As we feared (see Veni, Vidi, Vici), Village President Robert Abboud declared at the September 26, 2011 Village Board meeting, that he will not enforce a cease and desist order, and will not impose fines for the unlawful commercial horse boarding conducted at Oakwood Farm.
After three years of litigation, nearly $200,000 in legal fees and endless Village rancor, Abboud is dropping the matter without collecting even a dime in fines to compensate the Village.
In these difficult economic times with property taxes rising (and property values falling), this decision is irresponsible. What may be worse is Abboud’s attempt to mischaracterize years of litigation to justify this gift to his (new) friends and political supporters behind Oakwood Farm.
Abboud has tried to justify his recent appeasement by claiming the Village’s case was not about the home occupation ordinance, but dealt only with a “technical” question of whether Oakwood could be regulated as agriculture. In his words: “There is sort of a perception out there that the operation that [Oakwood’s owners] were doing was radically out of bounds with the home occupation ordinance and the ordinances of the village. And that’s not really true.” He added: “In a gross sense, they were not in violation of the village’s code or violating its character.”
But that is not what Abboud and his handsomely rewarded lawyers – compensated with our tax dollars — told the courts before Abboud’s recent flip in favor of Oakwood. Prior to that, Abboud paid our Village lawyers to argue as follows:
“Call it a stable, a barn or a horse hotel, the ZBA found that [Oakwood] are operating a commercial horse boarding facility on the Property. Such use is not permitted in the Village’s [residential] zoning districts…. Unlike a home occupation, [Oakwood’s] horse-boarding operation generates intense use, traffic and noise ill-suited to an R-1 zoning district, regardless of fee arrangements. That is why it is not compatible with the Village’s [residential] zoning districts and why it is not an agricultural use under the Village Code.”
Abboud’s legal team argued flat out that Oakwood’s “use of the Property for a commercial horse boarding operation is unlawful” and that “horse boarding is circumscribed as a home occupation, for which [Oakwood] did not qualify.” Abboud and counsel invoked the home occupation ordinance 16 times in their appeal brief to convince the court that Oakwood was radically in violation of the Village Code. One more example from Abboud’s brief: “The Village’s home occupation provision permits boarding and training of horses as a home occupation incidental to a permitted primary use of a property. Plaintiffs have admitted that the primary use of the Oakwood Farm facility is horse boarding, and that the home occupation provision does not apply.”
In the end, Abboud and his lawyers got exactly what they asked for (and we paid for): A court decision that Oakwood was radically in violation of the Village Code and character.
So what did we, the residents of Barrington Hills, get for our money? Absolutely nothing. Not even a penny in fines. Consider that when you open your tax bill. Is Abboud a liar? You decide.
– The Observer
