Save Rural Andover Borough - Andover moves against development

http://www.njherald.com/secure_story/286963365287841.php

Andover moves against development
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
By Jeanette Calo, Herald Staff Writer

ANDOVER — Amid applause from residents, the Borough Council unanimously voted to terminate its agreement with the owner of land on which Beazer Homes plans to build housing that would triple the borough's population and introduced an ordinance that would outlaw any similar development.

Atlanta-based Beazer homes submitted its application to build 590 units in December. The landowner had an agreement with the borough to build on the land that was approved in 1990.

The meeting drew about 100 residents, many voicing their opposition to the proposed development.

"I'm not a college graduate, but to me, it's a no-brainer," said resident Nancy Mandeville. "... We will be run out of our homes. I'm going to have to move, and I don't want to move. I'm angry and I'm mad."

Kevin Kelly, Beazer's Newton-based attorney, did not attend Monday's meeting. In a letter to borough special counsel Richard Cushing, Kelly said the Borough Council did not have the authority to terminate the agreement.

"If they took the position that our general development plan was void after 16 years, that would no doubt end up in court," Kelly said in a telephone interview prior to the meeting. "We have a pending planning board application that was heard last week and will be heard again this month and we would continue to pursue that."

During a Feb. 2 special meeting, the Borough Council declined to act on a resolution that would have rejected the developer's initial sketch of its plans because Beazer had no representation at the meeting.

Kelly said he did not attend the previous meeting because it did not comply with state municipal land use laws and because the invitation to the meeting did not say what action could be taken.

In his letter to Cushing, Kelly wrote, "I was then advised by the Borough that the purpose of the meeting was for the Council to obtain 'public input' with respect to our client's project and that we would be entitled to attend as 'observers,' but not allowed to participate. Based upon this advice ... there was no reason for us to attend."

Kelly's letter threatens legal action.

"It is also readily apparent that the Council has already reached its decision which will unfortunately leave Beazer Homes with no alternative but to pursue long and costly litigation," he wrote.

Before the vote, Cushing advised the council that a lawsuit was "likely" and that "legal fees will be substantial."

When asked if the borough could afford the litigation, Cushing said the council was "looking to surrounding townships for help."

"They see this as a regional issue," he said, referring to a letter that Byram Councilwoman Donna Griff read to the Borough Council earlier. The letter expresses Byram's opposition to the development based on environmental concerns.

Most residents voiced support for paying for litigation rather than paying school taxes to accommodate the hundreds of children who would be added to the borough if the development is built.

"Compare what it will cost to send 1,000 kids to school a year in a school that doesn't exist (versus) the ratio of legal fees to that amount and it's a no-brainer," borough resident Leah Mallon said.