Monday evening the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) discussed public comments on the commercial horse boarding amendment to the Home Occupation Ordinance (HOO). During that meeting several members of the ZBA, most notably Chairperson Judith Freeman and Kurt Anderson, expressed their condescending opinions that residents who opposed the amendment failed to understand it. Anderson, quoted in the Daily Herald cited what he called “a campaign of both disinformation and misinformation.”
Anderson is somewhat correct, as there has been an ongoing campaign to obfuscate the entire issue of expanding commercial boarding within Barrington Hills. But the campaign is not being waged by opponents of commercial activity; it is being waged by our own Village leadership and administration. And, it is a campaign of distraction, misinformation and spin.
The last two Village Newsletters barely allude to any contemplated changes to permitted boarding activity, with the exception of this brief reference by Trustee Joe Messer, liaison to the ZBA:
The Village websites provided little information about exactly what the HOO amendment would change. The primary website http://www.barringtonhills-il.gov/news.html contains an obscure mention of the “HO Amendment” and suggested only that residents read a redlined copy of the proposed changes or review the entire Village Code. That’s not very helpful. The Village “Info” website http://www.vbhcomm.info/index.php proved no better, offering only a generic explanation of the process of reviewing a zoning amendment, instead of describing what the proposed changes are and how they might impact residents. Is that what we deserve?
And what did Bob Abboud, never shy about speaking his mind, communicate on the matter? He ignored the horse boarding topic entirely in his rambling 2+ page article “From the Desk of the Village President” in the Spring/Summer 2012 newsletter. He did, however, chose to include a copy of his correspondence with Cook County Treasurer Maria Pappas, which most people would find embarrassing.
A June 15th Daily Herald article stated, “Abboud thinks the ordinance will strengthen regulation of horse boarding as a home occupation business by defining specific hours of operation…,” even though the proposal would expand the permissible working hours of employees. And, in two widely distributed emails, Abboud tried to liken commercial horse boarding to someone giving piano lessons in their home, writing, “the proposed changes to the Home Occupation Ordinance (HOO) are designed to clarify, in fact, better regulate, existing home occupations in the Village which have nothing to do with “commercial” operations in the commonly understood sense of the word.” He further asserts, “There is no intent to change the character of the community,” and he goes on to say, “this is part of our regular modernization of our Village code which goes on all the time to address changing circumstances, technology, interests by the residents, etc.” Message to Bob: Barrington Hills residents are too smart to accept that kind of nonsense.
Last week residents received a special mailing from the Village, causing some to hope for clarification on the boarding matter. Instead, they found a defensive letter signed by Bob Abboud and Trustee Karen Selman, struggling to justify the financial condition of the Village’s pension programs and including an about a temporary ban on open burning. There was no mention of the proposed, radical expansion of commercial horse boarding that threatens to destroy our residential Village like a conflagration.
So, how are residents supposed to understand a proposed text amendment to the Zoning Code if its provisions and ramifications are never explained in a clear and concise manner by the Village? Going forward, we have a few suggestions:
- Newsletter articles by the Trustees and President should actually contain usable information and detailed discussion of proposed ordinance changes.
- Open houses should be held at the Village Hall when modifications to the Village Code are being contemplated which affect nearly all residents.
- Village websites should contain frequently asked questions to better clarify important community issues, like the HOO, or the failed Exterior Lighting Ordinance, etc. Educate before you legislate, please!
- The Village’s CTY notification system should be better utilized to announce important Village meetings, such as the ZBA’s public hearing on the HOO.
The transcript of the public hearing and the letters submitted to the ZBA on the proposed commercial boarding amendment provide several clear points. Residents are concerned about disruptive commercial activity going on in residential neighborhoods. Residents are concerned about the number of horses allowed on neighboring properties, whether or not there are currently any limits. Residents are concerned about numbers of employees, visitors and operating hours for boarding businesses. Residents are concerned about the impact of noise and traffic.
Unlike our Village administration, residents have clearly communicated their concerns. It remains to be seen if the ZBA and Board of Trustees will address these concerns. As we have said before in these pages, we have our doubts.
– The Observer
Exactly my sentiment. ZBA Member Anderson expresses slightly veiled contempt for anyone who would dare object, and outright disdain for spreading ‘misinformation’. Freeman states “how many horses are too many” and then act cites the Comprehensive Plan – ‘this amendment will help grow the horse population’. (she had the same delusional reliance on the Comprehensive Plan as a justification for restrictive lighting!) It was obvious at the June 18 Public Hearing that the problem was that there was NO restriction on the number of horses allowed, and again Rosene chirps in “people will do the right thing”. The Riding Club leadership (and I’m a member but was never polled) is silent on numbers). One speaker said “100 / acre” was booed. Why can’t BH do what other villages do, limit horse population per acre to a number defined by the equine community, not a few local experts. The questions remains: “What happens if a neighbor boards 10 to 20 horses on 5 acres? With no restrictions, it could happen,(look at the abandoned cars on the property on steeplechase – the village hasn’t been able to fix that mess in 15 years since I’ve been looking at property in the Village). ZBA members Masterson and Mullen were the most forthright: “this isn’t a divide …. it is a unified concern (about no restrictions)….”this is better addressed by a special use permit”.
Given the obvious 8,000 lb gorilla in the Village, ie, Oakwood Farms, one has to wonder if the urgency of the BOT, the President, and ZBA to pass this amendment (on unrestricted horse numbers) is done to provide a ‘fix’ to the previous reversal of the Village’s position on Home Occupation status of Oakwood Farms. The HOO describes an “invisible” presence of the home occupation. Oakwood Farms is not. That is reality, not misinformation!
And let’s not let the Village Leadership think they can hide or forget the swift firing of the ZBA attorney who expressed a clear and simple legal opinion in public: “There is no way Oakwood Farms meets Home Occupation” (or something like that). Don’t like the legal opinion, fire the lawyer. Ignore the law! And to add insult to injury, then direct the contracted village engineer to send a letter granting HOO status to Oakwood Farms. All these actions by the president and certain Trustees and ZBA members is a clear violation of our Village ordinances, and and even more clear insult to the residents of the village.
Let’s not forget that the Illinois Election Board found Trustees Messer, Meroni, and Selman in violation for failure to report a donation by Oakwood Farms to their election campaign. These same Trustees are now voting on the issue. CONFLICT OF INTEREST! They should recuse themselves from voting on the issue.
Shortly thereafter, the Village position changes, granting HOO status to Oakwood Farms.
Let’s not forget that the Attorney General found the Village President and BOT in violation of the Open Meetings Act (when they were discussing NOT fining Oakwood Farms for violating a cease and desist).
Of course, this short few paragraph recitation of FACTS enrages the players; is this misinformation? No these are facts! So why is Kurt Anderson so condescending about residents who ask questions. Do these residents have an agenda? YES, it is to hold the elected and appointed representatives of this village accountable for their actions, and to reminder them that we don’t have to rely on their (ineffective) communications to keep other residents informed.
Jim, your comments are spot on and accurate. Our Village President should explain why Oakwood Farm meets the test of Home Occupation and why he made the decision in an illegal meeting under the Open Meetings Act not to impose fines.
Our residents must realize that Oakwood Farm’s size and operations have been deemed to meet Home Occupation so any property can do the same. Likewise, our ZBA Chairperson stated that all code should comply with the Comprehensive Plan and “more equestrian” code should be written by the ZBA.
As Member Masterson so firmly observed, residents in opposition to the advancing of commercial boarding are not anti-equestrian. But, the Village is anti – commercial boarding expansion. The trails are over private properties. If this is not properly handled, we have residents threatening to shut down their access. Seems to me that instead of simply tabling the issue as the ZBA ducked, we need to send this back to a committee to be revised with appropriate modifications. Representation on that committee should be more than just the extremes of the Riding Club.
ZBA Board Members;
The Observer notes properly the manner in which you approached the feedback of the neighbors your represent. All residents who were not in attendance should be aware that the pervasive tone from most of the members (not Nancy Masterson or George Mullen) was completely condescending and attacked the input submitted by residents. There was no consideration given that any incorrect perceptions on the part of the more than 100 residents who voiced opposition to the proposed Amendment that the ZBA may have communicated it incorrectly. Perhaps, the Amendment is so ambiguous as to allow for the confusion – or, is that just what the administration wants so they can be arbitrary with enforcement for cronies and campaign donors.
Instead, Member Anderson led a charge accusing a campaign of “misinformation and disinformation” by anyone opposing the Amendment. His attack demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the neighbors he serves that may have legitimate concerns. As for his comments, echoed b y Members Rosene and Vallen, that the proposed amendment would only serve to tighten commercial boarding – hogwash!
The ZBA must step up and explain how their code allows for Oakwood Farm to be home occupation? Does that set a standard for further expansion in our Village. Chairperson Freeman appropriately asked Trustee Messer to investigate why the Village is not consistently managing enforcement. The Trustees should be responsible for addressing that question to the public, especially in the case of Oakwood Farm.
The residents of Barrington Hills deserve someone on the Board of Trustees to forcefully and loudly represent the interests of the majority that are in opposition to commercial boarding, and not back down to bully politics.
Barrington Hills Village attorneys;
Why was the lawyer representing the Village who stated that Oakwood Farm was not Home Occupation dismissed? If the Observer’s claim is true, you appear to have differences of opinion, but to keep business with the Village, you complied with the direction of Village President Abboud and maintain your nearly $1 million annual fee relationship.
We have seen allegations in the media, including this site, that the letter granting Home Occupation to Oakwood Farm may have been granted illegally. Who is investigating this in behalf of our residents. Without a direct connection, ZBA Chairperson Freeman stated concerns over inconsistent enforcement by the Village at the last ZBA meeting and asked Trustee Messer to investigate.
We deserve an independent answer to this potential special interest favoritism accusation. Certainly, without tighter restrictions in commercial boarding, our Village has a fee license to determine what and what isn’t home occupation and neighbors input is not respected.
The Abboud orchestrated veil covering-up Village government corruption is being slowly lifted for all to see. The Schuman [Abboud] Letter canceling 3 years of successful litigation by Burke-Warren against Oakwood Farm at a cost in excess of $200,000 to B.H. tax payers. The Schuman letter coming less than 30 days after the secret campaign donation from LeCompte [Oakwood farm] to “Save 5 Acres” (Messer, Meroni and Selman) (Finding by Election Board that the donation violated Illinois disclosure laws). Dan Lundmark sending an e-mail to LeCompte a few days before Schuman Letter informing LeCompte what Abboud needed to see in LeCompte’s affidavit to make Oakwood Farm home occupation compliant. Secret meetings on President’s Day and the Day before President’s Day 2011 between Abboud, LeCompte and Abboud’s surrogates.
This, during the same time period, Messer testified before the Illinois Election Board under oath that in his opinion none of large scale commercial horse boarding farms in B.H. comply with HOO. This, after LeCompte testified before the ZBA that Oakwood Farm could never fall under the HOO and that he [LeCompte] would never present such a claim before the ZBA.
How did it come to pass that Oakwood Farm became HO compliant [Schuman Letter] in the middle of an election when there is testimony sworn to under oath and letters by Messer, Burke-Warren and LeCompte that it was not legally possible for this to happen?
Why hasn’t Trustee Messer, Gianopulos, Gohl and Ramesh taken action by demanding Don Schuman appear before the Board to explain the letter [Schuman Letter] supposedly prepared and signed by him? Why hasn’t Burke-Warren been asked to render a legal opinion as to whether or not a part-time Village building code enforcement officer [Schuman] can override the decision and findings of the ZBA and legal arguments and claims presented by Burke-Warren in court? Why did Burke-Warren during an improper executive session meeting recommend the Board rescind the Schuman Letter? Why (as an improper act in executive session) did the Board refuse to do this?
If Abboud, Messer, Meroni and Selman are not going to respond to residents when they ask these questions during public comment at Board meetings, why aren’t the remaining Board members asking these obvious questions of them? Why do the Board and ZBA continue to ignore the elephant in the room, the Schuman Letter and how it changed the course of zoning in B.H.
The proposed text amendment recently set aside by the ZBA (only because of an informed and vocal public who objected to the substance of the proposal and concern by Abboud that the Schuman Letter would become the focus). Message to the Board, take action, this will not go away but will only continue to fester and grow.
We are lucky to have a person like “Publius” stand up for this town and insure that the people get the correct information on this most inportant issue.
O, what a tangled web Abboud weaves, When first he pratices to deceive!
Once again, just like the debacle with the Lighting Ordinance, the Comprehensive Plan is used as some sort of unquestioned justification for a zoning change which clearly does not meet the standards of the community as a whole. Another revision of the Comprehensive Plan is in the works soon. I suggest that residents make sure to attend the next few Plan Commission meetings to voice their opinions and hopefully get some of the equestrian heavy language scaled back.
Secondly, with regard to the 5 members of the ZBA who are also Riding Club members, this is exactly the type of scenario that the Observer warned about months ago when the last appointment to the ZBA was made. This is not an indictment of all RCBH members, but they are a minority in our community, and many certainly view issues like commercial horse boarding very differently than other residents do. That is the danger of having any club or group over-represented on either the appointed Village Commissions or elected to the Board of Trustees. We need more diversity of opinion if we want to be fair to all.
@Reality Bites
“I suggest that residents make sure to attend the next few Plan Commission meetings to voice their opinions…” When is that an option – to voice our opinions??? We’ve been to many ‘commission’ meetings and there has never been an opportunity for public comment. Someone please respond……….
@Nick and Nora
Oh, it’s that pesky Illinois Open Meetings Act coming into play again.
FAQs from the Attorney General’s Office
foia.ilattorneygeneral.net/pdf/FAQ_OMA_Government.pdf
“Is a public body required to allow a member of the public to speak at an open meeting? The Open Meetings Act requires that public bodies give members of the public an opportunity to speak at a public meeting. Public bodies are authorized to adopt rules regarding the public comment portion of a meeting. Such rules may limit the time allotted for the public to speak.”
If Kosin refuses to comply with that, we can always file written comments with the clerk@barringtonhills-il.gov, and send them directly to the Chairman of the Plan Commission, Ken Bosworth, who has always been a straight-shooter. You can email him at kbosworth@barringtonhils-il.gov .