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