The ePacket agenda containing links to some documents to be discussed during this evening’s Village Board meeting has been posted. To access the link, click here.
Tonight’s Village Board meeting ePacket agenda posted
February 23, 2015 by Barrington Hills Observer
5 Responses
Leave a Reply
Comments
Credit Due on Man pleads guilty in YouTube t… Shirley Mitchell on Playing For Keeps timewilltell on Illinois Senate 26th candidate… timewilltell on Illinois Senate 26th candidate… Super lame on On 1st day since winning 3rd t… Barrington Insider on Bought and paid for. Not sour… Timehastold on Illinois Senate 26th candidate… Recently Viewed Posts
Archives
Categories
Subscribe to The Observer
In what OMA world can Messer call for a vote on “Setting Compensation of Special Counsel” when that’s only a title in a memo he wrote last Thursday? Where’s the description? What’s the compensation? How can residents comment on his proposal without any substantive information?
It’s like it was two years under Abboud (remember 30+ unnamed “Appointments” on the agenda), however I suspect Harrington, Gohl, Meroni and Selman know what it’s about from their regular monthly pre-BOT meeting confabs.
IT IS TIME VBH BOT EXERCISE A LITTLE HORSE SENSE!
Tonight BOT are going to vote on whether or not Pres. McLaughlin’s “veto” of Anderson II Commercial Horse Boarding Amendment (“Anderson II”) should be overturned. Three myths propagated by SOS Knoop, Meroni, Selman, Naumann as well as other equestrian spin doctors and extremes are: (1) VBH never imposed any limitation on “number of horses” a property owner could have; (2) commercial boarding on any scale has always been “permitted” in VBH and, (3) equestrian activities provide a legal rational for R-1, 5 acre residential zoning.
First, limitation on number of horses is controlled by the Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) component of VBH Zoning Code. The maximum building under roof cannot exceed +/-10,580 sq./ft on any R1 or 5 acre zoned lot with the residence required to be the “primary” structure. In otherwords, VBH Zoning Code requires the barn be an “accessory” structure or incidential to the “primary” structure, the residence. Until Anderson II, under VBH Zoning Code, the maximum square footage of a barn on any R-1 (5 acre) zoned lot could be about +/- 2,750 sq/ft, housing between 8-9 horses.
Anderson II does away with these FAR requirments (which have served all residents in VBH well for more than 50 years) by removing the requirement that the residence be the “primary” structure. This change allows for construction of a “commercial” barn on a 5 acre lot to be in excess of 10,000 sq/ft. Under Anderson II, if the landowner is “boarding” at least one horse, a home on a 5 acre parcel can be a “trailer” or “modular home” as long as there is a foundation, septic and well. In otherwords, Anderson II increases FAR allowances for only “commercial boarding structures” by 4 times the current allowance under VBH code.
Under Anderson II, Oakwood Farm would be able construct under roof about 253,920 sq/ft of commercial boarding structures. Prior to Anderson II, Oakwood Farm was limited to about 63,460 under roof with the residence having to be the primary or dominant structure. Even the figure of 63,460 is overstated given the size of Oakwood Farm’s primary residence. Anderson II opens the door for Walmart sized commercial boarding structures unrestricted by the size of the primary residence where before such structures would not be permitted due to FAR code restrictions and code definition of “primary” and “accessory” structure.
Second, is the myth propagated by SOS and equestrian extremes that commercial horse boarding has always been allowed in VBH. Under VBH code “breeding” and “training” of horses has always been allowed but boarding for the sake of boarding for a fee was not permissible. In 2008, BOT carved out an exception to this rule under Home Occupation Ordinance (“HOO”) where VBH permitted commercial boarding to the extent this practice had a dilatory effect on neighboring properties; that is to say, to the outside world the commercial boarding operation was not visible but incidental to the home.
This is why former Pres. Abboud and Save 5 Acres BOT, Gohl, Knoop, Messer, Meroni, Selman and Ramesh authorized payment of $182,000 to former village counsel Burke-Warren to litigate against Oakwood Farm which “Save 5 Acres” BOT successfully did at both the trial and Appellate Court level. This is why the Schuman Letter (calling Oakwood Farm a home occupation) 34 days after a campaign donation by Oakwood Farm to BOT Messer, Meroni and Selman after many years of litigation claiming the contrary made no legal sense. It was LeCompte himself who testified under oath that Oakwood Farm could never be a home occupation.
Third, this ridiculous statement by SOS that equestrian activities provide a legal rational behind VBH 5-acre zoning and that without this rational, 5-acre zoning is in jeopardy. This statement is legal malpractice on the part of SOS because any competent real estate attorney will tell you a rational is not required, only a properly adopted municipal zoning code and minimum acreage covenants contained the landowner’s deed. R-1 recorded deeds make no statement in the minimum acreage provision about equestrian activities or lifestyle, only that 5 acres is a minimum requirement. These 5 acre covenants run with the land irrespective of the existence of horses. While we all appreciate the equestrian lifestyle in VBH and would like to see it no only survive but to thrive as a “hobby” for those who enjoy and can afford it, never be fooled by equestrian spin doctors and extremes who say survival of your 5 acre estate depends the existence of horse activities, because it does not.
Pres. McLaughlin was correct when he vetoed Anderson II, not only because of the suspicious circumstances surrounding its promugation but because the “substance” of Anderson II “guts” R-1 zoning (without referendum) which Pres. McLaughlin is sworn by law to uphold.
After 10 years of calling themselves “Save 5 Acres”, Knoop, Meroni and Selman have a new calling card, “Save Open Spaces”. This is because SOS Knoop, Meroni and Selman know by supporting Anderson II, 5-acre residential zoning in time will succomb to big business commercial boarding interests. SOS calls Anderson II responsible zoning designed to “saving open spaces”, I call it a direct assault on our “5 acre” way of life.
David nails it with this message!! Please consider reading this and learn the issues. First, if he’s wrong with the FACTS, dispute them.
Second, David’s message underscores two issues. SOS speaks in generalities attempting to confuse the facts – all for the purpose of duping the general public from understanding the negative impacts of the Anderson Text Amendment. Also, the outcome required an approach that favored one landowner, Oakwood Farms, and Riding Club extreme special interests. Why else would that Amendment include an 8 year retroactive provision?
Ask Meroni, Selman and Nauman (and Messer, Gohl, Harrington, Freeman) to explain that with honesty.
Sir.
You are dead on!
These people will lie, cheat and steal to get their way!
Some may be in fear of future criminal action that possibly looms in the wings.
These are strange and unpresedented times for our placid little village. The last chapter has yet to be written.
Haven’t heard a peep. Does anyone have any perspective on last night’s meeting from any side of the discussions?