The Village has recently announced that a special Village Board meeting called by Trustees Gohl and Selman will take place at Countryside School Monday, December 15th, beginning at 7:00 PM. The sole purpose of the meeting is to vote on the latest Anderson horse boarding text amendment.
Clearly, some Trustees cannot wait until the regularly scheduled December board meeting on December 18th, just three days later, to vote on the amendment. Furthermore, whoever set the agenda has placed public comment after the vote on the amendment, so we urge residents to send their comments regarding the amendment via email to the Village Clerk at clerk@barringtonhills-il.gov or by fax to 847-551-3050 no later than 7:00 PM this Saturday.
A copy of the Trustees agenda can be downloaded here or viewed via the Village Google calendar here.
I didn’t think anything that Abboud’s 5 loyalist on the board could do would shock me anymore. I was wrong.
This will end up costing the village a vast amount in legal fees and hopefully a crimminal prosecution for the Abboud 5!
An unavoidable travesty will take place this coming Monday when the Anderson horse boarding amendment will be all but be approved. It is all but a done deal. Mr. Drury will sit with fellow residents who have continued for months and months to bring valid concerns and have vocally opposed these tactics by the ZBA and BOT; All will watch as his rights are all but removed with no tangible recourse but to ultimately take action against our village!! This is really dreadful.
The fallout will be due to a failed ZBA chair Freeman and her loyal soldiers. That even public comment is intentionally scheduled after the vote, shows the lack of decency and respect that these current Trustees have for the residents of Barrington Hills. Trustee Gohl will not escape the wrath of residents disgust in his complicity to join with the equestrians to push this amendment through regardless of the consequences.
While litigation is active and ongoing, this board decides that they will remove the possible threat of a vote against them by forcing through this amendment and placing our village in a every precarious and tenuous legal position.
After they bask in the afterglow of their victory dance, Trustees Selman, Meroni and Messer will find that the cost of their vote to approve this amendment for their fellow equestrians will cost them their coveted positions as Trustees.
Hopefully this vote will be the wake up call that will get our residents to the polls in April and finally steer our village in the right direction.
If Mr. Drury chooses to file a rico action this village will be faced with a major financal dilemma.
There is precedence for this type of suit and God knows it will happen.
The shame is that some equestrians actually believe that this was necessary to allow the decades of commercial boarding for neighbors use. It was not! This is simply a special interest act to protect Oakwood Farms, promote the financial well being of the Riding Club and to advance commercial interests in Barrington Hills for non-residents.
Ms. Freeman has a vision for the Village and her equestrian bias that will have unintended consequences of destroying Open Spaces and privacy rights under Home Occupation. Messer, Harrington, Gohl, Selman and Meroni simply continue the Abboud plan legacy to control the Village for their own political and special interest agenda, to the detriment of the Village. Rosene is a shill for her husband’s financial and polo interests and sits on the ZBA illegally not saying a word. Benkendorf just says nothing and does what he’s told. Anderson reveals who he really is. Good ethics matter.
In the mean time, to the silent and apathetic majority (including equestrians) who sat on the sidelines – we now deserve what we get – the price of apathy is high. If Monday transpires as we expect, this will have enormous financial consequences as our Village polarizes further. Yet another hit on our property values!
Next step is to punish to the fullest extent of the law any violations of the law. This is not longer a little Village squabble, significant conflicts and money are involved and people should spend time in jail and face fines for any illegal actions. All of us need to write to the Illinois Attorney General and State Attorney prosecution office requesting an independent investigation.
They’ve won the battle. They do not care what we think because it doesn’t serve their agenda. They say we are “apathetic”, but those are just their hyperbolic talking points.So yes, we need to prosecute. Let it all hang out, as they used to say. In the meantime, the existing Abboud puppets are finished. Hope you’ve enjoyed your ride! Now let us all get down to business and elect some true public servants who can think for themselves and serve the general good, not bow to one onerous resident. Meanwhile, watch for your property taxes to skyrocket and if you are trying to sell, forget it. Prospective new buyers have and will keep walking as soon as they hear all the drama that goes on in this little village thanks to these horrible people.
The drama will play out predictably on Monday night. The hard core equestrians will make their impassioned pleas for preserving their “way of life”, which means strangers, traffic, and lots of noise for the neighboring homeowners. But who cares, as long as the horsey set can service their customers, right?
Fritz or Harrington will propose some minor, meaningless changes to the Anderson amendment, in attempt to seem like they are responding to the majority in the village who are against the amendment in any form at this time. Messer will be arrogant and rude to Marty and Colleen. Selman and Meroni will state their undying support for anything horse related, and thank the ZBA for their thoughtful approach to the process.
The conflicted Save 5 crowd will vote together again, and will be treated to a thunderous ovation by their loyal minions.
And the normal people in the village will be screwed.
Any truth to the rumor that they knew Marty was out of town and that’s why the rush and procedure change? Apparently they think that they can just run over Colleen. I hope Colleen rips them up.
Neighbors:
I will not be able to attend the board meeting on Monday because of previously scheduled travel. I relied, like many others, on the regular meeting schedule, which included a planned meeting on Thursday of next week. This new, special meeting next Monday was called by two trustees specifically to avoid public scrutiny and public participation in this significant change in our laws. I am informed that these trustees actually called for this meeting on Monday of this week, yet notice was delayed until yesterday. Our village deserves more than these shenanigans, especially on an issue that has become so significant and been the subject of great controversy.
If I was able to attend the meeting on Monday, I would urge the board to reject the amendment on three principal grounds:
First, the amendment is retroactive. This is rare in legislation and demonstrates, in the most vivid and acute way, that this amendment was not designed to advance the public interest as a whole, but rather to immunize prior unlawful conduct by one or more lawbreakers. That is reason alone to reject this amendment.
Second, the amendment grants blanket permission to horse boarders first, and then requires disrupted neighbors to bring grievances second, only after they have been harmed. That is exactly the opposite of what responsible legislation should do. Rather, the proper way to regulate horse boarding is to do so by special use permits (even long term special use permits). Special use permits allow neighbors’ rights to be considered and protected first, before they suffer harm. That’s the right order of things. The current amendment has it exactly backward, putting the proverbial cart before the horse. This is further evidence that the legislation is not designed nor effective to advance the public interest as a whole. Its purpose and effect is to benefit a special class of commercial operators, including those who have deliberately violated our existing laws.
Third, the artifice of an “agriculture” designation, which now will be sprinkled anywhere and everywhere throughout the village, rather than in special agriculture zones, is destructive of our overall residential zoning and in violation of the village’s comprehensive plan.
I leave to others who are expert in equestrian matters to comment on the provisions relating to hours, horse density, etc. Those are also problematic, for many and varied reasons that have been explored elsewhere.
I will not be able to attend the Monday meeting. No doubt it was the intention of those who called this special meeting, when a regular meeting was on the horizon, and then deliberately delayed its public notice to minimize community attendance and scrutiny of their conduct. Responsible governance requires much more than this irresponsible behavior. I hope you will join me in April to vote the liable trustees out of office and send them back to their lives as civilians, if this process proceeds on Monday as they have planned.
I have spoken with the president pro tem and asked him to reconsider this conduct. I hope he will reconsider, but I am not optimistic. If this meeting goes forward, I urge you, my neighbors, to attend and let your voices be heard, despite the efforts of some of your trustees to silence you.
Once again you must find your voices, attend this dubious meeting and argue against this destructive amendment.
Respectfully,
Steve D’Amore
The prospect of RICO violations can be dire! Mt. Prospect ponied up $6.5 million! Could this be possible if this legislation proceeds in Barrington Hills?
Law Firm of Michael V. Favia & Associates in Chicago
Michael V. Favia represents individuals, small and large corporations, professionals, professional groups and organizations.
Skip to content
HOMEABOUT THE LAW FIRM OF MICHAEL V. FAVIA & ASSOCIATES
Pizzeria owner in Mount Prospect settles lawsuit for $6.5 million in case alleging RICO violations
This is a case alleging developers worked with town officials in an attempt to strong-arm Mr. Curtis.
Mount Prospect restaurant owner, Tod Curtis, owner of Ye Olde Town Inn, has run the pizzeria for more than 40 years, and he recently settled his lawsuit against the village of Mount Prospect and Oz Development LLC for $6.5 million.[i] Curtis sued the village and development company, alleging the group worked together in an organized fashion to push him and his business out of his long-established location. He sued in state and in federal court under a variety of legal theories including claims that the village and developers engaged in federal civil racketeering. Specifically, the case alleged violations of the RICO (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations”) Act; notably used in the investigation of mob activity and crimes in Chicago during Operation Family Values, as reported by the Chicago Tribune.
This is a case of developers working with town officials in an attempt to strong-arm Mr. Curtis.
In an legal decision and order by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Curtis v. Wilks, the facts are set forth and the scene is set, describing how the defendant developer and the village seemed to have it in for Curtis and wanted his property condemned to make way for an entertainment district. Defendant, Oz Development built a blues bar next to Curits’ pizzeria, causing damage to his building. The village sought to condemn the pizzeria to build a private road to access a new condominium building. The village also made inspections on multiple occasions seeking to ultimately condemn the pizzeria. At one point, Curtis tried to join in the new development process and at one point suggested redevelopment of his own property, and none of it went forward. At issue in the lawsuit was whether the defendant, Oz Development acted in concert with the village to effectively run Curits out of town, relying in large part on the RICO Act to win his case.
The U.S. federal law, RICO, provides extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization. Specifically, RICO is focused on racketeering, where an organization of individuals are ordered to act or assist others in the furtherance of an agreement to take certain actions. RICO is most often used to investigate and prosecute organized crime operations. It is not every day that a RICO claim is litigated against a local municipality and development company.
RICO is codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c):
“It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.”
In order to establish a RICO claim under section 1962(c), a plaintiff must show “(1) conduct (2) of an enterprise (3) through a pattern (4) of racketeering activity.” Sedima S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985)[ii]. A RICO plaintiff must who at least two predicate acts and “that the racketeering predicates are related, and that they amount to or pose a threat of continued criminal activity.” H.J. Inc. v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239 (1989)[iii].
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, denied certain parts of Curtis’ complaint, in part citing legal analysis regarding the use of RICO against municipalities, which was disallowed. The case proceeded on RICO and additional claims against Oz Development and Errol Oztekin, its owner.[iv]
Ultimately, a settlement was reached for $6.5 million, $2 million of which would go towards attorneys fees and legal costs. The village of Mount Prospect agreed to pay $439,002 and an insurer will cover the rest, according to the agreement as stated in the press.[v]
If you have complex civil litigation matters, Michael V. Favia & Associates can help. With offices conveniently located in the Chicago Loop, Northwest side and suburban meeting locations, you can schedule a discrete meeting with an attorney at your convenience and discretion. For more about Michael V. Favia & Associates’ professional licensing work, please visit http://www.favialawfirm.com and feel free to “Like” the firm on Facebook and “Follow” the firm on Twitter.
[i] Chicago Tribune, Pizzeria owner wins millions in unusual lawsuit against village, by Dan Hinkel, Aug. 7, 2014.
[ii] Sedima S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985).
[iii] H.J. Inc., v. Nw. Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989).
[iv] Curtis v. Wilks, 704 F. Supp. 2d 771, 5 (N.D. Ill. 2010).
[v] See Chicago Tribune article (HNi)
Source: http://michaelvfavialawfirm.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/pizzeria-owner-in-mount-prospect-settles-lawsuit-for-6-5-million-in-case-alleging-rico-violations/
can Raven:
While bad, the most destructive aspect of Anderson II (“LeComptacare”) is not certain increased traffic, noise and open invitation for nonresidents to take advantage of VBH bucolic countryside which nonequestrian VBH residents are excluded from based upon equestrian monopoly; but rather, what Anderson II does to the Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) component of our VBH Zoning Code. It destroys it and with this goes all protections afforded residents living R1 (5 acre zoning) district, whether you own horses or not. This will impact property values in time, no doubt.
At present, under VBH Zoning Code, a resident living in R1 zoning district is allowed a maximum of 10,890 square feet of building for all buildings on the zoned lot, including “Accessory Buildings”. The definition of “Accessory Building” is a structure ancillary to the primary use, which is the residential structure. The home must be the primary structure. The maximum square footage of total “Accessory Building(s)” (ie Barns) space for 5 acre zoned lot under present Code is 2,178 square feet. (This FAR feature restricts the number of horses by putting limitations on size of barns)
Anderson II does away with “Accessory Building” FAR component under VBH” when it comes to horse boarding. Anderson II will no longer require barns be accessory in nature to the primary structure, (ie residence). The Village Administrator and Building Inspector for VBH confirmed this aspect of Anderson II during examination at the Dec. 2nd and 3rd ZBA hearings. Anderson II, allows a 5 acre lot owner in VBH to construct a barn and home of any size each so long as the total square footage does not exceed 10,890 square feet.
This opens up the door for “prefabricated”, “modular style homes” and “trailor homes” in VBH on 5 acre lot as long as there is a foundation, septic and well. VBH does not have an “architectural design provision”, it was always governed through the FAR provision. Under Anderson II, a homes can be as small as 800 square feet or less, meaning a barn on 5 acre lot can total 10,050 square feet or more and can be of any height and width as long as it complies with code set-back requirements . A great place to locate your farm hand to manage your horse boarding operation. Will anyone do this? I do not know, but why give them the rigth when before it could not be done?
It gets more depressing, under present VBH Code, on 120 acres, the maximum FAR for both the residential structure (“primary building”) and Accessory Buildings (Barns etc.) can total a maximum of 52,272 square feet. Under Anderson II on this same 120 acre lot, the home no longer has to be the primary structure and total FAR is increased from 52,272 to a total square footage under roof at 261,360 square feet (5x as much). How does this protect open space? Yes, if Anderson II is adopted, Wal-Mart size contstruction is now permissable in VBH. (Why not board 6 horses and then put your car or tractor collecton, construction business under the 259,000 remaining square foot structure. Perfectly legal, under Anderson II and if not, VBH lacks the necessary power to enforce it..
While it may appear Anderson II limits the owner to the number of “boarded horses” you are not limited in number if you own the horse. Under this analysis, a person could have 25 horses on a 5 acre lot. This might be appealing if the business proprietor is engaging in an “hourly” or “daily” livery service which is permitted under Anderson II.
Better yet, a clever attorney may devise boarding contracts where the business proprietor buys the horse from boarder and leases it back to the boarder with option of the boarder to buy the horse back for $1 dollar at the end of boarding contract. This way the boarding operator can say he/she is the owner of the horse, thus unlimited in number, while in reality boarding for a fee. Anyone interested in hiring me, I have a whole lot of ways to cut through Anderson II to maximize business opportunity and profit will not hesitate to take this business, if Anderson II becomes law. Rather than allow other nonresident attorneys make fees in the destruction of VBH, it is only right as a resident who stands to lose financially with further decrease in property value, that I generate fees off Anderson II.
Do not be fooled, VBH exists as a result of a long history of active and intelligent approach to land use and zoning with preservation of R1 being absolute priority. The Anderson II debacle turns R1 on its head in ways we can imagine and not imagine yet; but we can all agree it changes R1 zoning district into “mixed use” of “Business and Residential”.
When listening to the tapes of ZBA hearing, pay close attention to Kon from Teska very carefully when he said at what point does an “apple orchard” become a “business”. Anderson II puts VBH on a slippery slope which it may never recover from even if repealed. It is a time for all good VBH men and woman who care about their property values, open space and VBH zoning traditions to get off your backside and demand of this misguided and conflicted Village Board on Monday, “Hell no, not on our watch”!
David Stieper, ZBA member
Please, everyone, keep re-sending this link and encourage everyone to educate themselves on the negative impacts of LeComtacare … and shout out your protest.
Read the Observer and the postings, especially from ZBA Member Stieper. Why doesn’t Judy respond? Unite Barrington Hills and defeat this Text Amendment which should have been a referendum, not a shoved down our throat dictate from a conflicted special interest minority. These are not scare tactics, this is a severe violation of our heritage and ruins our future. Follow the money on this one.
I emailed the Village Clerk my comment yesterday morning. I think it odd that there was no response to acknowledge my email. Maybe it’s nothing, but the way I have observed our Village government in action lately, I’m a bit suspicious. It would also be nice to hear more from our Village President about the nonsense of the ZBA. On a more serious note, we as residents of this village have the resources individually and collectively to begin serious and valid legal actions against those trustees engaged in this farce.