In court filings, Walsh and Gasiorowski also objected to some board members’ behavior, specifically Mayor Dina Long and Jon Schwartz, who seemed to express support for the project in newspaper accounts and on Facebook. “The hearing was tainted by the participation of these parties,” the complaint charged.In the complaint, the municipal board, along with the Kelly Management Group, LLC, are listed as defendants in this action.Kerry Higgins, the board attorney, did not immediately return a call this week seeking comment. By John BurtonSEA BRIGHT – The battle over the rebuilding of the Mad Hatter restaurant and bar is not over.Jennifer Walsh, a borough homeowner who is also a Republican candidate for Borough Council for this November’s election, filed suit in state Superior Court, in Freehold, last week, seeking to overturn the local unified Planning and Zoning Board of Adjustment’s decision approving the expanded Mad Hatter’s rebuilding project.The complaint, filed with Superior Court on Sept. 26, alleges the board, in its actions permitting the project to rebuild the popular nightspot damaged by Super Storm Sandy to move forward, rendered “a decision that was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable” – the legal standard Walsh’s attorney will have to prove to have a judge reverse the local board’s decision. “I think the board just simply gave absolutely no consideration to my client and people living there,” Gasiorowski said of his client’s steps to stop the project.On the other hand, over the course of six torturously long hearings before the planning/zoning board starting last November and concluding in June, Mad Hatter’s owners Scott and Amy Kelly received a large amount of support from the public in attendance. Members of the public spoke and posted on social media, equating the bar’s rebuilding as Sea Bright’s rise from the devastation the town – and so much of the Jersey Shore – incurred from Sandy in October 2012.“The Kellys can feel the support from the community and they’re so grateful for that,” said Kevin Asadi, the attorney representing the Kellys. “And they’ve vowed to stay the course until their dream comes true.”The Kellys have owned and operated the Mad Hatter, 10 East Ocean Ave., since 2006. But Sandy wrecked the site, bringing with it 6- to 8- feet of water, mud, sand and debris, rendering the structure unusable. In 2013 the couple received board approval to construct and operate an outdoor facility, but Scott Kelly acknowledged there were noise complaints.Plans for the rebuilding of the Mad Hatter.The Kellys, under their Kelly Management Group, LLC, have been awarded a low-interest $5 million loan from the state Economic Development Authority to assist in the rebuilding of a Sandy-related damaged business.The Kellys’ plans are to build a completely new three-story elevated structure that would have a restaurant; an outdoor kiosk for takeout food and retail items; and upper levels to be used for bars and outdoor decks. Scott Kelly said he plans on having live entertainment and a building-wide stereo system.There was opposition from Walsh, who, as a New Street resident lives across the street from the site. Others raised concerns of the size and scope of the project, its multiple uses, and what that would mean for parking, municipal infrastructure, noise and the residents’ quality of life. Walsh earlier this year had appealed the local board’s approval for a plan to construct a multifamily residential development where a single family home had been on New Street, in close proximity to Walsh’s home. That matter is still pending.Walsh is running with fellow Republican Brian Kelly, an incumbent, for borough council, against independent candidates Linda Lamia and Kevin Birdsall, for the two seats available for the Nov. 8 election. In court filings, Walsh and her attorney, Ron Gasiorowski, Red Bank, criticized the board’s decision, pointing to its approval given the plan’s lack of proposed parking (under the borough ordinance there would be a need for 134 spaces and six will be provided, designated for employees); its use of 100 percent of lot coverage; its lack of front yard setback; and the building’s height.