 25.3.1 of the Ordinance. The Property is approximately 1.99 acres in size and improved with an approximately 21,000 s/f, three-story, multi-tenant, office building, which is a permitted use in the OB-I district, and 110 surface parking spaces for use of the building’s office tenants. As per the Ordinance, permitted principal uses in the OB-1 zone include office buildings, and permitted accessory uses include “required accessory parking.” Elite Fleet Transportation Limited Liability Company (“Elite”) is a current tenant at the Property, where its main offices are located. Elite, as part of its core business operations, provides accessible medical transportation services to clients with special medical needs, that otherwise lack mobility or vehicular access. These services are provided using several handicapped accessible vans owned by Elite, and driven by Elite employees, who pick up and drive Elite’s clients to and from various locations throughout the day and evening. Elite employees typically pick up the

accessible vans owned by Elite, and driven by Elite employees, who pick up and drive Elite’s clients to and from various locations throughout the day and evening. Elite employees typically pick up the vans at the Property for each shift, and when not in use, the vans are parked in the Property parking lot, in a secluded area away from the building itself, that is reserved specifically for the parking of these vehicles. All of Elite’s other office and business functions are carried out at the Property in the office space Elite rents. On August 16, 2024, Elite was advised by the Township Zoning Official’s office, via email that its business was “not approved” as “the storage of vans and ambulances is not allowed.” Upon further communications and discussion with Township representatives, it became apparent that the fact that these vans were parked at the Property overnight was a primary reason that the business was “not approved”. Given this denial (and the accompanying demand by the Township that the vans be removed from the Property) and its impact upon Property and the present and future leasing thereof, NAR now submits the instant request for what seems to be a very logical and obvious interpretation of the Ordinance, to confirm and acknowledge that the parking of vehicles directly relating to the primary, permitted principal use of the Property by a tenant, including the parking of these vehicles onsite overnight, falls within the scope / definition of “required accessory #1606835v1

WATERS, MCPHERSON, MCNEILL Diana Chandler-Zimmermann A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION November 4, 2024 Page 3 parking” as set forth in the Ordinance (which is a permitted use). The above-referenced background is included, as noted above, to provide additional context within which it is hoped the Board will consider this Application. Zoning and Basis for Interpretation A. Analysis of Township Zoning Ordinance and Intent Behind Same The Property is in the OB-1 zone as set forth in the Ordinance, and is located along a main road in the Township, with many other office and commercial sites/properties nearby. To the extent that there is nearby residential use, such use is primarily multi-family housing in the form of garden apartment buildings, with their attendant parking lots. Pursuant to Section 25-7.1 of the Ordinance (and the tables included therewith — the “Use Tables”), permitted principal uses in the OB-1 zone are the same as those uses permitted in the “R-1” zone, along with “office buildings”. The Use Table further provides that “required accessory parking” is a permitted accessory use. Thus, the critical question at hand is whether parking of vehicles overnight at the Property by an otherwise permitted office tenant falls within the realm of a permitted accessory use at the Property. Section 25-4 of the Zoning Ordinance (entitled “Definitions”) provides that an “Accessory Use”, as a “use naturally and normally incident and subordinate to the principal use of the premises or lot” (Ord. Section 25-4b). The same subsection of the ordinance further carves out four specific uses as “not accessory uses and are prohibited”, which include: 1, The dismantling, assembly or repair of a vehicle other than one belonging to a member of the resident household in any Residential Zoning District and any Nonresidential Zoning District where such use is not permitted. 2. The outdoor storage of motor vehicle parts or accessories in any Residential Zone. 3. An airport, aircraft landing strip, or heliport in any Zoning District. 4. Outdoor bins for the collection of used clothing, shoes, household items or other goods Id. At no point does the Ordinance state that the overnight parking of vehicles that directly relate to the permitted use of a given parcel, is prohibited or not a valid “accessory use”. Nor does the Ordinance at any time prohibit overnight parking of

vernight parking of vehicles that directly relate to the permitted use of a given parcel, is prohibited or not a valid “accessory use”. Nor does the Ordinance at any time prohibit overnight parking of vehicles in private parking lots. Furthermore, as per the above-quoted excerpt from the Ordinance, it should be noted that the governing body is of course free to exercise its legislative power to specifically carve out and define certain situations and uses as being unpermitted as a rule, and in this case actually opted to do so with respect to the four specifically cited conditions. Had the governing body wanted to prohibit overnight parking of certain vehicles at certain sites, it could easily have done so in the #1606835v1

WATERS, MCPHERSON, MCNEILL Diana Chandler-Zimmermann A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION November 4, 2024 Page 4 aforementioned provision. It is even more significant that in globally carving out the aforementioned four specifically “unpermitted” accessory uses, two of those 4 uses deal specifically with situations involving motor vehicles in some fashion, thus conclusively evidencing that the legislative body of the Township, specifically took into account and considered the impact of potential accessory uses relating to motor vehicles when drafting this particular subsection of the Ordinance, and still declined to impose any such prohibition on overnight parking. Nor do any of the carved out “unpermitted” accessory uses in any way speak to parking vehicles at any time (including overnight). . Thus, given the plain language of the Ordinance, the obvious initial presumption ought be that so long as the parking proposed is reasonably related to the primary use ofa given building as an office, and regardless of whether such parking is during daytime or nighttime hours, such contemplated parking is a permitted accessory use under the Ordinance. This is even more obvious and apparent in the situation here, where'the Ordinance specifically carves out “required accessory parking” as a permitted accessory use in the applicable OB-1 zone—meaning such required accessory parking is permitted as a right, and is not conditional. Here, and as acknowledged by the Township Zoning Department, there is no doubt that the use of the building as an office building is a permitted use in the OB-1 Zone. Section 25-4a2 of the Ordinance specifically provides that “[A]ny word or term not defined in this chapter or the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-3-40:55D-7, shall be used with a meaning of standard usage for the context in which the word is used.” Although the term office or office building, is not specifically defined in the Ordinance or the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law (the “MLUL”), the term is in and of itself, self-explanatory as a general matter. Nonetheless, it is worth noting that Merriam-Webster dictionary defines “office” (among its other unrelated uses) as “a place where a particular kind of business is transacted, or a service is supplied”. Thus, unless the Ordinance or other applicable land use regulations expressly prohibits the conduct of a

uses) as “a place where a particular kind of business is transacted, or a service is supplied”. Thus, unless the Ordinance or other applicable land use regulations expressly prohibits the conduct of a specific kind of business in the OB-1 zone, it should follow that all general office uses, are permitted as of right in said zone. To NAR’s knowledge, there does not appear to be any prohibition of any kind relating to Elite’s line of business being not permitted in the OB-1 zone. Similarly, with respect to the OB-1 zone, the Ordinance, again in the Use Table, also specifically provides for a number of permitted conditional uses in this zone (referencing again the «R1” zone), and even more tellingly, also sets forth seven (7) additional uses that are expressly stated as not permitted in the OB-1 zone. Once again, none of these expressly prohibited uses speak in any way to restricting an otherwise permitted tenant from using onsite parking at a given site. Nor does the Ordinance in any way speak to a prohibition on overnight parking by tenants/occupants at a private, on-site parking lot. Again, had the governing body sought to prohibit overnight parking by tenants of office buildings, it could easily have done so here (as in other places in the Ordinance). Thus, given the plain meanings of the applicable terms, and a complete lack of intent anywhere in the Ordinance to specifically prohibit Elite’s parking of its vehicles at the Property, it should be unquestionable that the off-street parking, at any hour, in a private commercial office parking lot (with the landlord’s blessing nonetheless) of a small number of vans which are directly #1606835v1

WATERS, MCPHERSON, MCNEILL Diana Chandler-Zimmermann A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION November 4, 2024 Page 5 related to the primary and permitted office use of the site, is “naturally and normally incident and subordinate to the principal use” of such a site and thus falls under the definition of “required accessory parking” and thus is a permitted accessory use at such a location. In denying the Elite application, the Township specifically cited the “storage” of vehicles at the Property as not being permitted (and apparently the overnight element of the parking in such instance is a primary contributing factor as to why such parking is being considered “storage” in this instance), and thus, the reason for the denial Elite’s permit request. It is respectfully submitted that this interpretation does not at all follow the intent of the Ordinance. As previously noted, terms that are not defined in the Ordinance or the MLUL must be given their generally accepted meaning in interpreting the zoning ordinance. Given that “storage” is not defined in either regulation, the plain meaning of the term must again be considered here. Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines storage, in relevant part as, “To place or leave in a location (such as a warehouse, library, or computer memory) for preservation or later use or disposal”. This is not a definition applicable to the use contemplated by Elite’s parking of a small number of vehicles at the Property when not in use. The vehicles in question here are used regularly, and at all hours of the day (including evening and nighttime hours at times), on a daily basis, to provide a critical and inherently beneficial service to individuals who are unable to otherwise secure transportation. These services are coordinated directly from the office facility located at the Site. This is not a case of vehicles being “stored” or abandoned for long periods of time with little or no use of the vehicles occurring. Put simply, all vehicles must be parked somewhere when not in use (otherwise parking of any vehicle anywhere overnight would be considered “storing” such a vehicle), and given that these vehicles are used directly in support of the office business being conducted by Elite at the site, it follows that the parking of these vehicles at the site, where they can be accessed at a moment’s notice, is only logical. With respect to the physical

usiness being conducted by Elite at the site, it follows that the parking of these vehicles at the site, where they can be accessed at a moment’s notice, is only logical. With respect to the physical location on the site where the vehicles are being parked, it should also be noted that the parking of these vehicles is set up in a way so as to minimize any impacts thereof as much as possible. The parking spaces assigned to Elite are marked in green on the site map included with this submission. The allocated parking spaces, which are specifically reserved for Elite for parking of the vehicles in question, are all located together in a relatively isolated corner of the parking lot, so as to not otherwise occupy what most would consider to be “prime” parking spaces and do not create any issues with respect to parking elsewhere on the site. The site is improved with a significant number of parking spaces (in excess of what the Ordinance requires in terms of parking spaces for the Property), and thus, the spaces being dedicated to the parking of the vans in question here are not needed to ensure parking flow and access for the rest of the site and its tenants. Moreover, the Ordinance, like all other zoning ordinances throughout the State of New Jersey, requires that ample parking be available and provided in connection with virtually any proposed use or a property, regardless of what zone it may be located in. One of the main reasons that municipal zoning ordinances include parking requirements is to ensure that a particular use of a site does not create offsite parking issues in the surrounding area. Here the accessory parking contemplated is strictly confined to an area of the site in question so that such parking is provided #1606835v1