The simple answer to the question of why we’re being sued is that some elected and appointed Village officials put us in this position last December when they approved a commercial horse boarding amendment to our code which clearly favored one party over another in a private lawsuit that did not involve our Village.
In order to fully understand the rationale behind the suit, residents need to understand the history of one commercial horse boarding operation in the Village that has, in our opinion, consumed an inordinate amount of time, energy and taxpayers’ money for too long now. The best way to illustrate this is with excerpts from the complaint against the Village as follows:
- The issue of commercial horse boarding in Barrington Hills has been litigated in the Circuit Court of Cook County in two separate cases and has been subject to two Appellate Court opinions.
- Both of those proceedings involved the large-scale commercial horse boarding operation conducted by Benjamin LeCompte at Oakwood Farms which is located at 362 Bateman Road.
- The first lawsuit was initiated by Benjamin LeCompte against the Village in Benjamin B. LeCompte, et al. v. Zoning Board of Appeals For The Village of Barrington Hills, et al. (Civil Case No. 09 CH 00934) (“First Lawsuit”). In the First Lawsuit, LeCompte appealed the Village Board’s issuance in January 2008 of a cease and desist order* which directed LeCompte to stop operating a large-scale commercial horse boarding operation.
- The Circuit Court, in a decision dated January 15, 2010, held that LeCompte’s large-scale commercial horse boarding operation conducted at Oakwood Farm was not in compliance with the Village Zoning Code. LeCompte appealed that decision.
- Although the Village prevailed in that case and the subsequent appeal by LeCompte, the Village did absolutely nothing to enforce that judgment or to enforce its Zoning Ordinance. The Village did not even levy a fine against LeCompte.
- On December 17, 2010, Attorney Steven Schulte, counsel for Drury, directed a letter to the Village attorney requesting that “the Village take all necessary actions to immediately enforce the cease and desist order by no later than December 31, 2010 (almost three years after its issuance) and take all steps necessary to recover all fines assessed against the LeComptes since January 10, 2008.” Again, no action was taken by the Village.
- On January 31, 2011, Drury initiated a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County (James Drury III v. Benjamin B. LeCompte, et al (Civil Case No.11 CH 3852)) against Benjamin LeCompte pursuant to the Adjacent Landowner Statute, 65 ILCS 5/11-13-15, (“Second Lawsuit” or “Drury- (Michael) McLaughlin [Note: no relation to the current Village President] Lawsuit”), seeking an order enjoining LeCompte from operating a commercial horse boarding operation at Oakwood Farms in violation of Village zoning laws.
- Five months later, on June 30, 2011, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court in the First Lawsuit. In that decision, Benjamin B. LeCompte, et al. v. Zoning Board of Appeals For The Village of Barrington Hills, et al., Case No. 1-10-0423 (later published September 21, 2011 as 2011 IL App (1st) 100423) (“LeCompte I”), the Appellate Court held that the commercial horse boarding operation of LeCompte at Oakwood Farm violated the Zoning Ordinances of the Village; held that the use of the land at Oakwood Farm for the commercial boarding of horses is not agriculture as defined in section 5-2-1 of the Village Zoning Code; and that since the commercial boarding of horses is not agriculture under section 5¬5-2(A) of the Zoning Code, it is not a permitted use in a R-1 zoned district in the Village.
- In James J Drury III et al. v. Benjamin LeCompte et al., 2014 IL App (1St) 121894¬U (“LeCompte II”), a copy which is attached as Exhibit D, the Appellate Court for the second time addressed large-scale commercial horse boarding at Oakwood Farm. In that case, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the Drury-McLaughlin Lawsuit. The Court discarded the home occupancy defense advanced by LeCompte and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
- Shortly after the remand in LeCompte II, LeCompte initiated a petition for a text amendment in June 2014 with the Village to permit large-scale commercial horse boarding as a permitted use in the residential zoning districts in the Village (“LeCompte Text Amendment“). LeCompte’s text amendment called for retroactivity back to June 26, 2006.
- The Commercial Horse Boarding Text Amendment which passed in December 2014 is very similar to the LeCompte Text Amendment.
- The Village Board enacted into law, over the Village President’s veto, on February 23, 2015, the Commercial Horse Boarding Text Amendment that is the subject of this action.
*[It should be noted that the cease and desist order issued to Oakwood Farms came as a result of complaints from a number of neighboring property owners.]
There are many more events we could detail since the first complaints were voiced regarding the operations at Oakwood Farms such as campaign donation disclosures, a letter purportedly authored by the Village Code Enforcement Officer to the owner of Oakwood Farms, etc., but for the sake of brevity, we’ve chosen not to repeat what’s been chronicled in these pages already.
What these and other points do bear out is the prior administration and previous village Boards did little to nothing to enforce the codes when it came to Oakwood Farms, and essentially, people like Jim Drury had to proceed through the court system on their own at great expense. When it became apparent Drury was succeeding with an April 2014 ruling, a flawed, conflicted and accelerated process quickly began to derail his hard fought efforts.
Settling the suit would allow for a more measured process to begin addressing all scales of horse boarding in Barrington Hills. Not settling will undoubtedly lead to years of unnecessary legal expenses to defend an ordinance that had no business being passed in the first place.
Also,
What purpose did the new law serve to contain a 7 year retroactive provision other than as a cover up to influence the litigation favoring Oakwood Farms for personal and political motivations?
Testimony exists during the 2014 hearing process that Dr. LeCompte admitted to crafting the amendment with the cooperation of Trustees and the ex-ZBA Chair. Now, conflicts in testimony come to light questioning who was the real author of the Anderson Text Amendment.
At least three issues remain open:
– Will the Village continue to support harmful code that destroyed Home Occupation rights and lift limits of commercial activity in the Village?
– Has the prior process exposed the Village to serious litigation if it is determined that the previous process became politicized in order to influence pending litigation? What are the potential consequences? The 7 year retroactive clause is nothing more than misuse of public office favoring litigation outcomes for personal gain.
– Should the public be granted the truth and an independent investigation held of the alleged illegal activity of Trustees or Board members in this matter? Exposing the truth, no matter where it falls, would go a long way to healing our community.
Exposing the truth – no matter where it falls…
Then several sitting trustees need to step down as the Drury LeCompte issue is not the only one where favoritism was shown…
These things are relatively simple……….follow the MONEY!
7/20/2011 Letter from Judith Freeman, Chairman, ZBA to BOT:
July 20, 2011
President and Board of Trustees
Village of Barrington Hills
112 Algonquin Road
Barrington Hills, IL 60010
RE: Commercial Horse Boarding
Dear President and Trustees:
After many months of discussion of the commercial horse boarding issue in Barrington Hills, we have reached a consensus on a proposed manner of regulating boarding in the Village. We are respectfully requesting that you review and discuss our proposal and if it is acceptable to you, that you refer it back to the Zoning Board of Appeals to conduct a public hearing so that we may make the appropriate recommendation to the Board of Trustees for its adoption. The specific language that we have discussed and are proposing is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
As you are aware, this issue has been under consideration for several years and numerous meetings and discussions have taken place with regard to it. We have had various “white papers” submitted to us by the Equestrian Commission and a number of proposals that have been made by the Legal Committee, the Equestrian Commission and others. We are aware of the situation with Oakwood Farms and the recent holding by the Illinois Appellate Court denying the claim by Oakwood Farms that horse boarding is agriculture and therefore a permitted use.
In 2005, the ZBA recommended and the Board of Trustees approved changes to the Home Occupation Ordinance, which allowed horse boarding as a home occupation. While we considered simply allowing all boarding operations to operate as home occupations, we felt that was not the best approach. Larger boarding operations can have impacts on the surrounding properties. In these circumstances, we are recommending that larger boarding operations should be required to obtain a Special Use Permit. The special use permit requirement would allow the community to have some involvement in whether such operations are appropriate at that particular location and, if so, under what conditions they should operate. As a result, we are suggesting that those facilities that board ten (10) horses or more be regulated as Special Uses. We discussed, at length, requiring stables or barns of a certain size to also obtain a Special Use Permit, but in the end determined that was burdensome and potentially overreaching.
We feel that the attached proposal represents a good balance between preserving and protecting the equestrian nature of the Village while taking into account the concerns of residents who might be impacted by larger boarding facilities.
Very truly yours,
Judith Freeman – Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
cc: Copy to each of the ZBA members
8/22/2011 Letter from David M. Stieper presented to BOT:
BARRINGTON HILLS VILLAGE LEADERSHIP HAS AN IRRECONCIABLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A CALL TO POSTPONE ZONING OF COMMERCIAL BOARDING UNTIL ‘TIE OAKWOOD FARM LITIGATION IS COMPLETELY ADJUDICATED.
Now pending in the Chancery Division of the Circuit Court of Cook County is the lawsuit entitled James J. Drury III et al v. Benjamin B. LeCompte et al. under case number 11 CH 03852 (the “Lawsuit”). Core factual allegations in the Amended Verified Complaint (“Complaint”)(includes in excess of 100 pages of exhibits) filed in the Lawsuit include actions by certain named individuals of the Barrington Hills Riding Club . Village President, Robert A. Abboud (“Abboud”) and Barrington Hills resident Dr. Benjamin LeCompte (“LeCompte”) culminating in a quid pro quo. The alleged scheme articulated in detail in the Drury Complaint states in return for LeCompte’s $15.000.00 donation to the Abboud endorsed candidates, Joseph Messer (“Messer”), Patti Meroni (“Meroni”) and Karen Selman (“Selman”) campaigning for office of Village Trustee under the moniker “Save 5 Acres”, the Village would legalize LeCompte’s commercial horse boarding activities on his property, Oakwood Farm of Barrington Hills LLC (“Oakwood Farm”).
The Drury Complaint alleges on February 10, 2011, LeCompte gave three campaign donations of $5,000.00 each to Messer, Meroni and Selman which were endorsed directly by these three candidates into the bank account of “Save 5 Acres” without identifying the source of this money [LeCompte] in violation of Illinois election law disclosure requirements. On March 15, 2011, the Drury Complaint alleges the Village of Barrington Hills made good on its promise to LeCompte through a letter issued in the name of Barrington Hills building inspector, Donald Schumann (“Schumann”) stating that Oakwood Farm complied with the Village’s Home Occupation Ordinance. It is worth noting that the Schumann letter was neither prepared by nor signed by Schumann. There is an affidavit attached to the Complaint by former Village Trustee, Beth Mallon (“Beth”) stating under oath that 6 days after issuance of the Schumann letter. Schumann told Beth that he did not think Oakwood Farm was a home occupation.
The representations contained in the Schumann letter is a 180 degree change of position by Abboud and The Village of Barrington Hills highlighted in the lawsuit entitled Benjamin LeCompte et al v Zoning Board of Appeals for the Village of Barrington Hills, case no. 09 CH 934 wherein the Illinois Appellate Court upheld the Village’s position that commercial boarding on Oakwood Farm was neither “agricultural” nor “home occupation.” This Appellate Court decision is consistent with the legal opinion of Barrington Hills’ Village Attorney Douglas Wambach who opined in a letter dated February 15, 2011, “It is and has been the Village’s position that Oakwood Farm does not comply with the requirements of the home occupation provisions of the Village’s zoning code.
The question is why was the Schumman letter issued by the Village? Who prepared the Schumann letter? Why did the Village of Barrington Hills through representations contained in the Schumann letter suddenly reverse its position regarding commercial horse boarding activities on Oakwood Farm? The Drury Complaint infers the Schumann letter was part of a quid pro quo between Abboud, certain named individuals of the Barrington Hills Riding Club and LeCompte? The Drury Complaint infers $15,000.00 was secretly paid to “Save 5 Acres” by LeCompte in return for legalization of his commercial horse boarding operation on Oakwood Farm by the Village.
If this is so, the “pay to play” scheme articulated in the Drury Complaint in the opinion of this lawyer rises to criminal conduct. The scandalous allegations of Village government corruption in the Drury lawsuit are only allegations at this juncture which at the end of the day must be proved in court. The question is will Abboud and the Village Board allow Drury to get his day in court? Drury filed his lawsuit under the Adjacent Landowners Act, 65 IL.CS 5/11-13-15, seeking to enforce the prior cease and desist order issued by the Village of Barrington Hills enjoining commercial boarding activities on Oakwood Farm. Since Abboud and the Village Board have inexplicably turned a blind eye to enforcement of the Village’s cease and desist order the Illinois Municipal Code permits an affected landowner like Drury to step into the shoes of the Village. This is what Drury has chosen to do in the Lawsuit.
In the midst of all this, Abboud and the Village Board have made zoning of commercial boarding a top priority. So interested is the Village Board in finalizing commercial hoarding legislation that at the July 25th Village Board meeting, at Abboud’s request, the Village Board took the unprecedented action of scheduling a future joint meeting between the Village Board and all of the members of the Zoning Board of Appeals (“ZBA”) to discuss the most recent proposed draft of the commercial boarding ordinance. In deference to the language of the Village Code and the Village’s longstanding policy of maintaining independence between the ZBA and Village Board, Abboud (with approval of the Village Board) in order to maintain control over and expedite zoning of commercial horse boarding is in the process of merging the Village Board and ZBA on this issue. Could it be the primary motivation behind hastily getting commercial boarding zoned is to render Drury’s lawsuit moot avoiding the necessity of Abboud, Messer, Meroni, Selman, Lundmark, McKevitt and possibly others allegedly involved in the “pay to play” scheme to subvert our zoning laws to testify under oath in court?
If we allow zoning of commercial horse boarding to proceed now, there is a high likelihood that LeCompte’s lawyer (with the encouragement of Abboud and his “Save 5 Acres” elected slate) will bring a motion in court claiming Drury’s lawsuit is no longer viable. This is because commercial horse boarding on Oakwood Farm will no longer be an illegal activity if we now allow zoning to be enacted on commercial horse boarding activities in Barrington Hills.
Given the unseemly allegations of corruption by our Village Officials in the Drury Complaint, how can the argument possibly he made by Abboud and Village Trustees that they are putting the interests of Barrington Hills’ residents above their own self-interest when it comes to zoning of commercial horse boarding? This patent conflict of interest hovering over the commercial horse boarding zoning process cannot be resolved until the Drury Lawsuit is completely adjudicated. Due to this irreconcilable conflict of interest, Abboud, Messer, Meroni and Selman are legally and ethically incapable of undertaking any process or making any determination concerning zoning matters relating to commercial horse boarding in Barrington Hills.
No matter where you stand on the issue of commercial horse boarding, the residents of Barrington Hills deserve that this most important issue, which affects all of us, be carefully deliberated and ultimately decided by Village Officials whose purpose is in no way impeded or influenced by collateral litigation. I humbly call upon all fair minded residents of Barrington Hills to appear before the Village Board and demand Abboud and the Village Board cease further deliberation of zoning on commercial horse boarding until final resolution of the Drury lawsuit. The integrity of our Village legislative process along with fundamental notions of fair play and honesty deserves no less. Please join me saying “no; not now to zoning of commercial horse boarding in Barrington Hills.”
If you would like a copy of the Drury Complaint with exhibits, please go to
http://www.preserveharringtonhills.com. I look forward to seeing you at future Village Board meetings and joining many of us who are determined to stop this process.
David Stieper
Former Chairman and former member of the Village of Barrington Hills Plan Commission
“Never apologize for showing feeling. When you do so, you apologize for truth”
Edmund Burke
BHO thank you for providing some of the “dots” relating to commercial horse boarding litigation in BH; now let me assist you in connecting some of these dots. This blog states although BH prevailed against LeCompte in court BH did absolutely nothing to enforce the judgment against LeCompte and on December 17th Drury stepped into the shoes of BH suing LeCompte under the IL Adjacent Landowner’s Act.
The statement BH did nothing after it defeated LeCompte in court is not exactly true. BH did do something; it did something horrific. BH sabotaged its own victory in court against LeCompte when former BH President Robt. Abboud issued the Schuman Letter 34 days after LeCompte’s secret and illegal campaign donation of $15,000.00 to “Save 5 Acre” BOT candidates Messer, Meroni and Selman. The Schuman Letter magically through the hand of Abboud said Oakwood Farm was home occupation compliant even though Benj. LeCompte under oath, trial court decision and First Appellate Court decision said it was not.
The Appellate Court struck down the Schuman Letter in the second lawsuit by Drury when BH disappeared viewing it as a self-inflicted wound by BH during the pendency of the lawsuit. A gimmick if you will. This defeat prompted the urgency by the Save 5 Acre BOT majority to legislate Anderson II. Coincidentally, like the Schuman Letter, Anderson II was written in the dark of night outside public view.
Historian was kind enough in this comment section to publish my letter in 2011 which was filed with BH Clerk. Abboud and BOT refused to address my letter or my questions concerning “pay to play” at BOT meetings. Abboud’s response was to invoke the present day rules on public comment where questions could no longer be asked of board members and public comment for each speaker limited to 3 minutes.
Anderson II has more to do about potential political corruption and cover-up through un-willingness by some to having to testify under oath in court than it has to do with sound zoning practices. BH taxpayers were charged $186,000 by former Pres. Abboud and his Save 5 Acres BOT majority to obtain the victory against LeCompte in court only to abandon it for the Schuman Letter 34 days after a campaign donation by LeCompte.
Anderson II is intended to replace the “unsuccessful Schuman Letter” in court allowing LeCompte a second chance at a “mootness” defense. Anderson II is every bit about gaming the private litigation between Drury and LeCompte, so much so, that it was promulgated in haste at the expense of sound zoning practices for protection of BH residents.
BH homeowners were not only milked for $186,000 in legal fees by BOT in litigation against LeCompte, but in the end, BH homeowners have been victimized a second time by Anderson II which will in time jeopardize 5-Acre residential zoning standards through its dominent commercial zoning standards forever changing the estate residential character of BH.
Blogger, “Guess Who”, take the time to educate yourself because the issue surrounding commercial horse boarding is not about mere “favortism” but rather “political corruption”. Just follow the timeline and the money!
No one has stepped forward to refute any of Mr. Stieper’s comments. Why?
If the above is accurate, then our current Village officials have an obligation to investigate and prosecute illegal activity.
Mr. McLaughlin vetoed the Anderson Text Amendment offering that the Village should not attempt to influence the outcome of private litigation. In a bit of irony, the Anderson Amendment destroyed the Home Occupation protections for the rest of us that Abboud’s office tried to use to protect LeCompte (after spending legal expense to prove LeCompte was not in compliance), later overturned in the Appellate Court.
So, can anyone explain why the Freeman led ZBA included a provision in the Anderson Text amendment for a 7 year retroactive clause? Isn’t this simply an overt action to influence the outcome of private litigation and cover up the alleged illegal activity outlined in Mr. Stieper’s remarks above?
In 2014, the ZBA worked the commercial boarding amendment with an overriding purpose, legalize Oakwood Farms. In order to do so, the current Anderson Amendment destroys Home Occupation protections, raises limits on commercial activity and exposes the Village to interference in a private litigation matter.
Seems that this is an issue that all long time residents of Barrington Hills, equestrian and non alike, would want to get right.
Already did David – thank you for the condescending remark.
I stand by my statement and initially if our village enforced our existing codes none of this would have happened. An issue still present today – enforcement or lack of is based upon favoritism. And those who refuse to buy it.
Guess who is right on the mark or should I say money!