Thursday’s meeting began with Chairman Freeman moving public comment to the beginning of the meeting. Many who took advantage of this time were members and officers of the Riding Club. We’re told the president of the Riding Club was allowed about ten uninterrupted minutes to read a prepared speech, after which Chairman Freeman suggested subsequent comments be limited to three minutes per the rules for most Village meetings.
To many in the audience, this comment session seemed to be a continuation of public hearing from last Tuesday’s ZBA session. Since Tuesday night also happened to be the regular monthly meeting of the Riding Club, and many RCBH members chose to attend that meeting rather than go the ZBA, perhaps this explains Freeman’s decision to allow comments preceding the business before the board.
The first agenda item originally to be discussed was the LeCompte text amendment proposal. However, Freeman allowed board member Kurt Anderson to introduce a new amendment, purportedly of his own crafting, for consideration by the board. He then handed out copies to board members.
Anderson, whose term expired last April, stated his proposal was based on the LeCompte proposal with his suggested additions and deletions. He then proceeded to read most of the document he had drafted and discussion ensued by the members of the board.
The key components of his amendment proposal included:
- No special use permit is required for boarding businesses
- Horse boarding businesses of any scale would be considered agricultural use
- Up to three horses per acre would be allowed
- Operations can begin at 6:00 AM and end at various times in the evening
- No limit on the number of customers/employees on site
When discussions began heading toward a vote on this never-before-released proposal, the attorney assigned to the Zoning Board urged the need for another public hearing for residents to weigh in on Anderson’s new proposal. It seemed obvious the attorney felt there were enough substantive changes to the original LeCompte proposal to qualify Anderson’s draft as a new amendment altogether, and that it should be made available to residents before holding another public hearing. Doing so, however, would require proper notice which would create a delay of about three weeks to properly and legally plan for.
Freeman chose not to follow the advice of counsel, and a motion to approve was made by Karen Rosene, another board member whose term has expired, to recommend Anderson’s new amendment. Four equestrian members of the board voted aye, and three non-equestrians voted nay. The meeting then adjourned without consideration or discussion of the four originally submitted text amendment proposals.
We find it highly disturbing that any member of the board could even vote on an important and controversial amendment having had little or no time to read it or question it. More troubling are the facts that residents were not given any opportunity to even read the changes and that the basis for Anderson’s amendment was the LeCompte proposal, which most residents who commented publicly and in writing objected to.
Many residents had asked for this process to be slowed due to the significance of this matter, but Freeman chose to disregard their pleas Thursday night.
We are at a loss to explain the unorthodox and quite possibly illegal actions by Freeman.
Were there external pressures on her and some other board members? Did the fact that the LeCompte Kalaway Landowner’s Polo event was due to start roughly thirty-six hours after the vote have any bearing? And by calling for a vote on an item not published in the agenda, why did she allow what could be a violation of the Open Meetings Act to take place?
We cannot provide answers to these questions, but residents should demand they be answered before any further actions occur.
– The Observer