Now that the Zoning Board of Appeals has begun to consider amending regulations of commercial horse boarding and training in Barrington Hills, we’re noticing the same “timeworn misinformation” surfacing in blogs and comments to the Zoning Board, which we shared in a recent editorial titled, “Here we go again”.
This misinformation is emanating from a small, but raucous group of resident and non-resident equestrians. And, unfortunately, this has made it very difficult for other homeowners living in the village to determine what to believe amidst all of the noise, so we decided to do some factual research to set the record straight.
We reviewed meeting minutes from Village archives dating back to 1957 in search of some facts and discovered the following information excerpted from the minutes of an April 25, 1960, meeting of the Board of Trustees (seen here):
“The President [Andrew Dallstream] advised the board that he and Mr. Harold Smith, Trustee, had visited the Countryside Riding School on Bateman and Penny Roads, had examined their facilities and discussed the operation of the school with the manager. After a resume of the importance of horsemanship to the community, the President asked for a report from the Zoning Committee.
[Trustees] Mr. Delmar Olson and Mr. Stresen-Reuter then reported they had also visited the school and had found the facilities adequate, the plan of operation satisfactory, but that it was a riding school for profit. Mr. Canby [Village Attorney] advised that it is his considered opinion that a school for profit is not an agricultural pursuit and that therefore the Countryside Riding School is in violation of the zoning ordinance of Barrington Hills.
Mr. Stresen-Reuter asked Mr. Albert F. Moore and Dr. M. J. Thompson, whose properties are near the school, to express their views. Both Mr. Moore and Dr. Thompson said they are against any violation of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Grigsby, chairman of the Zoning Committee, asked them to submit a formal written complaint, at which time the Village will advise the Countryside Riding School that they are in violation of the village statutes and order them to cease and desist.”
Two months later, the village attorney reported, “… the Countryside Riding School was no longer in operation,” during the June 19, 1960 Board of Trustees meeting.
But how could this happen way back then? Couldn’t equestrians do nearly anything they wished as some residents are being led to believe today?
After all, this was 1960 Barrington Hills! There were only 1,726 residents at that time and much of Barrington Hills land was still being farmed, so neighbors were likely distant from the school. And Andrew Dallstream (“Andy” as the SOS Party referred to him) supposedly founded Barrington Hills to be, “Dedicated to an equestrian lifestyle,” (according to a post on the SOS Party’s Facebook page in April 2015), so what changed his mind?
Clearly the answer is that the founders of Barrington Hills did not approve of commercial businesses in our village, and considering their decision regarding the aforementioned riding school in 1960, they would not have agreed with anything remotely similar to the current Anderson/LeCompte Commercial Horse Boarding Ordinance – regardless of the acknowledged “importance of horsemanship to the community”.
Some may wonder if we’re advocating the closure of existing commercial boarding and training facilities in the Village based on this historical precedent, and the answer is NO. Sometime after 1960, someone “left the barn door open” to large-scale boarding. However, we do fervently believe the Village should regulate any proposed new facilities.
-The Observer
Thank you
Can you compare Bobby Abboud’s assertion under oath that he had nothing to do with the Schuman letter to the testimony of Schuman at the public hearing a few years ago?
Not likely, but thanks for asking. We’ve yet to review the 8/1 Zoning Board public hearing recordings fully and hope to publish our summary soon.
VBH equestrian history is one of a “hobby” for those who reside here and could afford it. This is why nowhere in the VBH Comprehensive Plan (C.P.) is there any reference to “commecial boarding” or “boarding for a fee”. Nor is it written in the C.P. that VBH is a destination point for nonresident equestrians.
The Home Occupation Ordinance (“HOO”) passed in 2006 (repealed by Anderson II in 2014) was the first time in VBH history that “boarding for a fee” was permitted but on a minor scale where the barn is an accessory to the residence. The mechanism for controlling the scale of this business activity under HOO was VBH’s strict floor area ratio (“FAR”) requirements in R-1 zoning which unfortunately were flipped on its head under recent passage of Anderson II.
VBH residential 5-acre zoning exists because of strong protections in VBH zoning code for R-1 Zoning not in-spite of it. Abboud’s admitted creation and dissemination of the Schuman Letter when Village President (34 days after 3 illegal campaign donations by Oakwood Farm to Abboud’s political team of Messer, Meroni and Selman) was a “bastardizaton” of these strong historicle regulations which has only been exceeded by recent passage of destructive Anderson II Horseboarding Amendment.
Remember, prior to the illegal Schuman Letter dated March 15, 2011 (which by stroke of Bobby’s pen made Oakwood Farm home occupaton compliant) Benj. LeCompte testified under oath before the ZBA that Oakwood Farm could never be a “home occupation”.
This leaves some obvious questions by me for Bobby and Benj. which the village attorney will never let me ask at public meeting:
If all it took was a 45 cent letter (postage stamp) in the form of the Schuman Letter to make Oakwood Farm legal, why for 4 years prior did Bobby and his “Save 5 Acres Majority Board” pay $167,000.00 of VBH taxpayer funds to Village attorney Burke-Warren to close down boarding operations at Oakwood Farm which Burke-Warrnen succeeded at doing at both the trial and appellate court level?
Answer:
If Benj. LeCompte testified under oath before the ZBA that boarding activities on Oakwood Farm could never be a home occupation why did Benj. accept the “Schuman Letter” from the Village in March of 2011 concluding boarding operations at Oakwood Farm were in fact, home occupation compliant?
Answer:
Was the timing of the illegal Schuman Letter (34 days after the secret-illegal $15,000.00 campaign donation from LeCompte to Messer, Meroni and Selman) reversing two prior court decisions at both the trial and appellate court level in favor of VBH and against Oakwood Farm just a strange coincidence?
Answer:
What about that email from Lundmark to Benj. informing Benj. what Bobby would need to see in Benj.’s affidavit in order to make Oakwood Farm home occupation complaint, you know Bobby, the Schuman Letter you informed everyone at the prior ZBA hearing you had nothing to do with orchestrating or creating?
Answer:
Benj. what about that email you sent to Bobby with proposed language you wanted Bobby to put on Village letterhead less than 21 days after the 3 secret-illegal campaign donations on how Oakwood Farm boarding operations under VBH code could be spinned as being legal, but instead, Bobby opted for the illegal Schuman Letter?
Answer:
Bobby why did you opt for the Schuman Letter rather than inserting the proposed email language furnished to you by LeCompte achieving the same end result of making Oakwood Farm boarding operations improperly legal under village code?
Answer
Maybe Bobby and Benj. would like to inform VBH residents about discussions which occurred between Bobby, Benj and others at the VBH Village Hall on Presidents Day, 2011 when the Village Hall was closed to the public and other village employees for the holiday?
Answer:
No John Pappas it was not the 3 campaign donations from LeCompte to Messer, Meroni and Selman which triggered my call upon VBH residents to insist upon their government consisting in part of Abboud, Messer, Meroni and Selman for a stay of horse boarding legislation in VBH in my 2011 letter but it was these 3 secret-illegal campaign donations coupled with the Schuman Letter 34 days later combined which was the basis of my call for a “stay”. You had a Village President and 3 BOT who were potentially involved in a “pay to play” scheme and I naively concluded this might create a conflict of interest when it came to leglislating horse boarding in VBH.
My letter is very clear on this point yet you only chose to give one prong of my two prong argument. In other words you only informed the public about the “quid” without informing them about the “pro quo”. This is like talking about the “Ying” without the “Yang” or the “Ding” without the “Dong”.
Very disengenous J. Pappas using this 2nd year law school moot court trick but not as bad as Bobby disclaiming himself from the Schuman Letter. Now that was a classic prevarication by our classic former Prevaricator in Chief.
You see I am not pro-developer or anti-equestrian as some have spinned the story, I am pro-rule of law and anti-government corruption especially when I believe it is taking place in my own backyard.
Mr. Stieper;
Thank you for all that you do to keep this village from assuming the aura of a Chicago franchise city. The old phrase “the silent majority” comes into play here.
Neighbors are afraid to alienate neighbors over this polarizing equine issue. It is seriously destructive, to say the least. Almost everyone knows that the phrase “follow the money” is operative in this discussion.
I just wish that there was a “ballot box” way to demonstrate that the majority of people understand how they are being manipulated by persons with nefarious motives!
Dave, thank you for all that you do. You are a treasure to this town and are greatly appreciated by the majority of right thinking residents.
‘I am pro-rule of law and anti-government corruption especially when I believe it is taking place in my own backyard.’
Well that anti corruption stance certainly did not apply to my back yard – guess some people get to pick their ‘rule of law’….especially when it comes to contaminating a neighboring property.
I had to look up the definition of the word preverication/prevericate.
Noun[edit]
prevarication (plural prevarications)
(now rare) Deviation from what is right or correct; transgression, perversion.
Evasion of the truth; deceit, evasiveness. [quotations ▼]
Prevarication became the order of the day in his government while truth was a stranger in those halls.
A secret abuse in the exercise of a public office.
(law, historical, Ancient Rome) The collusion of an informer with the defendant, for the purpose of making a sham prosecution.
(law) A false or deceitful seeming to undertake a thing for the purpose of defeating or destroying it.
(Can we find and add a quotation of Cowell to this entry?)
I agree this should be decided at the ballot box so that all residents make this decision.
It WAS decided at the ballot box in 2013 and 2015 when the majority of voters elected new village trustees. Zoning codes are not matters to be decided by referenda but instead legislated through due process by recommendations from the members of the Zoning Board who are appointed by the elected officials chosen by residents, and approved, denied or amended at the Board of Trustees level.
IF this were on a ballot, we’d likely see voter fraud as we’ve never seen. Plus there would be hordes of non-resident boarders electioneering and intimidating voters on election day at the polls. It would be a chaotic scene altogether and the campaign leading up to that election would create more animosity between neighbors than we’re seeing now or have seen in prior elections.
As it is, there are four seats up for reelection on the village board next spring. Since that represents a majority, that’s the decision to be made at the ballot box.
I think that the current text amendment and the current proposed text amendment do not meet the needs of our village. I believe a small appointed panel of residents committed to working in good faith for our village should research and develop a new proposal. Study of other communities must be done. Current comments are not based in fact evidenced by the comment regarding Wellington Florida where in fact barns and boarding are highly regulated. At the least zoning requirements must be more restrictive, not less, and proper business fees and taxes must be assessed.
At some level of size or intended use, a proposed equine facility should go through a special use process and that’s when your desired appointed panel of good faith residents will be assembled. They’re called neighbors.
Over a designated threshold of operations immediate neighbors work with each other to decide what is most appropriate (tolerable) for the unique situation given any number of diverse factors that will never all be covered completely in any ordinance this or any other ZBA can legislate.
It is clear to me as I write this missive, that the commercial activists in this village are already rallying their people and plans for the upcomming elections.
It is a fact that the victors in the election will have absolute control over the equine situation and we all know that they will exploit it to their advantage.
This village is is about to become a cash cow for the well connected (horsey syndicate) and a less desirable place to live.
It will become a Disney style destination for horse hobbyists with all the drawbacks and foibles that will bring.
Real estate values will be negatively affected and the Camelot life style will be but a fond memory of better days!
One only needs to look at the property values in Barrington Hills to realize that the residential peace and tranquility motives of our founders has been replaced with the commercial equestrian interests of a few. Those who board here will be able to afford our properties as they decline in value. This is all a cleverly orchestrated plan to promote BH as a commercial destination for horse manure.
Follow the money. Barrington Farms, Oakwood/Riding Center, big buck training at taxpayer Riding Center facilities, polo, etc. are crystal clear motives.
Best way to rid our community of corruption is to expose any illegal actions taken by a few at the expense of others and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. We must demand an independent investigation.
Imagine a well heeled equestrian operation that doesn’t haul away the manure from their facilities. Now imagine that same owner just spreading their waste along the side of a local creek that has had five “100-year” floods in the past 15 years. Where does this waste go? To Lake Michigan eventually but it travels along to other unsuspecting property owners along the way.
Let’s find Poop-e-man!
Cook County had to remove 5,500 cubic yards of horse manure from Horizon Farms when they took over the property. “Best Practices” for manure management obviously weren’t followed for years/decades.