Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Legal Expenses’ Category

Oakwood Farm Operation

The simple answer to the question of why we’re being sued is that some elected and appointed Village officials put us in this position last December when they approved a commercial horse boarding amendment to our code which clearly favored one party over another in a private lawsuit that did not involve our Village.

In order to fully understand the rationale behind the suit, residents need to understand the history of one commercial horse boarding operation in the Village that has, in our opinion, consumed an inordinate amount of time, energy and taxpayers’ money for too long now.  The best way to illustrate this is with excerpts from the complaint against the Village as follows:

  • The issue of commercial horse boarding in Barrington Hills has been litigated in the Circuit Court of Cook County in two separate cases and has been subject to two Appellate Court opinions.
  • Both of those proceedings involved the large-scale commercial horse boarding operation conducted by Benjamin LeCompte at Oakwood Farms which is located at 362 Bateman Road.
  • The first lawsuit was initiated by Benjamin LeCompte against the Village in Benjamin B. LeCompte, et al. v. Zoning Board of Appeals For The Village of Barrington Hills, et al. (Civil Case No. 09 CH 00934) (“First Lawsuit”). In the First Lawsuit, LeCompte appealed the Village Board’s issuance in January 2008 of a cease and desist order* which directed LeCompte to stop operating a large-scale commercial horse boarding operation.
  • The Circuit Court, in a decision dated January 15, 2010, held that LeCompte’s large-scale commercial horse boarding operation conducted at Oakwood Farm was not in compliance with the Village Zoning Code. LeCompte appealed that decision.
  • Although the Village prevailed in that case and the subsequent appeal by LeCompte, the Village did absolutely nothing to enforce that judgment or to enforce its Zoning Ordinance. The Village did not even levy a fine against LeCompte.
  • On December 17, 2010, Attorney Steven Schulte, counsel for Drury, directed a letter to the Village attorney requesting that “the Village take all necessary actions to immediately enforce the cease and desist order by no later than December 31, 2010 (almost three years after its issuance) and take all steps necessary to recover all fines assessed against the LeComptes since January 10, 2008.” Again, no action was taken by the Village.
  • On January 31, 2011, Drury initiated a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County (James Drury III v. Benjamin B. LeCompte, et al (Civil Case No.11 CH 3852)) against Benjamin LeCompte pursuant to the Adjacent Landowner Statute, 65 ILCS 5/11-13-15, (“Second Lawsuit” or “Drury- (Michael) McLaughlin [Note: no relation to the current Village President] Lawsuit”), seeking an order enjoining LeCompte from operating a commercial horse boarding operation at Oakwood Farms in violation of Village zoning laws.
  • Five months later, on June 30, 2011, the Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Circuit Court in the First Lawsuit. In that decision, Benjamin B. LeCompte, et al. v. Zoning Board of Appeals For The Village of Barrington Hills, et al., Case No. 1-10-0423 (later published September 21, 2011 as 2011 IL App (1st) 100423) (“LeCompte I”), the Appellate Court held that the commercial horse boarding operation of LeCompte at Oakwood Farm violated the Zoning Ordinances of the Village; held that the use of the land at Oakwood Farm for the commercial boarding of horses is not agriculture as defined in section 5-2-1 of the Village Zoning Code; and that since the commercial boarding of horses is not agriculture under section 5¬5-2(A) of the Zoning Code, it is not a permitted use in a R-1 zoned district in the Village.
  • In James J Drury III et al. v. Benjamin LeCompte et al., 2014 IL App (1St) 121894¬U (“LeCompte II”), a copy which is attached as Exhibit D, the Appellate Court for the second time addressed large-scale commercial horse boarding at Oakwood Farm. In that case, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the Drury-McLaughlin Lawsuit. The Court discarded the home occupancy defense advanced by LeCompte and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
  • Shortly after the remand in LeCompte II, LeCompte initiated a petition for a text amendment in June 2014 with the Village to permit large-scale commercial horse boarding as a permitted use in the residential zoning districts in the Village (“LeCompte Text Amendment“). LeCompte’s text amendment called for retroactivity back to June 26, 2006.
  • The Commercial Horse Boarding Text Amendment which passed in December 2014 is very similar to the LeCompte Text Amendment.
  • The Village Board enacted into law, over the Village President’s veto, on February 23, 2015, the Commercial Horse Boarding Text Amendment that is the subject of this action.

*[It should be noted that the cease and desist order issued to Oakwood Farms came as a result of complaints from a number of neighboring property owners.]

There are many more events we could detail since the first complaints were voiced regarding the operations at Oakwood Farms such as campaign donation disclosures, a letter purportedly authored by the Village Code Enforcement Officer to the owner of Oakwood Farms, etc., but for the sake of brevity, we’ve chosen not to repeat what’s been chronicled in these pages already.

What these and other points do bear out is the prior administration and previous village Boards did little to nothing to enforce the codes when it came to Oakwood Farms, and essentially, people like Jim Drury had to proceed through the court system on their own at great expense.  When it became apparent Drury was succeeding with an April 2014 ruling, a flawed, conflicted and accelerated process quickly began to derail his hard fought efforts.

Settling the suit would allow for a more measured process to begin addressing all scales of horse boarding in Barrington Hills.  Not settling will undoubtedly lead to years of unnecessary legal expenses to defend an ordinance that had no business being passed in the first place.

Read Full Post »

Friday FlashbackFollowing are some of the articles published by The Observer for the month of June in recent years. These articles, gathered from various publications and editorials, are noteworthy for residents in that they remind us of where we’ve been as a community.

Extensive storm damage hits McHenry County – 2011

A signal light outage along a stretch of Algonquin Road through Barrington Hills and parts of Algonquin and South Barrington caused major traffic delays during the morning and evening rush hours Wednesday.

The lights were up and running on before 7 p.m., the Barrington Hills Police Department said.  Drivers were advised to avoid Route 62 at the intersections of Brinker Road, Route 59, and Route 59 and Bartlett Road.

Read the Northwest Herald story here.

Barrington Hills residents address horse boarding – 2012

About 200 concerned Barrington Hills residents packed the multipurpose room of Countryside Elementary School Monday night for a hearing on a proposed change to the village code regarding commercial horse boarding.

With only a few exceptions, people who spoke generally looked with disfavor on the amendment that would allow commercial horse boarding as a home occupation business if machinery were operated and nonresidents were on site only between the hours of 6 a.m. and 8 p.m.

Read the Daily Herald account from three years ago here.

After defeat, Barrington Hills changes labor attorney – 2013

Just weeks after suffering an appellate court defeat in its legal fight with the village’s police union, Barrington Hills officials have changed their special counsel in charge of labor relations with officers.

Village President Martin McLaughlin hopes the change of attorney could potentially repair the adversarial relationship the village and police union have known during the past few years. Both sides will have to sit down in a year to negotiate a new contract, he said.

Former Village President Robert Abboud’s arguments that the raises were rescinded as a result of other unexpected costs and financial uncertainties were rejected by both the labor board and appellate court.

Read more from the Daily Herald here.

May 28 Village Board meeting recordings released – 2014

The Village has released edited audio recordings from the May 28 Village Board meeting.  To access the menu of the meeting’s topical audio recording segments, click here.

The full public portion of the meeting lasted a somewhat grueling 3 hours and 56 minutes, so we’ll try to cut to the chase of the significant points of the meeting.

Twenty-five residents and non-residents spoke before the board during the public comment session, most voicing concern about the status of all horse boarding in the Village.

Read more from The Observer here.

Attorney General’s office determines April 2013 Village appointments violated OMA – 2014

Nearly a year to the day after a concerned resident filed an Open Meetings Act (OMA) violation complaint against the Village, the Illinois Attorney General’s office recently concurred that appointments made by the outgoing village president during his last official Village Board meeting in 2013 violated the terms of the Act.

Read the full original Observer article here.

Read Full Post »

Audio recordings from the June 22nd Village Board meeting are now available for review.  The meeting lasted a relatively brief one hour and ten minutes before the board recessed into executive session.

The highlight of the meeting was the passage of a resolution opposing the Longmeadow Parkway project.  A direct link to that discussion and vote can be accessed here.

The link to the menu of topical recordings from the full June 22nd Village Board meeting can be accessed here.

Read Full Post »

The Village has released edited audio recordings from the June 8th special Village Board meeting.

Two residents made public comments regarding the matter of enforcement of the Tree Preservation Ordinance in the matter of a newly constructed home on Westfield Way.  The board then adjourned into executive session to discuss this issue and personnel matters.   Attendees to the public session inform us that Don Schuman, Code Enforcement Officer for the Village, was included in that session along with two attorneys representing the Village.

After nearly an hour and a half of closed session deliberation, the meeting reopened to the public.  President McLaughlin then asked attorneys Mary Dickson and a Mr. Kaplan, who apparently got involved when the Village’s insurance carrier was contacted regarding the matter.

The Plan Commission discussed this Westfield Way property matter four times in 2014 according to records.  At their December meeting, the commissioners voted unanimously to enforce the Tree Preservation Ordinance, despite an appeal from the homeowner.

This called for the replacement of 110 “Heritage Trees” to replace those removed during site development of the property.  In December 2014, the Village Board voted to adopt the findings and recommendations of the Plan Commission and to deny the petitioner’s waiver/appeal.

A copy of the Plan Commission’s findings presented at the December 2015 Village Board meeting can be viewed here.

Despite the commission’s best efforts to enforce Village Code, apparently Don Schuman met with the homeowners sometime in May, and issued a letter stating they would only have to replace 36 trees, thus overriding the Plan Commission’s ruling.  It is unknown whether Schuman consulted with any Village official prior to doing so, but according to news accounts, he has no such authority.

Dickson and Kaplan recommended the Village Board settle on replacement of 48 heritage trees in order to settle the legal action brought against the Village by the homeowners.  By a vote of 5 to 1, the board, very reluctantly, approved this offer given the position Schuman’s unauthorized letter had put them in.

We highly recommend readers listen to the brief recording of this discussion and vote by clicking here.

The board then moved on to the original purpose of the special meeting, which was to approve appointments to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Plan Commission, Equestrian Commission, Board of Health and the Heritage and Environs Committee.  With few objections from Trustee Gohl (Trustee Mike Harrington was absent), all nominees were approved.

The link to the menu of topical recordings from the full June 8th Village Board meeting can be accessed here.

Read Full Post »

It took the couple about three years to build their dream house, a 9,200-square-foot mansion in a Barrington Hills subdivision, and although construction is complete, they can’t move in.

Village Administrator Robert Kosin told the homeowners in a letter earlier this month they can’t occupy the house until they comply with an original plan to replace so-called heritage trees.

Village ordinance regulates how many can be torn down and replaced during construction, defining the trees — an 8-inch hickory, for instance — as native to the region and of “significant historical value to the village of Barrington Hills.”

Read the full Daily Herald article here.

Read Full Post »

Tree StumpHomeowners have sued the village of Barrington Hills after being denied permission to move into their newly built mansion because of a dispute over the number of trees on the property.

Najamul and Nausheen Hasan built a 9,200-square-foot estate on a five-acre lot they purchased in 2007, but they sued last week after they were recently denied an occupancy permit by the village.

The Hasans claim in the suit that the village’s tree ordinance — spelling out how builders must replace the trees that they remove during construction — is unconstitutional. They also say their civil rights are being violated, and that the matter is “of an emergency nature” because they have leased their residence in Hoffman Estates after being told by the village’s building officer that they would be granted a temporary occupancy permit. The temporary permit for occupancy was later denied.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Barrington Hills trustees voted Wednesday to approve the hiring of a village attorney selected last August by Village President Martin McLaughlin, ending a long dispute over the appointment.

The village board voted 4-2 to name the law firm of Bond Dickson & Associates as village attorney, removing the “temporary” tag from the firm which had served in that capacity for 10 months. Trustees Fritz Gohl and Michael Harrington voted against the appointment.

Read more here.

 

Read Full Post »

For perhaps the last time, the Barrington Hills board on Monday voted against paying the village attorney, which the board has refused to do for eight months now because of a dispute with Village President Martin McLaughlin.

Last August, McLaughlin appointed the law firm of Bond Dickson and Associates to serve as temporary village attorney after he asked its predecessor, the law offices of Burke, Warren, MacKay & Serritella, to resign.

McLaughlin cited the Illinois attorney general office’s finding that the village violated the Open Meetings Act in April 2013 under the firm’s watch as one reason he asked for the resignation.

Read more here.

Read Full Post »

Audio recordings from last month’s regular Village Board meeting are available for review.  Since the meeting lasted nearly four and a half hours, we’ll cover the main topics of interest to readers.

Nine residents spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting.  The comments were evenly split between the topics of 911 consolidation and the politicization of the LeCompte Kalaway Cup event special use permit extension.

During the one-hour finance discussion, payment of a portion of the temporary Village Counsel’s fees was again denied, though no Trustee could or would profess to any issues with the services provided by either Patrick Bond or Mary Dickson.  It should be noted the fees outstanding due to Bond Dickson are now approaching $60,000.

Trustee Harrington read a prepared “ten reasons” list for not paying our legal bills, and cast blame once again on President McLaughlin.  We believe anyone who needs ten reasons obviously doesn’t have one legitimate one to stand on, thus the unnecessary list.

What Harrington repeatedly neglects to mention is that McLaughlin allowed him and other Board members to vet more than ten other law firms for seating as permanent Village Counsel in a failed selection process that led to no clear-cut choice for recommendation.  Furthermore, since that time, neither Harrington, nor any other Trustee, has recommended any other qualified firm to be considered by the full Board, yet he and others balk at paying a temporary firm providing quality, timely services.

The ongoing discussions of 911 consolidation consumed nearly the entire one hour and twenty minute Public Safety portion of the March meeting, concluding with a vote to migrate the village’s 911 services to QuadCom.  Though it is a long recording, we recommend any readers who are concerned about migration listen to it, since many fictional tales circulating through the Village during the recent political campaign were dispelled.

Trustees Gohl, Meroni and Selman voted against consolidation despite reassurances from not only the consulting group engaged by the Village, but also our own police chief, Rich Semelsberger.  The vote can be heard here.

With regard to the LeCompte Kalaway Cup special use permit extension that was “killed” at the March Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, the Board passed the extension by a unanimous vote.  The recording of that discussion can be heard here.

The topic of extending the lease agreement with BACOG (Barrington Area Council of Governments) was also discussed, but not voted on, during the Health, Environment, Buildings and Grounds section, despite the fact the current BACOG lease doesn’t expire until the summer of 2016.

According Janet Agnoletti, Executive Director of BACOG, the Village of Barrington is wishing to provide them space in the “White House” currently under renovation on Main Street in downtown Barrington.  While this location might be better suited and more centrally located, Agnoletti expressed her desire to continue renting office space at our Village Hall under a multi-year lease extension for the 220 square feet they currently occupy.  The recording of that discussion can be accessed here.

It is our sincere hope that, with the elections behind us, these Board meetings will become more tolerable for residents to either attend or listen to in these recordings.  There has been entirely too much unnecessary, time-consuming political rhetoric heating the McArthur Room at Village Hall for the last year, and it’s high time this practice comes to an end.

The link to the edited audio recording segment menu from the March meeting can be accessed here.

Read Full Post »

campaignfinanceThe “One Barrington Hills” (One BH) and “Save Open Space” (SOS) campaign committees filed their first quarter financial reports with the Illinois State Board of Elections on Wednesday, April 15th.

According to those filings, One BH reported total campaign contributions of $19,502.88 for the quarter compared to the SOS campaign’s receipts of $60,825.99.  For the same period, One BH spent $16,267.26 for their campaign versus the $50,901.35 spent by SOS, but the respective categories of expenditures by each campaign differed dramatically according to details contained in their reports.

One BH candidates spent a little over half of their funds on direct mailings to residents.  On the other hand, SOS candidates spent about forty percent of their donations to pay two campaign committee members for consulting fees.

SOS committee member Dan Lundmark was paid $12,500 for his consulting services, and Steve Knoop’s firm, First Chicago Advisors, Inc., was also paid $12,500 for consulting in the campaign.  It’s unclear from the reporting what the hourly consulting fees were for these committee members, but it is worth noting they were both compensated at an equal level.

In addition to consulting fees, the SOS committee spent $7,642.50 of their quarterly donations for legal services provided to their campaign from the Law Office of John Fogarty, Jr., a firm specializing in political and election laws.  Those fees equate to about 12.6% of SOS’s total financial intake for the quarter.

While first quarter campaign financial reports do provide a preliminary glimpse at campaign spending, we must remind readers they are by no means the final story regarding the overall campaign spending for the 2015 Barrington Hills Trustee election.  Those figures will likely be revealed in three months when the second quarter financials are reported to the Board of Elections.

In the meantime, a copy of the One Barrington Hills campaign committee’s 2015 Q-1 report filing can be downloaded here, and a copy of the Save Open Space committee’s Q-1 report can be downloaded here.

–     The Observer

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »