Some Barrington Hills residents are opposing a proposal for a new property zoning classification for the Sanfilippo Estate. Residents fear a change could lead to an entertainment operation on the property
Some Barrington Hills residents are opposing a proposal for a new property zoning classification they contend could lead to an entertainment operation at a mansion known for hosting charitable fundraisers and where guests can see rare collectibles, including the world’s largest restored theater pipe organ.
At issue Monday night at a Barrington Hills zoning board of appeals meeting was the home of the late Jasper Sanfilippo, who built his family’s nut business into a publicly traded company that had $876 million in sales in 2019. The 38-acre estate on Plum Tree Road long has been a venue for charitable events hosted by the Sanfilippo Foundation.
Sanfilippo’s son, Jeffrey, wants Barrington Hills to create the new charitable giving zoning district that could be used for the mansion and the owners of other properties as a way to formally allow nonprofit fundraisers. He now owns and lives on the land, which he said still would be residential with the “overlay” of the charitable giving zoning.
Sanfilippo, who heads the family foundation and has been CEO of John B. Sanfilippo & Son Inc. since 2006, voiced frustration with what he called “misinformation and some outright lies” regarding the proposal that residents emailed to the village since the public hearing’s first session in June.
A potential for casino gambling, amusement rides, fireworks and other entertainment were among the residents’ concerns about the potential approval of the charitable giving zoning. They also raised the possibility of the 38 acres being removed from the tax rolls, which Sanfilippo said would not happen.
Read more from the Daily Herald here.
An email went out to a bunch of residents the past week trying to scare them and stir up more unnecessary controversy. An election must be near! Not shockingly it came from the same people from the SOS campaign, former board members, the former prevaricator in Chief and other unhappy local ne’erdowells .
Save 5 Acres, Save our 911 Center, Save Polo, Save our roads from Bike lanes,Save Horse Boarding, Save our Dark Skies, Save our Schools from Plum Tree Farms, Now tonight another fake premise.
Save our community from the Sanfilippo’s .
What a joke. What a bunch of maligning miscreants intent on slandering the name of one of Barrington Hills great families and their fathers legacy of charitable giving all because their pal Berry needs a way out from the box he put himself in.
Joe, Sharon, Karen and of counsel Kurt (the sole author of the Anderson II short lived zoning debacle) who was accountant to the riding club never disclosed during ZBA. All are part of this Save Berry act. Equate a for profit commercial barn illegally operating in a residential district to a residence who has guests over to raise millions for charities.
Nice try Sharon. Maybe you can attempt to extort the family again. Thank goodness they didn’t fall for it then and won’t now. Maybe call Otto again. They figured you out too I guess.
Well at least this family the Sanfilippo’s are being transparent and honest and direct In their approach to a new use categorization unlike the Abboudaphiles back room deals, false building department letters and secret Presidents’ Day meetings.
Good Luck Jeffrey and Family we are all behind you.
The con-call did not pick up any of the dialog from the meeting. This has happened before but I won’t bother to complain since clearly Anna doesn’t care.
Sanfilippo Zoning Issues
I have made some notes following last night’s ZBA hearing on the two Sanfilippo applications and I seek to share them with fellow ZBA members. Always mindful of the public’s right to know, I will circulate this via email and the “Barrington Hills Observer”.
I see four (4) Issues to discuss among ourselves and with those both for and against the applicants two requests.
Two of the issues are categorically in error and two are serious issues that merit careful study.
Erroneous Issues: Two issues seem to be uppermost in the minds of the 200 or so opposing emails, petition signers, and letter writers. These are 1) changing the applicants property to tax exempt status and 2) allowing gambling. It is totally natural that these two issues would create great interest and concern. However:
1. Tax Exempt status has NOTHING TO DO with these two applications. If property or other taxes to our village were to be lowered by granting this applicants request, it certainly would be an important issue. But, it was not requested by the applicants and never considered. I repeat: There was no request to change the tax status and no ability of the ZBA or VBH to affect property taxes on this property. (Those “Concerned Citizens” who have said otherwise are misinformed. They must not have read the application nor attended the first hearing! This taxation issue was raised as a question in the first hearing and it was explicitly negated. Further, because this is recognized by ZBA members and its chairman to be so important, staff was directed to verify with the assessor’s office if the actions contemplated by the ZBA could not in any way effect how the applicant’s taxes would be accessed in the future. Staff checked via phone and verified that ZBA actions would have no effect on taxation. Personally, I am satisfied that approving the applicants request would have no effect on its tax status and in no way lower the taxes paid to local governments by the applicants. However, if opponents continue to try and exploit this issue, it may be wise to seek written and signed or sworn statement for publication. This might be accomplished by the applicant’s attorney or by VBH Staff.)
2). Gambling has nothing to do with these two applications. When I saw “Concerned Citizens” write about gambling, I was shocked! Did I miss something? I re-read the applicants two requests. No gambling was being requested. ZBA and VBH does not have authority to grant gambling. The only ways that I figure “Concerned Citizens” could formulate an excuse to try and make this an issue is that they have very limited experience with charities and just assumed that there must be a lottery or casino night associated with any charity. Perhaps they have actually visited the Sanfilippo property and seen historic slot machines in the museum. I repeat: No where in the application nor in the sworn testimony was gambling or casino nights requested or even contemplated.
Serious Issues:
3. Will granting these two requests affect traffic or noise or other aspects of village life for the neighbors of the applicants? The applicants clearly and rather convincingly say, “No”. However, I feel it is a duty for ZBA to analyze this issue closely.
4. Are the applicants requests as presented in the best interests of VBH? Is a Charitable Gift overlay zoning to R1 better or would some modification to procedures for Special Use in R1 be better? How will action taken here effect future requests and legal status of those property owners in R1 zoning? If the ZBA acts favorably for the applicants, can we anticipate possible unintended consequences and craft changes to protect from them?
One more thing: “Concerned Citizens” should get their facts straight before circulating petitions and making fools of themselves. Also, take note that “Concerned Citizens” wanted other citizens to sign their petitions and send personal emails and letters; but, they did not have the integrity to identify themselves. Perhaps they have some hidden motives?
I love our Village and I welcome public comment. Still, I feel compelled to say I have concerns about a tiny few of its residence who prevaricate and seek to stir up problems for their own personal gain. That tiny few, know who they are. Shame on them and condolences to those they mislead.
My name is Jan C. Goss
25 year resident and member of VBH ZBA.