With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". — I would follow the approach cogently described by Judge Conford in his separate opinion in that case, id. at 457-58, 390 A.2d 1177. In examining the Aviation Act, N.J.S.A. 6:1-20 to -44, Judge Conford found no evidence the Commissioner was given the authority to permit a helistop in a place lawfully rejected by a municipality. Garden State, supra, 77 N.J. at 457, 390 A.2d 1177. The majority, however, determined the Act provides the Commissioner with superseding authority over the municipality, although the Commissioner may not completely disregard local concerns, 77 N.J. at 451, 390 A.2d 1177, and must “pay due attention,” id. at 455, 390 A.2d 1177, to the lawful zoning expressions of local governments. See also Rutgers, State Univ. v. Piluso, 60 N.J. 142, 154, 286 A.2d 697 (1972) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Commissioner asserts the

A: holding the commissioner must sympathetically listen to local concerns
B: holding various actions of state insurance commissioner insufficient evidence of agreement to bribe a public official
C: holding local commissioner not liable to licensee for official act in revoking license
D: holding inter alia that appellant must use local cpiu where available
A.