Last week, The Observer summarized some of the highlights of the two proposals, such as hours of operations and allowable horse population (see “July 21 Zoning Board Public Hearing announced”). We have also commented on the apparent conflicts of interests stemming, in part, from these proposals. Additional scrutiny of the proposals has led to some very troubling questions and discoveries.
Both proposals call for any property boarding horses, be it one horse or dozens, to be reclassified from “Residential” to “Agricultural” use when it comes to our Village zoning regulations.
Some have speculated this might be an opportunistic ploy to lower property taxes. Some county assessors’ offices disagree, and in fact, they may (and certainly should) be taking interest in some of these properties now, since boarding is considered a revenue generating activity.
These latest proposals raise the valid question of whether boarding properties could possibly be considered a “Commercial” use in some circumstances when computing their assessed valuation. This makes sense, of course, and we have long advocated that large-scale commercial boarding operations should not be allowed to masquerade as residential uses.
But it may be that the reason that the proposal authors want boarding operations classified as agricultural use is that they hope to become a protected class, nearly immune from many residential code regulations under which they now must operate. In other words, they may want to be treated better, and with fewer restrictions, than the rest of us.
For example, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) restrictions currently limiting the allowable square footage to be built on a property will likely not apply to boarding properties classified as agriculture. Therefore, if approved, these proposals might allow for the construction of any size boarding facilities, so long as they are within code setbacks. Additionally, it may be the case that the proposers also intend that no special use permits will be required unless variations are sought, so adjacent property owners would have no say in the matter, and no forum to raise concerns, unless a zoning variation approval is required.
If operators were to exploit this proposed FAR regulation loophole, existing stables might be expanded or new ones may be built beyond FAR guidelines. In addition, accessory buildings for boarding, such as hay barns, riding arenas, manure storage structures and the like, might occupy (and hence eliminate) open space to support boarding ten or more horses* on as little as five acres.
One thing is clear: as facilities expand, so too will activities on the properties. More visitors, vehicles, equipment and trailers will appear, and with expanded daily operating hours seven days a week, it’s likely noise will increase as well.
Horse training session
Both proposals fly in the face of our Comprehensive Plan, the flag so many often wave when it suits their purpose, since it clearly recommends on page 44 that horse owners should:
“Avoid soil compaction and excessive removal of vegetation by timing the use of pastures and controlling the number of horses.”
Many other village regulations could potentially be sidestepped through agricultural use designation, and they are too numerous to cite at this time. Most activities related to boarding and training of horses would be unregulated, with the only exception being the allowed hours of operation, even if only one horse is boarded.*
Both proposals should be unacceptable to most residents, in our opinion. Both proposals, by reclassification of residential properties to “agriculture,” seek to create a super class of protected properties, with benefits the rest of us do not have and while creating additional burdens on our community.
The Zoning Board is accepting written comments from residents until Monday, July 21st by 5:00 PM. Written comments can be faxed to the Village Clerk at 847-551-3050 or sent by email to clerk@barringtonhills-il.gov. Please include your name and address in your correspondence, regardless of your opinion on the respective amendment proposals.
It goes without saying that this is a critically important matter for all Barrington Hills property owners. Resident involvement is important, as it was in previous failed attempts to amend horse boarding codes favoring expanded boarding provisions.
Regardless of your stance, please comment either in writing, or publicly Monday night at the hearing, or best of all, do both. This amendment process begins and ends with resident participation. Through inaction, you may empower proposals that eventually may have power over you and diminish the value of your property rights.
– The Observer
*Oakwood Farm Horse Boarding and Training Amendment Proposal
Riding Club of Barrington Hills Horse Boarding and Training Amendment Proposal