Case Name: NEW BRUNSWICK CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY, D/B/A COMCAST CELLULAR ONE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BOROUGH OF SOUTH PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND TED DABROWSKI, KAZ DABROWSKI, KARL KOLAR, SALLY KOLAR, VINCENT J. DOTOLI AND LOUISA DOTOLI, INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1998-06-25
Citations: 314 N.J. Super. 102
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEW BRUNSWICK CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY, D/B/A COMCAST CELLULAR ONE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BOROUGH OF SOUTH PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND TED DABROWSKI, KAZ DABROWSKI, KARL KOLAR, SALLY KOLAR, VINCENT J. DOTOLI AND LOUISA DOTOLI, INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 314
Pages: 102–106

Head Matter:
714 A.2d 315
NEW BRUNSWICK CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY, D/B/A COMCAST CELLULAR ONE, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. BOROUGH OF SOUTH PLAINFIELD BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, AND TED DABROWSKI, KAZ DABROWSKI, KARL KOLAR, SALLY KOLAR, VINCENT J. DOTOLI AND LOUISA DOTOLI, INTERVENORS-APPELLANTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division
Argued September 24, 1997
Decided October 17, 1997
Remanded by Supreme Court April 24, 1998
Resubmitted June 8, 1998
Decided June 25, 1998.
D’Annunzio, J.A.D., filed a dissenting opinion.
Before Judges SHEBELL, D’ANNUNZIO and A.A. RODRIGUEZ.
Borras, Goldin, Foley, Vignuolo, Hyman, Stahl & Clarkin, P.C., attorneys for defendant-appellant, Borough of South Plain-field Board of Adjustment (James F. Clarkin, III, and Rosalind Westlake, on the brief).
Gregory J. Czura, attorney for plaintiff-respondent, New Brunswick Cellular Telephone Company d/b/a Comcast Cellular One.
Vincent J. Dotoli, attorney for intervenors-appellants, Ted Da-browski, Kaz Dabrowski, Karl Kolar, Sally Kolar, Vincent J. Dotoli and Louisa Dotoli.
Hiering, Dwpignac & Stanzione, P.C., attorneys for Amicus Curiae Bell Atlantic Mobile, Inc. (Richard D. Stanzione and Eli L. Eytan, on the brief).

Opinion:
SHEBELL, P.J.A.D.
Our decision in the within matter, New Brunswick Telephone v. South Plainfield, 305 N.J.Super. 151, 701 A.2d 1281 (App.Div.1997), having contained a dissent by Judge D'Annunzio, was appealed as-of-right to the Supreme Court. Upon motion for summary reversal, the Court, by order dated April 12, 1998, denied the motion but "summarily remanded to the Appellate Division for reconsideration in the light of Smart SMR v. Fairlawn [Fair Lawn], 152 N.J. 309, 704 A.2d 1271 (1908 [1998])."
Upon reconsideration, we have carefully reviewed the arguments set forth in the parties' remand briefs and have reconsidered the entire record in light of Smart SMR v. Fair Lawn, supra. In our previous opinion, we noted that "the public interest at stake" under Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Township of Wall, 127 N.J. 152, 165-66, 603 A.2d 30 (1992) was clearly identified. New Brunswick Tel, supra, 305 N.J.Super. at 168, 701 A.2d 1281. In this regard, we accepted the Board's evaluation, which was well grounded in the testimony presented at the hearings, that "the proposed use is significantly less compelling than other types of beneficial uses____" Id. We concluded that the Board properly balanced the positive and negative criteria to determine whether the variance could be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Id. at 169, 701 A.2d 1281.
Thus, we are satisfied that our decision in the within matter fully comports with the law as declared by the Supreme Court in Smart SMR v. Fair Lawn, supra. Therefore, we reaffirm our decision reversing the Law Division's determination that the Board acted arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.
Our reversal of the Law Division's judgment reversing the Board stands by majority vote of this court.