Despite concerns expressed by many residents and the Village Code Enforcement Officer, Don Schuman, and the fact that some questions posed to the ZBA by the Village Board members remain unanswered, the Zoning Board of Appeals approved the Anderson amendment by a vote of 4-2 last night.
We’ll have much more on this when the audio recordings are released.
This should surprise no one. Half the time Freeman, Anderson, Benkendorf and Rosene weren’t paying attention especially when any other amendment besides Anderson’s was being considered.
The fix was in from the beginning. This will end up costing taxpayers when the lawyers step in.
ANDERSON II MEANS HIGHER RESIDENTIAL REAL ESTATE TAXES FOR ALL IN VBH AND DECREASE IN PEACEFUL TRANQUILITY AND QUIET ENJOYMENT OF HOME LIFE FOR SOME.
For those of you who share my concern of the risks the Anderson II Text Amendment (“Anderson II”) for commercial horse boarding poses to VBH homeowners’ current right to peaceful enjoyment and use of their property there may be a solution for some in VBH if this “Frankenstein” or some derivation thereof becomes law.
If your home is part of an association where Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (“CCR”) have been recorded and the CCR’s are referenced on your deed as well as each member in the association’s deed, the terms of these CCR’s are legally binding on each association member.
Most of the CCR’s I have come across in VBH contain standard language prohibiting business of any sort being conducted from either the “interior” or “exterior’ of the residence. This would include horse boarding activities of any size, incuding those currently operating legally under VBH Home Occupation Ordinance.
If these CCR’s are recorded and are referenced on the recorded deed of the home business proprietor, this business operator is in violation of the CCR’s and can be legally forced to shut down the home business, including boarding of horses irrespective of what any VBH ordinance says. This includes Anderson II. Most of these CCR’s have an afttorney fee shifting provision requiring the transgressor pay all attorney’s fees and costs incurred by the association in enforcing the CCR’s.
In order to be proactive in antication of the worse, If your home belongs to an association subject to recorded CCR’s which do not contain adequate protections against unfettered commercial boarding allowed under Anderson II you may want to call an emergency meeting of your association requesting the CCR’s be amended incorporating language exluding member homeowners from engaging in the business practice of “horseboarding for a fee”.
For those of you who do not belong to an association, it may be time to investigate whether an association in your area can be legally achieved if for no other purpose than to defend you and your neighbor’s home against big business intrusion wrought upon us by Anderson II.
VBH is a residential estate zoned community (R1-R4) which supports equestrian activities as a “hobby” for residents who can afford and choose to engage in this activity. Nowhere in VBH code does it say residents are required to subsidize large scale boarding operations by assuming a greater share of the real estate tax burden or having to submit to a reduction in quality of home life in order for these business to have the opportunity to obtain maximum equine occupancy and financial return.
Anderson II if enacted by VBH BOT will immediately convert areas currently zoned exclusively R1 into a “mixed use” of R1 and equine boarding business.
David Stieper, ZBA Member
David. You’re comments have been so helpful here. I know there are many who read this blog and are very concerned about the future of our Village. What are the odds that this moves forward and actually gets enacted? And if so, how can we have our voices heard, which obviously hasn’t happened as public support is clearly not behind the Anderson amendment. There are plenty of us who can afford and will not hesitate to explore legal action. It’s sad as the Village will have to spend a great deal of vital resources defending something that only benefits a few, and especially one resident’s interests.
Chas:
The odds are “more than overwhelming” in fact “100%” because you have 3 BOT members, Messer, Meroni and Selman who have a “irreconcilable material conflict of interest”. The conflicted 3 BOT personally gain by approving Anderson II which will render the Drury Lawsuit moot wherein it is “alleged” in his Amended Complaint that Messer, Meroni and Selman received a secret political campaign donation of $5,000 each from LeCompte in return (34 days later) for Abboud issuing the Schuman Letter. These are allegations which at the end of the day must be proved, but if so, the issue of “pay to play” with these 3 BOT and possibly others involved might not end in civil court.
(Schuman letter suddenly legalized commercial horse boarding operations at Oakwood Farm in the face of the trial court’s decision and first IL. Appellate Court Decision holding Oakwood Farm’s boarding activities were illegal under VBH Code.)
Ironically, it was Abboud and BOT on behalf of VBH who brought this lawsuit to close Oakwood Farm’s boarding activities costing VBH taxpayers @$184,000.00 in legal fees to Burke-Warren. After the Schuman Letter was issued, the VBH under Abboud without any explanation to VBH taxpayers abandoned VBH’s responsibility resulting in Drury filing a second lawsuit under the IL Adjacent Landowner’s Act. This law allows a private resident to step into the shoes of the village when the village fails to act even when it should have. (ie. potential future RICO claim against VBH based upon BOT malfeasance, collusion for political gain and nonfeasance, inaction when it was legally compelled to act).
It should be noted ZBA member Anderson is former “of counsel” to Messer’s law firm and that LeCompte himself informed VBH Pres.McLaughlin in the presence of Village Counsel Patrick Bond that LeCompte, ZBA Chairman Freeman and Trustee Messer had already prepared the predecessor to Anderson II, horse boarding language taking care of everythng and was subsequently incorporated into the LeCompte horse boarding Text Amendment.
When I disclosed the contents of the LeCompte/McLaughlin conversation during ZBA public hearing on the LeCompte Amendment, Chairman Freeman did not deny communications with Messer and LeCompte on horseboarding but said she was not required to discuss them in any detail with the ZBA Board or public nor describe in any fashion what if any role she had in drafting the text amendment before her; the very amendment she would be voting on. Thereafter, the LeCompte Text Amendment disappeared and almost identical Anderson I and II Amendments emerged from literally, the dark of night.
(Can you keep your eyes on the coconut shell hiding the ball as they are moved about by the ZBA Chairman magician with the help of her able assistant, Anderson!)
If you were Messer, Meroni and Selman and you could kill the issue of “pay for play” alleged against you in court (which if not, they will likely be called upon at deposition and trial to testify under oath) by passing Anderson II, wouldn’t you? I understand a formal document with exhibits was prepared and filed with VBH by an attorney (other than me) requesting the conflicted 3 BOT recuse themselves from the commercial horse boarding legislative process, but so far there is no evidence any of them will.
(In fact, through e-mails obtained in AG filing under OMA complaint, Messer has raised the ante by his behind the scenes participation with ZBA Chairman Freeman in discussion of Anderson Amendment before it reached ZBA members. A trustee is required to stay clear of work being performed by ZBA in order to protect independence of these two municipal boards, especially in light of the fact that as trustee, Messer will be called upon to cast a vote on the ZBA’s recommendation, that is unless he recuses himself.)
It is time, residents not only check their CCR’s but Trustee Harrington check the “Errors and Omission Coverage” section on the VBH Insurance policy and inform taxpayers whether they are adequately covered and for how much should Messer, Meroni and Selman choose to participate and vote on horse boarding legislation. I am more than confident Messer, Meroni and/or Selman have already inquired about Village coverage given Patricia Meroni’s husband Charles is an attorney and knows his elected official wife, Patricia is about to dance on very dangerous legal ground and Messer is an attorney as well.
(a neighboring municipality recently settled a RICO lawsuit against its Board for 6 Million Dollars, will BOT of VBH be next?).
You do not think Messer, Meroni and Selman are going to reach into their own pockets, if this blows up, do you? VBH taxpayers should consider it just another equine (“assinine”) subsidy paid for by the VBH taxpayers. In fact, Trustee, Messer a/k/a “Joey Conflicts” has compounded his “conflict of interest” on the issue of commercial boarding by actively participating behind the scenes with ZBA Chairman Freeman and his former “of counsel” and holder-over ZBA member Kurt Anderson, noted author of Anderson I and II, on horse boarding legislation.
Assuming the conflicted 3 BOT are in the bag on Anderson II or some derivation thereof, this leaves 1 vote to win a majority with 2 additional “Save 5 Acre” cronies on the BOT, namely, “Fritz Gohl” and “Michael Harrington”. Given this dynamic Chas, what do believe the outcome will be? This is like betting today on the results of the Ali v Frasier fight decided more than 40 years ago, Chas, who do you want?
With this dynamic on the BOT, unless stayed until the Drury/LeCompte Lawsuit is finalized, VBH is going to get an ordinance forever jeopardizing residential zoning in its R1 District (5-acre zoning) due to a single “special interest” and “self-preservation” by 3 BOT members and not because it is in the best interest of the VBH public. I would rather give LeCompte a “Map Amendment” allowing him to do what he wants on his individual parcel relating to boarding of horses rather than allowing this unbridled activity to occur throughout the VBH under a general boarding text amendment in the form of Anderson II.
(Do not be surprised if Harrington and Fritz vote “yes” and 1 of the Conflcted 3 BOT vote “no” to Anderson II to make it look like the personal conflict issue did not play a role in the conflicted 3’s decision. This will look better in court, if and when, the RICO claim is filed against the VBH and BOT)
Better pull those CCR’s from the drawer and dust them off because “big business” is coming to VBH and who knows, some time in the future you just might wake-up and see one of these business operations adjacent to you.
Yee-Haa!
Fritz Gohl is on record stating that no commercial boarding should be allowed on a property 10 acres of less. So, he’s likely not to support the Anderson Text Amendment. It is reasonable to expect that he will be highly vocal in his opposition to the proposed Anderson/ZBA Text Amendment unless that language is changed.
If it does pass, what will it take after next year’s elections to undo the damage? It is hard to conceive that most reasonable taxpayers wouldn’t see the severe damage that this amendment will cause.
Waiting for the election to undo this damage is too little, too late. Actions taken by the previous administration, current Trustee majority, ZBA Chair and ZBA majority are sufficient reason to require help from the State to investigate potential criminal activity. Our Village President must relieve Bob Kosin and hire a Special Village manager.
This independent and interim Village manager should team with the State Attorney’s office and mount an independent investigation into the several issues in our Village of alleged criminal activity. The election process should be influenced by whatever information is uncovered from this investigation.
I believe that this situation is best handled by the IRS criminal investigation division not state or local authorities. They will always follow up on a municipal corruption case.
Why hasn’t the Barrington courier been contacted so they can shed some antiseptic sunlight on this alleged corruption.
Colleen and Marty, how you doing with that “UNITE BARRINGTON HILLS” campaign pledge? Finding the rest of the Trustees working cooperatively with you to move BH forward? Are your actions that resolved the Sears litigation, police labor disputes, reduction in legal spending, fixing our road repair priorities, pension problems, etc. providing more “civility, cooperation and collaboration” in the Village?
Colleen, have you found your fellow Trustees embracing your gentler approach to work in concert for the best of the entire Village in an improved open and transparent manner as your campaign promised?
Are you finding the Village Manager Bob Kosin stepping in line with your direction as President? The ZBA chair managing a collaborative process with Code changes? The Village Trustees cooperating to build a united Barrington Hills?
Reality sucks.
Respectfully, comments like those of Mister Ed are a perfect example of the problems that prevent unity and incite further resentment between people who should behave like neighbors. Of course actions that resolved expensive litigation and law enforcement labor disputes, reduced legal expenses, and address our pension problems, are all substantial accomplishments that reflect the character of leadership that Marty and Colleen have provided. The fact that a commentor questions whether these obvious positive development have produced civility and collaboration speaks not to Colleen and Marty (their actions speak for themselves), but reveal the divisive motive behind the question.
Mister Ed, my name is Steve D’Amore. I’m proud to have Marty and Colleen on the board and believe their actions to improve our village–many of which you listed–will benefit our community in the short term and the long term. If you would like to have a civil discussion with me about leadership and those issues, please feel free to reveal your name to the readers here and I will reach out to you. Or, if you prefer annonymity, call me directly to have a neighborly discussion.
Bravo Mr. D’Amore. The Unite Barrington Hills message is right. Colleen and Marty have followed through on their campaign promise attempting to Unite. Marty and Colleen have tried and produced significant positive impact with many issues (Sears litigation, pension, labor disputes, budget, etc.).
Glad to see you speak out. Problem with the Village is not Marty and Colleen, but we Village residents not consistently involved that allows the bad behavior of some Trustees and ZBA. to continue. Because the Village is not active enough, the only recourse appears to be abandoning the campaign message of peace and harmony to fight fire with fire.
We have Trustees with no interest in supporting a broad Unite BH initiative, but focused to politically destroy opposition and serve only special interests. Time to get aggressive and use all legal means to investigate and expose the corruption. If that creates more divisiveness in the short run in order to cleanse the Village, so be it.
Straight from the horse’s mouth – the carrot goes to Mister Ed