Northfield Ave Realty Associates 81 Northfield ZBA Application Supplemental Submission 4425 002

WATERS, MCPHERSON, MCNEILL Diana Chandler-Zimmermann A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION April 4, 2025 Page 2 of vehicles). The parking use in question here directly relates to the permitted primary office use of the Property and the vehicles at issue belong to a tenant who’s offices are located in the building at the Property. For further context, the initial request that ultimately lead to the Application before the Board here, was the denial by the Township Zoning Official’s office of the tenant’s request for a certificate of occupancy (attached as Exhibit A hereto for ease of reference), citing that, under the zoning ordinance, the parking of the vehicles in question was “storage” of vehicles and thus not permitted. No specific section of the Ordinance is cited, and the applicant was directed that any relief or reconsideration of this determination would need to be made by the Board. Thus, as stated above, the ultimate question here, regardless of the particular language used to articulate it, is whether the parking at issue is permitted under the Ordinance (or posited another way—whether the parking at issue not prohibited under the Ordinance). The Planning Review Letter confirms that the term “Required Accessory Parking”, which term serves as a logical starting point for analysis of the question raised by the Application, is not defined in the Ordinance. Such “Required Accessory Parking” is a permitted accessory use in and of itself in the OB-1 Zone under the Ordinance. As also noted in the Planning Review Letter, “Parking Area”, as defined in Section 25-4 of the Ordinance, means an “...open area other than a street, public way or access driveway, but including aisles that serve parking spaces, used for the parking of motor vehicles and available for use whether for a fee or privilege for clients, customers, suppliers, residents or employees.” In addition, the Planning Review Letter further explains that the Ordinance (Section 25-12.1) does not restrict the number of hours, or times of day, parking may take place in off-street parking areas. Similarly, and as a logical extension, the Ordinance does not in any way prohibit the type of vehicles that can be parked at a given site, nor does it define or distinguish the “storage of vehicles” as opposed to the parking of vehicles, nor does it provide any prohibition on storage of vehicles in private parking lots

d at a given site, nor does it define or distinguish the “storage of vehicles” as opposed to the parking of vehicles, nor does it provide any prohibition on storage of vehicles in private parking lots to begin with (not to mention that the vehicles in question here are used on a daily basis and simply being parked when not being actively driven — which is not even close to any reasonable definition of the word “storage” to begin with). In short, there is nothing in the Ordinance, nor has anyone identified anything thereunder, that in any way prohibits the parking being considered here. As an initial matter, the parking use contemplated in the Application, on its face, immediately fits within the definition of “Parking Area” as set forth in the Ordinance, as the vehicles in question clearly belong to a client of the Applicant who rents office space at the Property, are being used with the Applicant’s permission, and are not located on a street, public way or access driveway. It only logically follows then that a location such as the parking lot at the Property is intended the exact place intended for the parking of such vehicles. Absent some express prohibition in the Ordinance to the contrary, such use must be deemed permitted. In addition, the Planning Review Letter seems to particularly focus on the word “required” as same appears within the term “Required Accessory Parking”, noting that the reviewer generally takes this language as being primarily related to the amount of parking to be provided at a site, as opposed to the use of the spaces. Even if this is accepted on its face as an interpretation of this term, it should be noted that the Application is not expressly tied to this term alone (although such #1638251v1