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 3 term is highlighted for purposes of identifying a section of the Ordinance with respect to which the concept seeking interpretation can be at least started around). As previously noted, the ultimate question which the Applicant seeks interpretation of from the Board as it relates to the Ordinance, is really, whether the proposed parking contemplated in the Application is allowed (or not prohibited) at the Property. As is the case with any such request for a zoning interpretation, particularly in a case like this where, as detailed further below, there is nothing in the Ordinance that prohibits or even otherwise restricts the parking use described herein, and when the denying office has not even cited a specific section of the Ordinance to base its denial on, an applicant may attempt to highlight or focus upon, in a effort to center the discussion and analysis, a section of a zoning ordinance that would logically lend itself as starting point for interpretation and analysis of the question at issue. As set forth above, and as expressly noted in the Planning Review Letter, 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. Nor does the Ordinance in any way prohibit the type of vehicles that can be parked at a given site, or define (or even prohibit) the “storage of vehicles” both generally or as a prohibition thereunder. Thus, and as presented in Applicant’s initial submission, by the very letter of the Ordinance, there is no prohibition on the parking of a small number of tenant-owned vehicles at an on-site, off-street parking lot at the same property in which the tenant rents office space (which is in and of itself a permitted use at the site). Thus, given the mechanism provided under the Municipal Land Use Law (the “MLUL”) (a request for interpretation of a zoning ordinance) for the type of inquiry raised in the Application, an applicant must generally at least identify some starting point within the ordinance itself as a starting point from which to commence the analysis needed in connection with such an application. Otherwise, an application such as the instant application would just be a blanket request of a board to decide, with little context or starting point,

is needed in connection with such an application. Otherwise, an application such as the instant application would just be a blanket request of a board to decide, with little context or starting point, what would otherwise in many instances be arbitrary questions relating to uses of property within its jurisdiction. Again, the initial request that sparked the application before the Board here, was the denial (see Exhibit A attached here for reference) by the Township Zoning Official’s office of the tenant’s request for a certificate of occupancy, expressing, without citation to any specific section, that, under the zoning ordinance, the parking of the vehicles (which are used on a daily basis in direct connection with the tenant’s business) in question was “storage” of vehicles and thus not permitted. It is well established that under the MLUL, zoning ordinances are intended to govern the uses permitted with respect to a parcel of real property (for example, in this case whether tenant parking is permitted), and not how the occupant conducting the permitted use is allowed to conduct that use. Such restriction is properly left to other ordinances, statutes or regulations to be imposed by the appropriate governing authority. As stated above and in the Applicant’s initial submission, nothing in the Ordinance (including the provisions relating to “Required Accessory Parking” or the definition of “Accessory Use”) prohibits in any way the parking of any vehicles overnight (or at any time) in off-street, onsite parking lots. Even, if as posited in the Planning Review Letter, the word “required” in the term “Required Accessory Parking” is intended more to discuss the number of spots required as opposed to how those spots are used, these terms are clearly a section of the Ordinance applicable #1638251v1