http://www.strausnews.com/articles/2007/10/18/township_journal/news/3.txt

Tension flares between borough and developer

October 18, 2007

Andover — Donald Daines, attorney for Beazer Homes, a major developer interested in building approximately 590 mixed residential and commercial units on the northern fringe of the borough, a town with 200 residential units, sparred with Sharon Moore, special counsel for the borough during Monday night’s special hearing.

The hearing was Andover’s initial response to Beazer’s lengthy case for keeping a developer’s agreement intact. The agreement between the borough and Beazer’s predecessor as applicant for the development was terminated by council, resulting in a lawsuit and now a series of hearings.

Keith Harris, the first fact witness, appeared under subpoena. Harris, chairman of the zoning and planning board of the borough, was questioned by Moore who sought to elicit testimony from him regarding the planning board’s attempts to successfully work with Beazer Homes in completing its application before them.

Harris stressed to Moore, and later Daines on cross-examination, that the board made every effort to meet its obligations with Beazer. Moore questioned Harris about the State Planning Commission’s concerns and suggestions regarding new growth integration within the existing borough. The Office of State Planning wanted to see the existing plan shift in some way to address the new growth integration problem. Harris responded that there were no plans to accommodate the suggested changes.

When questioned by Moore regarding the need for the applicant to contact the planning board for any extension requests, Harris said he was not aware of the applicant’s alleged history of receiving extensions from the planning board, nor did he recall any questions between the council and the planning board regarding extensions. The major disagreement between Beazer and the borough is over whether certain deadlines were extended. If they were, the borough could not have rightfully terminated the developer’s agreement.

Moore also asked Harris about his opinion as to whether the Sussex Property project would ever go forward. He replied that it seemed the developer lost interest in the project. Harris next discussed the Beazer Homes sub-committee. Although Harris did not recall who set up the sub-committee, he said its purpose was to have the Beazer professionals and the borough’s professionals work through issues so if the developer filed an application, the borough could process it.

The hearing also shed light on the fact that members of the public were not allowed to question Beazer representatives during one particular planning board meeting, although public comments were allowed. At this meeting, there were questions regarding the viability of the general development plan.

Harris also recalled a meeting when Beazer came in and had a general conceptual discussion but was unaware if it was before or after the application. Harris said there was an increased need for flexibility in the planning board’s required list for Beazer’s application based upon the passage of 15 years since the initial developer’s agreement.

One area that required greater flexibility was affordable housing. Harris said affordable housing units were a concern to the planning board. More recent case law altered the requirements to supply certain items as a part of the developer’s agreement, he said. Daines asked him if the borough and planning board were satisfied with the Council on Affordable Housing. Moore objected to Daines’ line of questioning, stating that Harris was “not a member of the council.” After the objection, Harris said there were “problems with COAH, the issue had not been resolved and may not be resolved today.”

Further meetings are scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 17 and Monday, Oct. 22. No public announcements have been provided for November meetings.

Copyright © 2007 Straus Newspapers