of land occupied or to be occupied by a building or a group of buildings and their accessory uses” [emphasis added]) with the ordinance cited in Loveladies Property Owners Assn., Inc. v. Barnegat City Service Co., 60 N.J. Super. 491, 498, 159 A.2d 417 (App. Div.) (defining lot in relevant part as “ [a] parcel of land on which a main building and its accessory buildings are or may be placed” [emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 33 N.J. 118, 162 A.2d 342 (1960). Additionally, other cases that we have reviewed, which hold that the area beneath private roadways cannot be considered “open space” simply because it contains impervious pavement, also are unpersuasive. See, e.g., Board of County Commissioners v. Aurora, 62 P.3d 1049, 1052-53 (Colo. App. 2002) (<HOLDING>). This is so because one of the required areas
holding that roadway improved by grading and surfacing could not be open space holding that a deposition that was not presented to the trial court could not be considered on appeal holding that a jury could not be instructed that attempted murder can be committed knowingly holding twomonth delay could be unreasonable where employee could not work and was not paid in interim holding that a new trial could not be ordered until there was a finding the parties could not agree on complete reporters record