Council determined to stave off building

Andover n Borough council’s 20-year-old fight with a major developer continue through June. Council and Beazer Homes are embroiled in court-mandated hearings to determine if the borough can terminate a developer’s agreement because a deadline was missed. Sussex Homes first proposed a development at the northern edge of the borough back in the 1980s. Denied by the planning board, the developer took the borough to court. Beazer Homes, a national building company, has taken over the proposed mixed-use commercial and residential development. It has placed its might behind the contention that the municipality had no right to end the agreement in 2006. The developer’s agreement was reached in 1989 with a December 1994 deadline imposed on several items. The borough claims Sussex Homes never asked for an extension, but the developer said certain dates set by the borough don’t reflect the actual deadline. Monday night, the borough’s special counsel, Richard Cushing of Clinton, continued to press project architect Constantine Karalis about his relationship with one-time borough planner Eric Snyder, once going so far as to ask if Karalis and his wife had been out to dinner with Snyder and his wife. Karalis said he has never socialized with Snyder. For much of the meeting, Cushing leafed through Snyder’s invoices, asking Karalis if there was any mention of attendance at planning board meetings. The invoices detailed meetings with Karalis, but not with the board. The attorney also asked Karalis if he remembered when a subcommittee of the planning board was formed. Karalis believed the subcommittee had been in place during 1996, but said he didn’t have copies of minutes that would prove his contention. Cushing discovered minutes of a planning board meeting on March 7, 1997, which indicated a subcommittee had been formed during that meeting. Some of Snyder’s invoices dated prior to March 7, 1997, referred to meeting with a subcommittee. Snyder’s role had been called into question by Cushing at the previous meeting, on April 25, when Cushing asked if Snyder was a supporter of the project. Karalis replied that the planner evaluated the facts and reported to the board. Monday night, Cushing brought up evidence state planning office had questions about the development in regard to the borough’s application for town center designation. The proposed development was designed, at the borough’s request, with a buffer between the new building and the existing borough center. The state informed the borough there should be a connection between the two to meet the requirements of town center designation. In addition, the arterial access road for the new development was considered by the state to be too wide and straight. This would encourage drivers to speed and discourage pedestrian traffic, according to the state representatives. Karalis said the road was reconfigured so it was less straight. Cushing also pointed out a 1997 document in which Karalis noted marketing conditions had changed since the development was first proposed in the 1980s. Housing preferences had also changed. Karalis recommended a whole new concept plan to reflect these changes while respecting the development plan first signed off on during the 1980s. Karalis said he was referring to parcel sizes and the general configuration of the units. Because the proposed development would add more than 500 residential units to a municipality with only about 200 homes, Sussex Homes had made certain promises to the borough totaling nearly $1 million in improvements. The developer would pay for a new municipal complex, an improved public water company, a sewer system for the borough a new ambulance, two new fire department vehicles, nearly a mile of sidewalks and a swimming pool with cabana. Also promised was a tax surplus, even if the municipality was forced to abandon state police protection and form its own police department. Even the school district would benefit, the developer said, by being able to cut taxes even after building a school addition. Cushing said he believes both existing and former state statutes made those promises illegal. Further hearing were scheduled for Monday, May 7; Wednesday, May 16; Monday, June 4; Wednesday, June 6, and Monday, June 18. The hearings began at 7 p.m. and are adjourned around 10 p.m.