connected by a parking lot and driveway. An observer, such as the Tax Assessor, could not determine by viewing the properties whether or not Plaintiffs property is owner occupied. In fact, a casual observation might even lead to the opposite conclusion. This is not abandoned property or a vacant lot. A decision not to require owner occupied taxpayers to identify themselves as such when receiving a Chapter 91 Information Request leaves Tax Assessors with the further burden of determining the use of the propes-ty and making a final assessment. [ (Emphasis added).] We agree with Township’s counsel in this respect. As presently written, N.J.S.A. 54:4-34 offers no resolution of the tension created by the language limiting the sanction of appeal preclusion to income-produc 585 (Tax Ct.2004) (<HOLDING>). Ill By way of recapitulation, the order of
holding that property owner still has relief in the form of the return of his property though condemnation was complete and a highway was constructed across the property holding that nonresponding property owner was limited to ocean pines reasonableness hearing after finding that that property was in fact incomeproducing holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that injury to business or property was not limited to commercial interests holding that because the property owner argued only a theory of taking that was no longer a valid theory property owner did not demonstrate his entitlement to relief