The Village has released recordings from the December 3rd Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing regarding the Anderson horse boarding text amendment proposal. A link to the very general menu of topical recording segments can be found here.
Thirteen residents made public comments regarding the amendment, though one resident was allowed to speak at both hearings so there were fourteen total comments. Another person’s honest perspectives on the current situation and the Zoning Board’s actions are shared by many residents. His comments can be heard here.
Twenty-five residents submitted written comments prior to the hearing. A consolidated copy of their comments can be downloaded here.
While the number of favorable comments, written or oral, were slightly higher than those who found issues with the amendment, there was a distinct difference between the two groups, and that is their explanation for their stand.
Those in favor primarily wrote a single sentence generally stating, “I support the Anderson amendment,” with nothing more to substantiate why they supported it. Those opposing the amendment were much more specific in their objections including matters such as:
- Extended hours of operations
- Horse density allowed
- Lack of original Home Occupation Ordinance protections
- Tax burden shifts due to agricultural designation
- The rush to a decision and potential legal consequences, and
- Accessory buildings that can exceed the size of the residence, etc.
As to the last point, during discussion, both Village Administrator Bob Kosin and ZBA member Kurt Anderson, after lengthy dialog, conceded that under the amendment, a person could purchase a five-acre parcel and build a 2,000 square foot residence and an 8,000 square foot barn with no special use permit. Under the current codes, this is not allowed.
When discussion turned to the specific questions that the Village Board posed to the Zoning Board back in September, as we suspected, there are still unanswered questions including a comparison of the Anderson amendment and the others presented by residents. A link to that discussion can be found here.
When discussions ended, Anderson motioned to approve his proposed code changes, noting some further changes he had recently made, some of which some board members had not seen prior to the meeting. That recording, beginning with the prior vote on the findings, can be heard here.
To anyone who has attended meetings, listened to recordings or read transcripts, it is abundantly clear some members of the Zoning Board were never able to think beyond their conflicted views, nor were they able to consider viable options to satisfy all Barrington Hills residents. We believe this is because no proposal they could draft could ever pass without including one large commercial boarding operation: Oakwood Farms.
Throughout their many meetings and public hearings, had they been able to step out of their conflicted shoes and be objective representatives of the community, the solution to satisfy all residents– but one–was staring them right in their faces.
Non-equestrian residents fear new commercial boarding operations springing up next door without the protection of the special use permit process. Equestrians fear longtime boarding operations are in jeopardy without new regulations. The solution to satisfying all residents was successfully accomplished with the contentious Exterior Lighting Ordinance (ELO) just a few years ago, and it was included on one of the dismissed proposals from a resident.
The Village should require a special use permit for any new boarding facilities over a certain size going forward in our codes. This will satisfy non-equestrian residents. The Village can then exempt any existing boarding facilities that have had no complaints from the Village or from residents from the special use requirement.
Readers, regardless of their views, should see the logic in this fair approach benefiting all concerned. After all, has anyone heard of any complaints about the ELO at meetings since it was passed?
We haven’t, but as much as this approach to commercial horse boarding makes sense, it won’t halt a matter of private litigation between two residents which is already in court, and that seems to be the only goal of some members on our Zoning Board and of the majority of our Village Board who are most certainly poised to approve the Anderson amendment Monday night.
– The Observer
Exactly on Point, Observer!
I posted a public comment to the Village website last night,really not expecting to influence one vote from the Gohl, Selman, Meroni, Messer or Harrington. They have already been told how to vote. Rather, our challenge is to educate the Village residents who are not involved; once that is done, these ‘rogue biased conflicted trustees will be voted out of office (just like Abboud was dumped) and then the rogue biased conflicted ZBA members can be dumped by a BOT majority favoring logical non-conflicted Ordinances in the city.
Here is my comment in its entirety
‘
James T O’Donnell PharmD MS FCP
6:52 PM (14 hours ago)
to clerk
This is a continued insult to the majority of the residents of the Village despite overwhelming opposition in written comments and public comments to the ZBA_ to this amendment.
And to call a Special Meeting? What’s the hurry? In fact, why has this issue,which was discussed ad nauseum at ZBA and BOT in 2011, rushed through ZBA this summer? ‘ TO MAKE LECOMPTE LEGAL”(Yetarian)
The ZBA has ignored testimony of the experts they called, and did not call some of the experts that the BOT recommended.
The TA will have devastating negative effect on the character of the Village, will increase taxes for non barn owners disproproiionately, and is a continued flagrant violation of the laws controlling municipalities.
The text amendment favors one party in litigation, and is not in the best interests of the village. It is doomed to failure. Even the RCBH lawyers, Abboud’s personal attorney Kelly, and the special counsel Bond have given legal opinions to the BOT against such a selective favorite party status.
It will be challenged and declared void.
Given the obvious eventual outcome, why would the rogue zba and the hold over and election law violating trustees pass such a self serving amendment.? BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE VOTES! and because their PUPPETMASTER IS PULLING THEIR STRINGS and they are marching to his drum, not acting as responsible public officials.
Responsible citizens have only one recourse, that is to educate the electorate of their illegal acts and dump the rogues in the April election, defeat all their appointed and selected candidates, take majority of the BOT, and then dump the rogues (Freeman, Anderson,Beckendorf, Rosene) off the commissions and committees so that this village can start acting responsibly again.
It will be cause for celebration in April when we can celebrate the defeat of these rogues and send a strong message to the puppetmaster and to the riding club leadership who take dangerous positions without consulting their membership. Remember, even if the entire membership was in favor of this amendment (and they are not), this represents less than 10% of the Village population. THE 90% will take the Village back from this biased minority who are forcing their illegal positions on the majority.
The aftermath will be in the Courts, where these rogues will have to answer for their irresponsible and illegal actions. Interference with the current litigation doom failure to the TA There have been multiple obvious and flagrant violations of the Open Meetings Act. Are there also criminal violations? Is that the RUSH?. It won’t stop the push to connect the dots of the hidden donations by lecompte to messer, selman and meroni and the and the Shuman letter making “lecompte legal” (“if it looks like a duck……”)
I encourage state and federal prosecutors to investigate and prosecutors to investigate the rogue actions of these public officials, since hey wont’ obey he laws sand statutes.. They are violating the residents’ rights, taking protections away provided by the Home Occupation Ordinance. and they have never uttered an explanation on why their TA is beneficial to the village. They only must think is beneficial to he riding club (parking, polo matches, and obviously, so emphatically publicly proclaimed by the past president of the RCBH to “make lecompte legal”. THIS IS NOT IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE VILLAGE.
if you don’t like my recitation of facts and my opinions on these destructive actions, don’t assume I don’t like horses. I dolike horses. I wouldn’t have moved here if I didn’t. I wouldn’t have been a Jump Judge at FVPC events (Judy Freeman shuttled me to my stations), I’ve advertised in the Polo Match programs, and attended RCBH events – and I am a RCBH member (at least I haven’t been informed that I have been kicked out of the Club yet). However, the preservation of my rights and the rights of residents is more important than social status in any club!
Jim O’Donnell (Not the former Plan Commission Member)
Ridgecroft Lane
Barrington Hills
You echo the thoughts and aspirations of the majority of residents.
Thank you for being one of the point men leading the way for the silent majority. We need more people like you.
Thank you Jim. I would also say that the pending testimony of these puppets will still occur, whether they sign that hideous TA or not. So we are left holding the bag again.
MP – Wasn’t it ex-Trustee and ex-Legal Committee Member Steven Knoop who was referred to as “The Bag Man” by Attorney Richard Means in the illegal campaign contribution case brought before the Illinois State Board of Elections?
“On June 14, 2011, the Illinois State Board of Elections in the case of In the Matter of George Schuppert v Save 5 Acres, Jason Elder, Daniel Lundmark Karen Rosene, John Rosene, F M Eich, Patti Meroni, Karen Selman, Joseph Messer and Benjamin LeCompte, case no. 11 CD 006 held that the respondents violated §9- 25, and §9-8.5 of the Illinois Election Code in that candidates, Messer, Meroni and Selman made contributions to “Save 5 Acres” in the name of another (LeCompte) and the $15,000.00 contribution was in excess of the amount permitted by law.”