The Village has added one hundred and fifty-three pages of testimony documents to the public information package being considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals since their hearing last Monday regarding a proposed amendment to horse boarding codes in Barrington Hills.
These documents are in the forms of court documents, resident and Village official emails, affidavits, Village engineering and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency reports and some form letters from residents who either don’t have the time or the independent thinking to express their opinions. A copy of the entire two hundred and ninety-one page document package including newly released information can be viewed and downloaded here.
Among the new information included for public examination is information leading up to and following the issuance of the all too often mentioned “Schuman Letter.” The documentation is included in pages 239-258 of the new package, and for ease of access for readers, we’ve extracted the pages and placed them into a file that can be read here.
A significant amount of documentation regarding detrimental rainwater and pond runoff from a boarding facility on Ridge Road resulting in flooding and apparent pollution of a neighboring property has been submitted to the board, and that documentation can be viewed here.
And, a recently written addition to the documents to be considered by the board and the public has been submitted by a resident who has provided some perspectives on the history of horse boarding debates in Barrington Hills and the most recently enacted codes can be viewed here.
The next Zoning Board hearing on this matter is scheduled for August 30th at 6:30 PM at Countryside Elementary School. We’ll keep readers updated as more, if any, documents are added to these to be considered by the board.
The continued rhetoric that diminishes and describes the proposed Drury horse boarding amendment as – ‘a personal dispute between neighbors aka likened to the Hatfields and McCoys’, could not be further from the truth. Why is not the Anderson II amendment thought in the same manner, I ask?
What has taken place here and evidenced by other residents is the fact that this village does NOT enforce their own codes. Or if/when the administration does enforce village code – it is corrupted and subjective and most likely financially backed. That is the bottom line.
Finally documentation has emerged regarding the collusion of administrations, falsifying of FOIA requests, falsifying of engineering reports, falsifying of correspondence, favoritism to certain residents at the cost of other residents, as well as corruption at the highest level. All of this provided by numerous residents.
Bravo to the residents who had the courage to do so.
United we stand. Divided we fall.
Thank you Observer! The linked documents on file with the village (pp. 239-258) in this blog are conclusive evidence former Pres. Robt. G. Abboud purposely prevaricated all over himself, the ZBA and VBH residents when he testified “under oath” before the ZBA earlier this month saying he had nothing to do with the “Schuman Letter” claiming it represented an independent opinion expressed by former VBH building inspector Don Schuman without any influence by Robt. G. Abboud.
May I recommend to Chairman Wolfgram that in the future, instead of requiring an oath be administered to residents prior to giving testimony before the ZBA perhaps the ZBA would be better served to have a lie detector on hand.
Liar . . . Liar . . . . ________ on fire!
Easy to follow the dates of events:
2/20/2011 – B. LeCompte to D. Stieper: “it would be helpful if you, being chairman of the Planning Commission, could help persuade Bobby on this issue.”
Note: LeCompte donated $5,000.00 to Stieper Campaign on 2/08/2011 (properly reported to ISBOE)
2/20/2011 – B. LeCompte to D. Stieper: “David, below is a note to Steve Knoop regarding a prototype letter that I have proposed from Bobby Abboud.”
2/20/2011 – B. LeCompte to S. Knoop: “Apparently, Bobby asked Paddy what he wanted him to do, and Paddy told him, in no uncertain terms, that the Village needed to get involved in my case, which thus far Wambach has refused to do.”
“effective last Monday, February 14, 2011, while we are awaiting the appellate courts decision on our agricultural status, we changed our operational procedures at Oakwood to bring the barn into compliance with the home occupation provision, pursuant to section 5-3-4(D)3(g) of the Village code. We notified the Village and Wambach of our change, but Wambach, in his written response, refused to acknowledge our compliance.”
” I believe that a letter from Bobby, stating our compliance with the home occupation provision, not the agricultural provision that is now before the appellate court, would put significant pressure on them to voluntarily dismiss, or risk the 137 sanctions. Below is a prototype letter that I drafted,”
Note: Steve Knoop was an elected Member of the Board of Trustees on the date of the above email.
2/20/2011 – C. LeCompte to Ken Michaels:
“This is a copy of the letter that berry drafted for abboud to send to us.
Dear Dr. LeCompte:
I am in receipt of your correspondence of 2/14/2011 and your attorney’s letter of 2/15/2011 to the Village attorney, Doug Wambach, as well as Mr. Wambach’s response of 2/15/11. Furthermore, I appreciation you additional clarification of the present situation at Oakwood Farm. As you are aware, the Village has and continues to take the position that boarding and training horses is not an agricultural purpose based on the Village’s definition of agriculture, and therefore, is not covered by section 5-3-4(A) of the Village Code. Accordingly, from an agricultural perspective, the Village does not recognize agricultural boarding, per se, to be a legally permitted use within the Village.
However, as you correctly point out, the Village does allow boarding and training horses as an accessory use, under the home occupation provision, pursuant to section 5-3-4(D)3 (g) of the Village Code, and, furthermore, you obviously, by law, have as much right to board horses under this provision as any other resident of the Village does. Also, I am cognizant of the fact that you have recently made operational changes at Oakwood farm to bring your farm into compliance with the home occupation provision, pursuant to with 5-3-4(D)3(g), and the Village very much appreciates the effort that both Cathy and you made to do so.
You are correct, that the ZBA and the Cook County Circuit Court both found that boarding and training horses is not agricultural within the Village and, therefore, upheld the Village’s cease and desist against your farm, based on your defense that your boarding and training operation was agricultural and protected pursuant to section 5-3-4(A) of the Village code. Furthermore, you are also correct that the Village never found you to be in violation of the home occupation provision, because you never claimed to be a home occupation, but rather an agricultural enterprise as stated above. Now that your are compliant with section 5-3-4(D)3(g) and operating as a home occupation, the Village no longer considers you to be in violation of the code and, therefore, you are operating within your legal rights.
Relative to your building permit, which was resubmitted in June 2008, I realize that you made the changes requested by the Village engineer and had a local licensed architect amend your plans. The Village has only held up the processing of your permit due to the fact that, as an agricultural operation, your were found to not be in compliance with the zoning code. Accordingly, since your are no longer in violation of the Village Code, there is no reason to further delay your permit, and, therefore, I will instruct the building department to commence processing your building permit immediately.
Again, thank you for making the effort to bring you equestrian operation into compliance with the home occupation provision of the code. Additionally, I realize that your appeal, relative to the agricultural provisions of the code, is still in the appellate court and, pending the outcome of that case, you reserve
the right to reassert your agricultural status. Please let me know if the Village can be of further assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Robert Abboud
President,
Village of Barrington Hills”
3/01/2011 – D. Lundmark to B. LeCompte:
“Here is the exact language Bob used as to what needs to be in your affidavit.
– you understand that the village views your property as primarily residential.
– you are subject to the home occupation ordinance.
– you have modified yhour practices to be compliant with the home occupation ordinance.
– your buildings are in compliance with the village building code.
Hopefully, this will work”
Note: Dan Lundmark was the Chairman of the Equestrian Commission at the time of the above email.
3/04/2011: LeCompte submits affidavit to Village of Barrington Hills.
3/14/2011 – D. Stieper Campaign event at Chessie’s Restaurant, Barrington:
Witnesses claimed that B. Abboud made a statement that the LeCompte issue had been taken care of.
3/15/2011 – Don Schuman letter (Signed and initialed by Dolores Trandel under the typed name of D. Schuman):
“Dear Dr. & Mrs. LeCompte,
The Building Department has received and examined your affidavit dated March 4, 2011. You have asked to consider the use of Oakwood Farm as a Home Occupation. The affidavit states the terms by which the use is a Home Occupation. Similarly, you submitted an employee register in support of the extent of your employee’s hours.
Your Home Occupation pertains to boarding and training of horses, which is a use specifically referenced in subsection (g) of Section 5-3-4(D)3 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on the information in your affidavit, it appears that the use of Oakwood Farm is a Home Occupation.”
5/18/2011: Affidavit of ex-Trustee Beth Mallon:
“12. On March 21, 2011 Maureen Crump (Barrington Countryside Park District Commissioner) and I went to Village Hall to meet with Don Schuman to seek clarification of and discuss Village setbacks for buildings, which was going to be discussed at the ZBA meeting that evening. During the discussion with Don Schuman that day, I raised the issue of whether Oakwood Farm complied with the Home Occupation Ordinance. Don Schuman told me in response that he did not think that Oakwood Farm was a home occupation.”
6/3/2011: Affidavit of resident Michael Hannigan:
“4. During the May 23, 2011 Board meeting, President Abboud stated the decision to issue a compliance letter to Oakwood Farms regarding its purported compliance with the Village’s Home Occupation Ordinance was made by President Abboud alone based on his opinion that Village Code authorized him as President to enforce and interpret Village ordinances. Village Counsel Douglas Wambach disagreed with President Abboud’s opinion that the President was authorized to interpret Village ordinances.”
Note: Two Appellate Court decisions (4/23/2011 and 9/11/201414) ruled that Oakwood Farm did not comply with the Home Occupation Ordinance of the Village of Barrington Hills.
On the surface, this fracas may seem like a tale of the Hatfields and the McCoys. Don’t be fooled by the testimony of those who claim this is merely a neighbor-to-neighbor problem that has gotten out of hand.
Why would so many people that had their hands in the cookie jar show up to the current ZBA meetings? They are like arsonists who like to watch the fire they started. People like Steve Knoop, Bob Abboud and Abboud’s hand picked Board of Trustees members to name a few. Dan Lundmark has been linked to malicious acts of intent that are documented by the BH Police Department.
Those responsible for this “favor of office” left cookie crumbs all the way to the compliance letter!
Practicing as a brain surgeon (LeCompte) or a graduate of M.I.T. (Abboud) may label you as intelligent. You can be intelligent and still lack moral judgement and scruples.
As a thirty year resident of this community, I am sickened by all of this favoritism and corruption which started 10 years ago.
Thank you Barrington Hills Observer for your reporting.
Residents should read Historian’s above thread! Everyone!!. If these are true, the Village has no other option than to prosecute criminal activity! If they are not, those accused actors should defend these charges. This is SERIOUS!!!
The ZBA and Board installed a 7 year retroactive provision for the benefit of Oakwood Farms and commercial Riding Club interests. No matter that this was manipulated by a previous administration. We are all complicit and deserve destruction of residential rights outcomes if we do not prosecute these issues. The Anderson II Amendment should be immediately revoked.
A. Robert Abboud is a graduate of MIT.
Robert G. Abboud, ex-Village President, is a graduate of Purdue University.
Thank you for the correction.
I was led to believe that he is/was a Nuclear Scientist with a degree from M.I.T. because his actions as Village President were always…”I am smarter than everyone in the room”.