A firm planning to build 590 housing units in Andover Borough is suing the borough council, alleging it improperly tried to scuttle the development.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Superior Court in Newton, plaintiff Beazer Homes of Tennessee claims a recent move by the borough council to revoke the town's 1988 approval of a "planned unit development" ordinance for the housing plan is invalid on several counts.

Andover Borough Mayor Shirlee Bollard said she was not aware of the lawsuit and declined to comment.

The large-scale development, which would be built on 235 acres between Route 206 and Brighton Road (Route 606) on the former Francisco Farm, would triple the borough's population of 650 residents.

It was originally proposed by Sussex Properties Ltd. in 1988, but became dormant for years. Opposition and concern began to grow after Sussex Properties entered a contract in 2004 to sell the land and its development rights to Beazer Homes, one of the largest home builders in the nation.

The council introduced a proposed ordinance on Feb. 13 to scrap the planned unit development zone, and decided to hold a public hearing and final vote Monday at 7:30 p.m. at the municipal building.

The lawsuit claims the council action is "improper and invalid" because the borough planning board in 1988 approved a "general development plan" for the housing proposal that "vested" the developer's rights for 20 years.

Furthermore, several times since then -- in 1990, 1995, 1998, 2004 and 2005 -- the planning board granted various amendments and extensions of time for site plans to be submitted, and none of those actions were ever challenged, the lawsuit states.

It was only after the Nov. 8 general election that the council began "surreptitious, unlawful and improper steps" to derail the development, which resulted in the Feb. 13 proposed ordinance, the lawsuit claims.

It states the council rationale was that a mid-1990s deadline for a preliminary site plan was never met, and the council also was concerned about impacts on traffic, taxes, the environment, town character, affordable housing obligations and propriety of accepting municipal infrastructure improvements. However, the planning board has sole jurisdiction over such matters, the lawsuit states.

It claims the council's actions are invalid, arbitrary and capricious; a breach of good faith; a violation of municipal land use law, vested rights and affordable housing plan; and a denial of due process. Five of seven council members also have "non-waivable" conflicts of interest because they live within 200 feet of the site, the complaint states.

Along with compensatory damages, fees and costs, the lawsuit seeks to have the general development plan declared valid and the council barred from taking any actions against it.

Jim Lockwood may be reached at jlockwood@starledger.com or (973) 383-0516.

© 2006 The Star Ledger