July 17, 2012 by Barrington Hills Observer
Barrington Hills’ zoning board Monday unanimously recommended disregarding proposed conditions for the allowance of commercial horse boarding as a home occupation business use.
The board’s recommendation was made on the basis that the conditions would only confuse current debate as to whether commercial horse boarding is permissible at all.
The complete article can be read here
 | Peter W. Kocsis on New residential development fl… |
 | Major24 on Hoffman Estates plan commissio… |
| keensweets0d45ddb8ba on South Barrington Mayor Paula M… |
| Bridget Jordan on Hoffman Estates plan commissio… |
 | Karen Trzaska on Hoffman Estates plan commissio… |
 | Meeting Tonight on Hoffman Estates Plum Farm June… |
 | Marvin L Husby III on Hoffman Estates Plum Farm June… |
Poor article in the Daily Herald – shows no understanding on the part of the reporter. A motion was made “to set aside”, so technically
the topic could be taken up at a later date. No recommendation was made to the Board of Trustees – therefore they have nothing to consider. Also, commercial boarding is an approved use under the conditions of Home Occupation – but all of the conditions of Home Occupation must be met, not just operating hours. Anything to the contrary is not a legal interpretation of Home Occupation as it relates to commercial boarding.
The not so subtle effort to interject “equestrian” into everything except our breakfast cereals, is not substantive enough to make an argument for commercial boarding especially of the magnitude of Oakwood Farms. Call it like it is in the current Village Administration – government by crony. The next Village meeting will set records, I’m sure, for length of meeting and monologue by Pres Abboud. An accurate recording of that meeting is a must; how about a court recorder?
You’re right Phil B, “Short Round” will be in rare form at Monday’s meeting. Last night’s ZBA meeting was a total theater of the absurd and two board members clearly rehearsed for it.
A comment to Whoa about the conditions of the Home Occupation Ordinance for Commercial Horse Boarding:
According to the Village lawyer, Doug Wambach, the Village’s position is that commercial horse boarding is legal if section 3(g) of the Home Occupation Ordinance is followed. Section 3(g) is about the time workers can work on the property. He also said it is the Village’s position that nothing else in the Home Occupation Ordinance applies to commercial horse boarding because of the Schuman (building inspector) letter. He made it very clear that it was the Village’s position, thus I believe he was saying it was not their law firm position. I was interrupted before I could ask him that specific question.
To Barrington HIlls Taxpayer, please view Mr. Wambach’s testimony as well as the testimony of the Villages other esteemed leaders on earlier Preserve Barrington HIlls blog entitled “What they said then . . . . Before the Schuman Letter” These quotes are all footnoted and tell the true story of how the HOO was viewed by Abboud, Wambach, Messer etc before the Schuman Letter.
Hint, paragraph 3(g) of the HOO does not operate in a vacuum but requires all of the preceding conditions in the HOO save a few. Creation of the Schuman Letter was an illegal act by Abboud and that is why Village attorney Lynch attempted to convince the Board to rescind it during an improper executive Session Meeting (07-25-11). It is illegal under the OMA for a Board to vote and take action in executive session but they did it anyway by deciding to keep the Schuman Letter in play.
This is not about horse boarding but about covering up Abboud’s issuance of the Schuman Letter given to a large political donor of Save 5 Acres in the heat of the last election. Think about it, a Village zoning compliance officer [Schuman] issued a letter which overruled a decision by the ZBA as well as the Village’s position in court over many years of litigation at a cost to tax payers in excess of $200,000. The premise is absurd yet it passes as the legal standard now in B.H.
In public, Burke-Warren is shilling for Abboud to keep their Million Dollar a year contract. Behind the scenes Lynch attempted to do the right and legal thing. That is why Wambach did not correct ZBA member Anderson’s and Freeman’s misquided interpretation of the current HOO and the ridiculous assertion by them that the proposed text Amendment would provide stricter guidelines for commercial boarding. Wasn’t it strange that neither ZBA member Anderson nor Freeman ask Wambach who was sitting there for his interpretion of the HOO which his law firm drafted? To immediately dismiss the text amendment was pre-rehearsed to avoid potential publci discusson which might have led to the Schuman Letter.
Having attended all the open meetings regarding the proposed text amendment, last night was the first time I heard ZBA Chair Freeman draw upon the Comprehensive Plan as the guideline for commercial horse boarding and the HOO. It almost sounded like Knoop save the “LaSalle Factors”
The proposed text Amendment was Abboud’s attempt to make Oakwood Farm legal through other means beside the the illegal Schuman letter. If the Appellate Court remands Drury’s case back to the trial level where testimony will be taken, including Abboud’s, you will see a similar stratey emerge as part of a mootness defense for no other reason than Abboud avoiding having to be deposed about the circumstances surrouding legalization of Oakwood Farm. This is all this is about, and nothing else. This is why the motion by Anderson was merely to set aside the propsoed Text Amendment and not flat out dismiss it so that if needed by Abboud, it can be resurrected again by the ZBA in the future.
God bless Publius!!
Bravo Publius – finally a clear, concise and truthful summary! All the pieces are out in the open………..
I get what Publius is saying, but does it matter because our Village has their own position, right or wrong, as to how Home Occupation Ordinance is applied to commercial horse boarding. How do residents get the Village to have the correct interpretation of the Home Occupation Ordinance?
More machinations by by our elected Village Officials? In such a small village how can we have such complications? I wish we had a Town Hall Meeting system – responsible people discussing issues in the open with their neighbors.
Bravo all commenters above!
To Barrington Hills Taxpayer:
The Village spends over $200,000 and finally the Appellate Court renders an opinion as to the legality of the operation of Oakwood Farms – finds it can’t operate legally under Agriculture or Home Occupation!
Abboud then illegally promotes his interpretation of the Zoning Code (Attorney Wambach said he did not have that authority) to make Oakwood Farms legal, although his position is contrary to that of the Appellate Court.
This is WRONG – and it does matter if you respect the Rule of Law, not Abboud’s corrupt rules of law.
@Whoa – never better said! This vindictive corrupt little man is an embarrassment to say the least. One does not get to choose which laws we wish to follow. Let him get away with this and it’s open season on all of us.
Nick and Nora, at the April 23rd BOT meeting, discussion of Fur Keeps was presented (read minutes). Fur Keeps keeps an animal rescue center in Barrington Hills and the owner testified they had 53 dogs on their property at that time. A neighbor, George Wells, gave a tearful presentation asking that the BOT help him because of terrible traffic and noise from people living outside BH conducting business and actually causing safety concerns for Mr. Wells.
Your suggestion to “open season on all of us” is appropriate. When Trustee Gianappolus asked Mr. Wells why he had not come forward before, he answered meekly “for fear of retribution.” The Trustees, when confronted, said that he did not mean the Village. However, there is evidence that the Village has used their authority in multiple situations to favor a resident’s position while harming others. One resident’s easement was torn up and all emergency access eliminated so that another neighbor could increase his grazing space. The neighbor wanting more grazing space contributed $30,000 to Save 5 Acres. Looks like retribution.
In the case of Mr. Wells, Trustee Meroni said she visited the property (maybe for 10 minutes) and saw no traffic when she was there. Are you kidding? Mr. Wells lives there 24/7 and Trustee Meroni acted with disdain for Mr. Wells’ complaint. The BOT voted to grant special use to Fur Keeps to continue their operations and they have the opportunity to also house unlimited horses. This was done after a compromise was managed by Trustee Messer, but Mr. Wells was not satisfied with the outcome and is still beholding to lack of enforcement by the Village.
Another neighbor moved out from this area because of the horrible situation caused by Fur Keeps and lack of enforcement. His complaints were ignored by the Village and he too felt concerns with retribution. This is fact!
Your comment to some will sound ludicrous, but retribution is a tool that our bully government uses to support their friends. We have a Village led by people who will only care for their friends and donors and not the best interests of others – or for what is right!