The Village has released recordings from the December 15th special Village Board meeting called by Trustees Fritz Gohl and Karen Selman to approve the Anderson horse boarding text amendment. A link to the menu of edited recording segments can be accessed here, however readers should note the first thirty or more minutes of the meeting are missing from the recordings.
Clearly by intent, public comment on the amendment was allowed after the six board members present spent nearly two hours providing their perspectives after the reading of the amendment. We’ve chosen to bookmark the recording segments which correspond to each trustee’s personal comments. Click on any of the highlighted trustee’s names to listen to their comments.
Karen Selman: Selman was the first trustee to comment, but her remarks were unrecorded. She gushed about her appreciation of the Zoning Boards toils and thousands of hours of time devoted to the Anderson amendment, and stated her belief it addressed all the concerns expressed by residents and that it was good for the Village.
Mike Harrington: Despite the meeting recording having started after Trustee Harrington began speaking, the recorded portion of his prepared statement lasted over fifteen minutes. His reference to the success of Ralph Lauren and his amassing billions of dollars in wealth due to horses and the equestrian lifestyle was curious to say the least, since Lauren has spent a fortune on his most personal passion, his famous collection of extremely rare antique automobiles, not thoroughbred horses.
Patty Meroni: Meroni stated she believed the Zoning Board did address the concerns of all residents who spoke during hearings with the new Anderson amendment, particularly those living on five-acre parcels. She went on to state adequate input was considered from residents (and presumably expert testimony) for the amendment, and that it protected residents and is key to preserving five-acre zoning as though horses are the lynchpin keeping Barrington Hills zoned as we are, instead of the minimum zoning established in 1957.
Joe Messer: Messer began his comments by explaining why the board should only consider the report from the Zoning Board on the Anderson amendment, and not take public comment until after the Village Board’s vote. He went on to state, “It makes it a lot easier to not have set ourselves up for that situation.”
He went on to state that horse boarding reference(s) are included in our Comprehensive Plan, and that the Anderson amendment supported the plan. We found no reference to support his claims, only the keeping of horses, not boarding.
Later in the meeting Messer objected to the vote by the Plan Commission, the keepers of the Comprehensive Plan, to review the Anderson boarding amendment during their January 2015 regular meeting. Perhaps his ignorance of the plan demonstrates why they should have reviewed it prior to a vote by the Village Board.
We encourage readers to listen to all of Messer’s comments. Keeping in mind that prior to his serving on the Board of Trustees, and as the appointed liaison to the Zoning Board for many years, Messer served on the Plan Commission, it’s staggering how his spin could be believed by residents.
President McLaughlin (His written comments read by Trustee Hannigan): McLaughlin stated that the calling of the special meeting was unnecessary considering the regular Village Board meeting was scheduled to take place seventy-two hours later on December 18th. He referenced the advice of counsel that proceeding to pass legislation that might favor one party in an ongoing private lawsuit was not prudent, and that some Village Board members who are on the witness list of the lawsuit, should not be voting on the Anderson amendment due to their conflicts of interests in the matter.
He objected to the public not being allowed to speak prior to the board’s vote, and the Board of Trustees’ lack of acknowledgement or even respect of both the Plan Commission and the Board of Health’s requests that a vote be delayed until both bodies be allowed to review the Anderson amendment. Further, he wished the board would consider the possible ramifications of a vote related to future legal fees, property taxes and protections of neighbor’s privacy should the amendment be approved.
Following the reading of McLaughlin’s statement, most in the audience applauded to the point that the chair tried to gavel them down twice, but they ceased only when they were satisfied their message of agreement was made clear to the board. We strongly suggest readers listen to the complete recording for more details of his rational objections to the meeting and vote.
Colleen Konicek Hannigan: Hannigan first referenced her written comments which were provided in advance of the meeting, which can be viewed here. She went on to object to the denial of the rights of residents to present their comments prior to the vote, citing it was part of the Village Board’s job to listen to the concerns of residents and that it was a “disgrace” that public comment was not allowed for such an important matter.
She went on to correct misleading statements that had been made by Trustees Harrington and Messer which would lead people to believe there will finally be a limit to the number of horses per acre. She explained that the amendment only specified the number of boarded horses, and would not regulate how many personally owned horses would be permitted in addition to boarded horses.
Later, she addressed Meroni’s inappropriate portrayal that large-scale horse boarding operations will protect larger properties from subdivision, considering past trends of subdivision by successive owners or purchasers not wishing to continue boarding, which many have cited as a breakeven or loss proposition. Nearly unfettered hours of operations, regardless of scale, also were cited by Hannigan as objections to the amendment.
The conclusion of Hannigan’s remarks were also met with applause and gaveled down by Gohl. General discussion then ensued by all board members, and the link to that discussion, followed by the five to one approval of the Anderson horse boarding amendment, can be heard here.
Fritz Gohl: As we’ve come to expect, Trustee Gohl had some ill-considered comments regarding the Anderson amendment, including his feeling of obligation to “protect the collective community.” He went on to state the retroactivity of the amendment would protect the Village legally, but had no explanation as to why it would provide protection. He also shared a conversation he had with a realtor who told him the reason homes weren’t selling in the Village was because of the Riding Club, but Gohl later stated this was a mischaracterization in his opinion.
The Vote: The two newspapers that published stories about the meeting, and one or two local Facebook pages, misrepresented the vote being four to one. The actual vote approving the Anderson amendment was five to one with Hannigan being the sole dissenting vote.
Twelve people, most of whom objected to the amendment, then provided their comments to the Board. As reported in the Chicago Tribune’s article, the tenth speaker was interrupted by an audience member who came to the podium to say “You’re disgusting”, as can be heard here. (the cacklings heard afterward were those of Trustees Meroni and Selman)
The speaker asked for order, completed his statements without engaging the former president of the Riding Club who had interrupted him, and returned the same sentiment back to him as he returned to his seat.
While we encourage readers to listen to all comments, the twelfth person to speak likely provided the best perspectives. As a resident since the 1960’s on a large parcel of land, she chronicled her care of horses, both her own, and occasionally to help out HARPS for many years, before she expressed her concern over what the Anderson amendment might do to her neighbors if a commercial boarding operation should take over some day. Her comments can be heard here.
