Cellular Telephone Co. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Harrington Park
District Court, D. New Jersey
1Opinion of the Court
AMENDED OPINION
BASSLER, District Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
Desiring to alleviate coverage and capacity problems in Harrington Park, Plaintiff Cellular Telephone Company d/b/a AT & T Wireless Services (“AT & T Wireless”) applied to Defendant Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Harrington Park (the “Board”) for use and bulk variances and for site plan approval to construct a 100 foot cellular telephone monopole and a prefabricated twelve-foot by twenty-foot building for related computerized equipment.
After conducting six hearings at which four expert witnesses of AT & T Wireless testified,…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Kramer v. BD. OF ADJUST., SEA GIRT.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1965
- Cellular Telephone Company, Doing Business as at & T Wireless Services v. The Town of Oyster Bay and the Town Board of the Town of Oyster BayCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- Medici v. BPR Co.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1987
- Smart SMR of New York, Inc. v. Borough of Fair Lawn Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1998
- Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Tp. of WallSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1992
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Cell South of NJ, Inc. v. ZONING BD. OF ADJUSTMENT OF WEST WINDSOR TWP.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 2002
- OCEAN COUNTY CELLULAR TELE. CO. v. Tp. of Lakewood Bd. of AdjustmentNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2002
- Gandolfi v. Town of HammontonNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2004
- American Cellular Network Co., LLC v. Upper Dublin TownshipDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2002
- Sprint Corp. v. Dep't of the InteriorCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.