The medical and educational center for children and adults with developmental disabilities wants to add a 50,000-square-foot addition
PEAPACK-GLADSTONE -- A state appellate court on Tuesday upheld a lower court's decision on a controversial proposal by the Matheny School and Hospital to build a nearly 50,000-square-foot addition.
In upholding the earlier decision the Appellate Division ruled Matheny had failed to prove that "the proposed expansion was necessary."
Oral arguments were held in February in the long-running saga that dates back to 2008, when Matheny, a medical and educational center that specializes in care for children and adults with developmental disabilities, applied to the borough's land use board to approval to undertake the 10-year expansion.
According to court documents, Matheny, located on 81 acres atop a hill on Highland Avenue, proposed increasing the number of hospital beds from 102 to 140 and the number of parking spaces from 227 to 315. Matheny also wanted to build a gymnasium that included an indoor pool for aquatic therapy.
Matheny requested a 10-year extension of approvals so the project could be built in three stages.
"Matheny is disappointed with the decision of the Appellate Division and is discussing the decision and its options with its attorneys," said Iveth Mosquera, director, marketing and public relations for Matheny, in an email Wednesday. "That said, Matheny continues to believe that its zoning and permitted uses are most effectively addressed by the parties and stakeholders working together to address their differences."
Residents fight Matheny expansion
After the borough's land use board rejected Mathenys's application because it was determined that the facility did not qualify as a "Residential Healthcare Facility in conjunction with a school" following three years of hearings, Matheny filed suit against the borough. The board's decision was upheld in Superior Court.
The land use board had ruled that Matheny required a use variance and had to prove the expansion projection would benefit the community. Matheny had argued that the board's interpretation of the ordinance was "improper and that the denial was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable."
The court disagreed with Matheny's assertion that the board's rejection was arbitrary or capricious and a violation of the state's anti-discrimination laws.
Dave Hutchinson may be reached at dhutchinson@njadvancemedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @DHutch_SL. Find NJ.com on Facebook.