By John Burton
MIDDLETOWN – The township planning board may have handed Trinity Hall a huge win but the final chapter in the school’s controversial construction plan may not have yet been written.
Even though the planning board reversed its denial of the school’s application to build on part of a 64-acre tract on Chapel Hill Road when the matter was remanded back to the board by a Superior Court judge, objectors to the project are not accepting it as a final outcome.
“My client is still opposed to the project,” Ron Gasiorowski, a Red Bank attorney, said this week. He has been arguing against the project on behalf of area residents.
“We intend to appeal,” which will return the matter to the state Superior Court, Gasiorowski said.
Head of School Mary Sciarrillo said in response to an email request for an interview this week: “Trinity Hall is excited to have the opportunity to locate its campus on such a beautiful property in a great town like Middletown. We are very appreciative that Middletown and the state court concurred.”
As far as plans for future construction for project, school spokesman Theresa Kiernan said it is much too soon and many decisions remain for the planning committee of the school’s board of trustees.
Following months of lengthy and at times contentious hearings, the planning board voted June 11 to deny the school’s application to construct its campus on about 37 of the undeveloped and largely wooded 64-acre Chapel Hill Road tract. The application called for construction of a number of structures to accommodate the school’s current and future educational and recreational needs.
Trinity Hall is a private all-girls, independent school, based on the educational Roman Catholic tradition, currently operating out of Croydon Hall in Leonardo, a facility it leases from the township.
The application was controversial and met with fierce resistance from homeowners in the Chapel Hill Road area, which is a residential neighborhood. Objectors voiced concerns charging that such a large and intense use was out of character for the area and would negatively impact traffic safety, cause flooding, have a severe effect on their quality of life and possibly impact property values.
After the board’s rejection, school representatives appealed, looking to have the decision reversed in the courts.
Superior Court Paul A. Kapalko ruled on Oct. 24 in favor of the school, granting summary judgment. Kapalko, agreeing with the school’s lawyers, voided portions of the township’s conditional land-use ordinance, saying it was contrary to state land use law. The ordinance was what board members used, in part, to deny the application, saying the school’s application didn’t adhere to the standards.
Kapalko sent the matter back to the board for further consideration.
The board voted Wednesday, Nov. 5, to approve the application.
Township Attorney Brian Nelson acknowledged the ordinance dates back to 1983.
While “it’s not the result the township wanted,” he found the judge’s ruling “a very comprehensive decision.” Ultimately, the township is “bound by the court’s decision.”
In the long term, township officials will have to review the ordinance and draft changes in keeping with this and other recent court decisions, Nelson said.
John Giunco, the school’s attorney, said, “I’m pleased that the court and planning board have come to a result for Trinity. I think (the school) will be a strong and valuable member of the community and in the final analysis they will be doing as much as they can to be a good neighbor and serve Middletown residents.”
Gasiorowski, on the other hand, accused the planning board of acting inappropriately in failing to properly notice the public. Among his complaints, he charged that the board did not have a valid hearing on the matter and did not provide a chance for public responses.
“We live in a participatory democracy and the public was purposely excluded, I think, for participating in this process,” he said.
“It is something we will be dealing with in future litigation,” as well as the other issues raised at the board hearings that Kapalko has yet to rule on, Gasiorowski added.
Board attorney James Gorman declined to comment on the board’s actions.
Gasiorowski has 45 days from the board’s memorializing of its resolution of approval to appeal. The appeal will likely be heard by Kapalko.
“Depending on the outcome, we may or may not appeal to the appellate court,” Gasiorowski said.
As it stands, with approval in hand, “There is nothing impeding the school’s ability to move forward with its construction,” Nelson said.
Gasiorowski warned, however, “if the school goes forward, it goes forward at its own risk.”
