The Village has released edited audio recordings from the October 20, 2014, Zoning Board of Appeals meeting which was held at Countryside School to discuss three remaining horse boarding text amendment proposals carried over from the September 11th ZBA special meeting. To access the menu of the meeting’s topical audio recording segments, click here.
Unlike the unexpected surprise Anderson/LeCompte horse boarding text amendment discussion that consumed over two and a half hours at the September 11th meeting, the discussion of the Drury, Elder and Hammond amendments took just over thirty-five minutes combined.
Member Kurt Anderson led the charge with motions discarding each of the three citizen alternatives to his proposal, stating the three amendments were, “not in the best interest of the public.” Of course not—these proposals were not his own. Then, each amendment was voted down by the board, falling in line, 4-3, with the conflicted makeup of the board as we have previously chronicled (See “Conflicted”).
Later in the meeting, a resident questioned what exactly was the “public” interest supposedly being advanced by these conflicted board members. It’s a valid question which was never answered.
The board’s rejection of the Hammond amendment is particularly perplexing, since it followed the horse boarding code guidelines presented to the Village Board in 2011 by ZBA chair Judith Freeman herself. But, then again, this process (or lack thereof), makes little sense to many.
The meeting continued with a yet another “improved” amendment proposed by Anderson, which would establish a line of demarcation between Home Occupation and Agriculture at 10 acres as it relates to horse boarding. When the Village decides to publish the “Anderson 2.0” amendment prior to a public hearing on November 10, we’ll share it with readers.
When discussion turned to the questions from the Village Board requesting detail and clarification from the Zoning Board, members Anderson, Benkendorf, Rosene and Chairman Freeman often demonstrated lack of interest in obtaining expert testimony regarding such topics as horse density and possible detrimental effects to groundwater as a result of higher density. Many in the audience expressed their vocal displeasure when Anderson stated the Zoning Board had heard no testimony when it came to density, but that was not the most disturbing part of the meeting.
Throughout the discussions, references were made to some Zoning Board members collaborating, secretly behind the scenes, on drafting the original Anderson amendment prior to the September 11th meeting at Barrington High School. During that meeting Anderson acted as though he was revealing his new amendment draft to all members at that meeting for the very first time, but records obtained via FOIA prove otherwise.
Email and fax records obtained from the Village show ZBA members Anderson, Benkendorf, Freeman and Trustee Joe Messer, liaison to the ZBA, began crafting the amendment using their personal or business email addresses well before the September 11th ZBA meeting. A copy of those records can be downloaded here.
Is using personal email addresses do discuss government business a violation of the Open Meetings act? No. Does the Attorney General’s office discourage such communications outside of Village assigned email addresses? Yes.
Were residents made aware of Anderson’s revised LeCompte amendment prior to the September 11th Zoning Board meeting? No. More importantly, were ZBA members Chambers, Stieper and Wolfgram extended the courtesy of review of the amendment before the meeting? No.
Some residents who made public comment at the end of the most recent Zoning Board meeting referred to how this protracted issue of horse boarding regulations in the Village is causing residents to become very emotional, and they’re correct.
Doing what’s right for the entire Village should be preeminent in the minds and actions of our Zoning Board, particularly the chair. But, since she clearly has no regard for the minority members of her board, why should she care about the majority of residents?
Not only do we have a conflicted Zoning Board, we now appear to have some members who push the edge of the envelope of the Open Meetings laws, with no discernible care for transparent behavior. That should be a concern to everyone since in the end we’ll all pay one way or another.
– The Observer
Listen to Speaker # 8’s comments if you are interested. He states correctly that the proposed Anderson Amendment is Agriculture (Ag) solely to protect Oakwood Farms. The current code requiring Special Use was ignored by Oakwood. The Village flip flopped on Oakwood, first against and next in favor when it became evident it was in their political interests.
Now, the conflicted ZBA members favor Agriculture zoning for the Village merely to protect Oakwood. They disregard the broader implications to the Village that will promote commercial operations which will undoubtedly have impact on environment, taxes, commercial operations, roads, private trail use by migration of others using Barrington Hills as the commercial destination for horse boarding. Unintended consequences of increasing numbers of horses on 5 acre properties exists. Let’s not forget, Anderson proposed and approved by a 4-3 majority (Chair Freeman cast deciding vote in favor) a recommendation to allow 15 horses on 5 acres, just so Ag designation would be a “retroactive” fix for Oakwood.
Speaker 8 is correct as he too recognizes that without Ag, Oakwood would have to comply with the Special Use requirements that have worked in our Village for decades. Something is terribly wrong with our conflicted ZBA working to change code that works solely for the benefit of one resident who chose not to comply with the law. Oakwood should be able to have horse boarding operations IF it complies with the Special Use code that works.
Do what’s right for the Village under Special Use and let the courts decide the outcome of Oakwood. If our government officials tamper with this issue to favor one resident over another, what can any one of us expect in similar circumstances at the whim of political clout or selling out to the highest contributor?
I did listen to speaker #8 but you’ve GOTTA listen to #2 also. Good God, talk about lunatic fringe…
I’ve attended all ZBA meetings on boarding since June. Freeman would be lost without Anderson since her other two allies on the ZBA (Benkendorf & Rosene) can’t keep the story straight from the obvious rehearsals they have before public meetings. This is the most transparent charade I and others have ever witnessed in this town even under Abboud’s terms and it’s another shameful reflection on the vast majority of honest residents in Barrington Hills.
This board is biased, conflicted and it’s not truthful. We WILL pay for this when the truth comes out in the courts and the press.
This week I limited use of my riding trail by posting no tresspassing signs. Subsequently the sign was removed and destroyed. When we found riders in our back yard cutting through our land, we confronted them and they were openly hostile to us. We asked them not to cut through our yard and were told that it was THEIR RIGHT to do so! I now know 4 other prpperty owners that are closing off the right to use their property as well. So very sad that it is coming to this. Thanks to the LeCompt group!
This is what it is coming to. I remember when the horse gang was kind and nice and welcomed by everyone. They are ruining the reputation that it took generations to build. Soon they won’t be welcomed on anyone’s trail.
By the way, my insurance company WILL NOT COVER OTHER PEOPLES HORSES ON MY TRAIL. If they slip and fall and anyone gets injured the home owner is on the hook. God forbid they should fall into my pool and drown.
Check with your carrier.
If you shut down your trail, you will have emasculated the riding club and its members. I hope that will not be necessary but I really don’t want “other” towns people riding in my back yard, ogling my two girls in our pool and loosing my privacy,
I was at the one meeting where both out of town (!!) and in town horse dissenters annihilated a very well respected BH family because she did not go along with the manifesto. If individual landowners decide to close their property until this LeCompte thing is resolved for the total village good, then they have no one to blame but themselves. Not surprised by the childish and inappropriate behavior. It runs rampant in every meeting I’ve attended and in every conversation I have with the 13%. And the pre -meetings must be hysterical………..like a pre school Christmas pageant!
Prior to every ZBA meeting, the “agenda” of the ZBA is published for ZBA members and public (3 days before meeting on Friday) but this pro-forma “agenda” by Chairman Freemen never informs the public or ZBA members Stieper, Chambers and Woflgram in advance of the true AGENDA of the ZBA majority. To get this information, you must be privy to the behind closed door communications taking place in advance between Chairman Freeman, mbr. Anderson, BOT Messer and mbr.Beckendorf..
Take the time to review not only the substance of these emails dealing with the creation of the “Anderson [Freeman] Text Amendment” for Horse Boarding but the dates these emails were exchanged between Freeman, Messer, Beckendorf and Anderson in the preceding BHO blog. [All well before September 11th ZBA meeting and to the purposeful exclusion of 3 members of the ZBA Board.]
In the “regarding” section of these emails you see the word “retro” which I surmise relates to the collaberative decision by this stealth group to remove the “retroactive clause” in the LeCompte amendment when drafting the Anderson Amendment. This in reality from the emails is the “Freeman Amendment” and it appears member Anderson was summoned to be the patsy. [There are obvious gaps in the communications which raises the question of whether all the e-mails have been turned pursuant to the FOIA]
I say to speaker #8 who might find my conduct unbecoming of a VBH ZBA board member that these times call for extreme measures and at least my statements and conduct are in plain view for all of you to see intended to shed light on the corrupt nature of these horseboarding proceedings.
What you may not know about Speaker #8 is he ostensibly signed a petition entitled “Concerned Residents of the Deepwood Road and Bateman Circle Neighborhood Village of Barrington Hills, Barrington Hills, Illinois” which was signed by others living on Deepwood Road addressed to former VBH BOT member George Schueppert dated December 6, 2007 wherein it states in its entirety:
“Dear Trustee Schueppert:
We the undersigned Barrington Hills residents of the neighborhood served by “private” Deepwood and Bateman Circle Roads are seriously concerned regarding the ongoing commercial developments occurring on the LeCompte property, and the adverse impact it is having on our residential property values and quality of life. These concerns are related to the operation of the sizable, growing, and multi-faceted commercial business operating on a residential property within a Village community that does not allow commercial enterprise.
We request a meeting with you, the Village attorney and appropriate members of the Village staff to discuss these concerns and remedies that may be available to us i addressing these concerns, at your earliest convenience. It is important for us to be ableto express these concerns before any further approvals are granted in the development process
We look forward to talking to you soon.”
[signatures including speaker #8]
Apparently by his comment at the most recent ZBA Board meeting, speaker #8’s concerns have been alleviated. But what about the rest of VBH residents also who share Speaker #8’s concers about the risk to property values and infringement upon peaceful and quiet enjoyment current and future large scale commercial boarding operations pose to residential estates not only now but into the future.
At the last ZBA meeting, the pre-rehearsed “buzz phrase” by the ZBA majority provided as a rational for dismissing the other ZBA text amendment applications was they each were “against the public welfare”. Of course none of the majority could not define nor elaborate on what they meant by “public welfaire” but this did not matter, because they knew the AGENDA.
For me, it will be amusing to see what phrase(s) the majority conconcts in future meetings in order to move their AGENDA forward and who will be cast in the future as the “patsy”..
All VBH residents who support open and honest municipal government should be highly suspicious not only about what is happening in front of their eyes on commercial horseboarding but what those who are in a position to effect horse boarding legislation are doing behind closed doors.
From there, you will find the true AGENDA!
David Stieper
ZBA Member
THANK YOU DAVID
This village owes you more than it can ever repay Mr. steiper!
No one will ever forget David Steiper.
sarcasm
Thanks, David for your continued efforts. It takes courage to stand on principle and be outside the box.
Keep the message coming!
Thanks David for continuing to shed light on the sham by the ZBA ringleaders