The Village has posted audio recordings from the July 18th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. The meeting was continued until August 1st due to the excessive crowd that attended, however there are about ten minutes of recordings that are available for review.
Unfortunately, the recordings begin after the chair gaveled the meeting to order. However, those in attendance were allowed to make public comment only as it related to the continuance of the meeting, not the agenda for that night, and six people spoke.
The first speaker complained that “A lot of people went to a great deal of inconvenience to come here tonight. Something [the meeting] was noticed on very short notice, contrary to the agenda that you had that this board decided in June.”
We’re not sure what the speaker meant by “noticed,” but we saw the agenda and document packet including the petition posted to the Village website at least two weeks in advance of the meeting. Additionally, it was noticed in the Daily Herald classified ads per the Open Meetings Act.
His comments can be heard here, and we’re told he was seen handing out spiffy buttons to some in the crowd (inset left) prior to the meeting. It seems odd that the speaker complained he had such short notice, yet he managed to have buttons produced in time for the meeting.
The second speaker acknowledged the board’s decision for continuing the meeting, but expressed his disappointment, since he had suggested a larger venue for the hearing be chosen, as can be heard here.
Speaker number three questioned why proceeding with the meeting would violate the Open Meetings Act. Mary Dickson, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals answered stating:
“The Illinois Open Meetings Act requires that for a public body to hold a meeting, among the other requirements, the meeting must be held so that everyone who seeks to participate, to hear, to witness, can do so comfortably We have an overflow crowd in the, out in the hallway, many of whom are standing. I believe that this is by interpretation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act would begin to run afoul of the Act, and it is my legal recommendation that to comply with the Act we continue the meeting so that we have a venue large enough and comfortable enough for everyone to participate.”
The full question and answer recording can be heard here.
Speaker five has become a familiar voice in recent public meetings, and it would seem that his only purpose was to point out that the attorney representing the petitioner for commercial horse boarding code amendments also represented the Fritz Duda Company some years ago in their legal battle over 602 acres that was in Barrington Hills at that time.
That tract of land has been, and is now, in unincorporated in McHenry County ever since the Village lost the case against the petitioner’s attorney, so the speaker’s remarks (heard here) were likely ill-advised since the attorney appears to be qualified when it comes to matters of land use and zoning.
Once public comment concluded, a motion to continue the meeting was made, and the vote was not unanimous. Board members voted 5 to 2 to continue the meeting until August 1st as can be heard here.
To access the menu of edited recordings by agenda topic from this abbreviated meeting, click here.
What does the button RJE – represent?
Cannot access audio
Ruthless Jaded Equestrians?