Audio recordings from the December 7th special meeting of the Board of Trustees have been posted to the Village website. To access the menu of recordings edited by agenda item, click here.
The meeting began with an announcement that the James J. Drury commercial boarding text amendment which was on the agenda for the meeting had been formally withdrawn earlier in the day, so no discussion or vote on that agenda item would take place.
Prior to public comments, the chair announced that the standard three minute limit rule on comments would be adhered to, as can be heard here.
Multiple Zoning Board of Appeals hearings had been held where residents had ample opportunities to speak as long as they wished, and it was noted that the public had been given significant latitude in their remarks, and that the Board of Trustees had reviewed the recordings and/or transcripts from those meetings.
Despite this, the first person to read public comments obviously decided that these established rules for public comment don’t apply to him.
The developer of Barrington Hills Farm had submitted written comments to the Board of Trustees, which were available to all in attendance, prior to the meeting. Yet he chose to read them in their entirely anyway, in a self-serving speech lasting well beyond three minutes, choosing to ignore two polite requests from the chair to conclude his remarks as can be heard here.
Obviously some feel they are more important than others, but the fact is this person was not only disrespectful to the Board, but more so, to the many residents in attendance who took their personal time to listen to what the Board of Trustees had to say about the Zoning Board’s recommendation on commercial horse codes.
Seven other residents made comments, for and against, regarding the Zoning Board recommendation, and one used her time to comment on the Longmeadow Parkway Project.
Prior to the board beginning discussion on the Zoning Board recommendation, the chair asked Village Attorney Mary Dickson to weigh in on the validity of the “construct” of the form letter statements the Barrington Hills Farm Developer had been mailing to residents for months apparently in the hopes of amassing sufficient response to require a “super-majority” vote by trustees to pass an amendment nullifying the Anderson II commercial boarding code.
Counsel stated she’d seen a number of the petition statements, and her preliminary opinion was they didn’t satisfy the statuary requirements of our Village Code, and therefore, a super-majority may not be required. The recording of this discussion can be heard here.
When discussion began, President McLaughlin invited each board member to provide their opinions on the recommendation before them before the Zoning Board. To listen to each member’s viewpoints in order of presentation, click on their names highlighted below:
- Brian Cecola
- Mike Harrington
- Bryan Croll
- Michelle Maison
- Fritz Gohl
- Colleen Konicek Hannigan
- Martin McLaughlin
We recommend listening to the remarks made by all board members, particularly those made by President McLaughlin. His uncharacteristically candid, off-the-cuff comments will resound with most residents, reminding them why he was elected, so please take a few minutes to listen.
When the vote was called, five board members voted to approve the Zoning Board recommendation to repeal Anderson II, and two opposed, thus making any debate over the number of votes required due to questionable petitions moot, as a super-majority was achieved.
The next Village Board meeting is scheduled for Monday December 19th.
A little music for the season:
You have managed to loose the respect of a great number of property owners with your childish antics and your disrespect of the village board. You remind me of a child that wants to have his own way without regard for others.
I do hope that you will consider replanting the heritage trees that were such a revered part of the village. This will go a long way in polishing your somewhat tarnished image.
Good luck to you.
The binders filled with testimony for a “super majority” were very theatrical. Each had to weigh at least 10 pounds and were filled with repetitive form letter statements of various horse owners, their kids, their kids friends and barn workers. The drama of the developer of BH Farms with his long speech was only surpassed by the sight of these binders stacked on a table. All I could think of was the many trees that were used for all of that wasted paper.
Still trying to figure out what [the Barrington Hills Farm developer] is so adamant about. As a developer, are his plans for Barrington Hills Farm predicated on the return of all the acreage that was disconnected into unincorporated McHenry County during Bob Abboud’s reign? Or was the Anderson Amendment, which he valiantly defended, an integral part to his development plans?
Time will tell and I have a feeling that Mr. Developer will be playing a very expensive role in the upcoming village elections this coming April.
GIVING CREDIT WHERE IT TRULY BELONGS!
Very flattered by those who refer to the 2016 ZBA’s recent recommendation (Vote 6-1) to repeal “Anderson II” through reinstatement of former VBH Home Occupation Ordinance (“HOO”) as the “Stieper Amendment” but this is giving me far too much credit and not givng credit where it truly belongs.
I am blushing at all this undeserved attention of authorship extended by J.R. Davis (“Davis”) both in writing and in public comment. I would rather credit be given to those 2016 ZBA members who thoroughly vetted and voted to recommend this 2006 “tried and proven” ordinance steeped in VBH equestrian traditions. But Davis, may I remind you most of the credit belongs to fomer VBH President Robt. G. Abboud (“Abboud”) and his 2006 “Save 5 Acres n/k/a Save Open Spaces” BOT majority along with the 2006 ZBA Board who amended the HOO to include “commercial horse boarding”. Abboud and Save 5 Acres BOT voting into law HOO by “unanimous vote” without any objecton; not even from Davis.
I want to commend Davis for his letter to residents dated December 14, 2016 wherein Davis states “your commitment to the equestrian tradition and legacy in our Village is greatly appreciated”. Davis must be referring not only to my stewardship on this boarding business issue but to Abboud and Abboud’s hand selected candidates for VBH office who were recipients of Davis’ generous campaign donations during two campaign cycles totaling @$30,000.
The recipients of Davis’ campaign treasure trove were Abboud and Abboud’s obedient “Save 5 Acres” slate. Should we forget, it was Davis’ candidates, Abboud and Save 5 Acres BOT team who not only drafted what Davis today labels the “Stieper Amendment” but these are the same cast of elected characters who passed HOO into law in 2006 without a single dissenter; not even from Davis himself.
If Davis and others including BHO feel compelled to include my name on the 2006 former HOO ordinance recently reinstated into law to replace Anderson II, may I suggest moving forward in recognition of the 2006 drafters of the HOO and specifically in recognition of the “time commitment” and “political capital” expended by Abboud in getting HOO into law in 2006 that moving forward all of us refer to what Davis now affectionately calls the “Stieper Amendment as the:
“Abboud-Stieper Home Occupation Ordinance” or “ASHOO” for short!