The Village has recently posted the agenda for Monday’s Zoning Board of Appeals meeting to hear public comment on ZBA member Kurt Anderson’s latest horse boarding text amendment. The meeting will take place at Countryside School beginning at 7:30 PM, and a copy of the agenda can be downloaded here or viewed on the Village Google calendar here.
The Village has also just published a copy of the ePacket agenda for the meeting which includes a copy of the Anderson 2.0 horse boarding amendment and a copy can be downloaded here.
Anderson’s latest proposal calls for amended Agricultural code regulations to apply to boarding operations on properties exceeding 10 acres and modified Home Occupation Ordinance regulations to apply to boarding operations of lesser acreage. Following are some of the amended components of both.
Agricultural Use horse boarding regulations – 10 or more acres:
- Allows for boarding to be the primary use of the property
- Allows for boarding structures to exceed the size of the residence
- The amendment is retroactive and in full force as of June 26, 2006*
- Employee hours are from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM seven days a week
- Customer hours are from 7:00 AM to 8:30 PM seven days a week
- Machinery use is allowed from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM seven days a week
- Maximum of two boarded horses per gross lot acre
- No minimum on total horses kept per acre beyond boarded ones
Home Occupation Ordinance boarding regulations – Less than 10 acres:
- Allows for boarding structures to exceed the size of the residence
- Employee hours are from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM seven days a week
- No more than two employees on-site at a time
- Customer hours are from 7:00 AM to 8:30 PM seven days a week
- No more than four customers on-site at a time
- Machinery use is allowed from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM seven days a week
- Maximum of one boarded horse per gross lot acre
- No minimum on total horses kept per acre beyond boarded ones
It’s important for to note that Mr. Anderson’s latest amendment expands boarding operating hours under the Home Occupation Ordinance passed by our Village Board, coincidentally on June 26, 2006. That ordinance provided for more considerate, neighborly operating hours.
Written comments on Anderson’s latest horse boarding text amendment can be submitted to the Village by fax or email through November 10 by 5:00 PM. Fax your comments to 847-551-3050 or send them by email to the Village Clerk at clerk@barringtonhills-il.gov.
– The Observer
*During the August 1, 2014, special meeting of the Equestrian Commission the topic original LeCompte horse boarding amendment, including the June 26, 2006, retroactive application of code petition, was denied by the commission. Members John Pappas and Bruce Pfaff, both attorneys, advised other commission members that it should be stricken. All agreed with their unanimous vote.
The recording of that discussion can be accessed here.
OUTRAGEOUS!!!!
Over 200 horses allowed at Oakwood. Hours of operation are absurd and will destroy residential privacy in Barrington Hills. And, the ZBA is giving 72 hours for people to send in comments. Judy Freeman is playing out a personal obsession to make Barrington Hills a commercial horse destination. The ZBA is not a pulpit to change zoning policy for a special interest group or an individual. The ZBA’s actions demand removal by conflicted Members. Changes of this magnitude must require a referendum … and time.
But, fixing Oakwood needs to be rushed. Why not destroy decades of useful Home Occupation protecting neighbor rights along the way in order to dictate a change from our Residential Code to make Barrington Hills a commercial horse center!
Time for every citizen to speak up, including the majority of equestrians who know these changes are not in the best interest of this Village. Time for legal action. Time for McLaughlin to exert emergency powers to protect the Village from these lunatic fringes. A financial disaster will happen as a result of these changes reflected in our tax base and property values.
Why can’t we do a referendum? We the people have a right to have a say in our futures.
Why the rush?
I have learned a long time ago to follow the cash…..
Who is financially gaining from this misguided proposition???
This action will destroy the village as we know it.
Our Village President needs to make a strong push back and do everything in his power to see that this re-zoning is halted until after next year’s elections or a new board is in place. This is an absurd situation we find ourselves in.
If this amendment is approved, it may open doors for other Commercial Businesses within our community, which can be challenged in the courts if needed.
This community needs to get behind Stieper, Wolfgram and Chambers; otherwise it’s going to be a long night for them.
The purpose of a “special meeting” is to allow “overflow” business of the Board to be completed in timely fashion. That is to say, a special meeting is called through majority vote of the Board at a regular meeting to deal with matters that cannot be done at a regular board meeting due to length of the agenda. Special meetings are not appropriate for horse boarding because ZBA does not have a full agenda. Irrespective, Chairman Freeman continues to disabuse ZBA board members and the public by her stream of short noticed meetings.
Did you know as of the time I write this comment VBH has not given me notice of the meeting on the 10th or 12th nor have I been furnished with the agenda or materials. I was informed by someone who took the time to look at the Village website informing me Freeman went ahead and scheduled these meetings.
Those of you may recall at the most recent ZBA Board meeting, member Wolfgram and I said we were not available on November 10th or 12th. No vote was taken to hold these special meetings rather Chairman Freeman, unilaterally made the decision without further consulation or consideration to our schedules to proceed with commercial horseboarding on these dates anyway. Why, because Freeman has an AGENDA and apparently a deadline to complete her AGENDA!
Why not go forth with the meetings, Freeman does not have to deal with two ZBA members who do not share her AGENDA guaranteeing these meetings will be more fun, filled with Board jocularity, sweet talk, cooperation and a finished product. This no doubt will please Speaker 8 and those who are tired of the debate, bullying and conflict. Why, because after all, VBH CP says we are an “equestrian village” and not a “residential community”. After all, Chairman Freeman is on the record saying, we must follow our CP which of course mentions nothing about big business and commercial boarding. But again, facts and exploration of issues do not work for this ZBA Chairman because she has an AGENDA!
There simply is no time to research because we may find things that do not fit into the script and AGENDA. As speaker #8 publicly said what we all knew, Freeman’s AGENDA is all about Oakwood Farm, not you, me and the Village. Not saying the two necessarily have to be incompatible, but Freeman will have no debate, discussion, study or discourse on “special use” taking a “quick vote” using her patsy and slim majority on the ZBA Board.
No consideration to minority ZBA Board members who support commercial boarding from the vantage point of “special use” (after the corruption allegations mentioning 3 BOT members are completely adjudicated in court) which is used by almost every municipality and county in Northern IL dealing with this issue. (Bull Valley, Homer Glen, McHenry County, Kane County, Will County, Mettawa, Bartlett) to name a few.)
The Village attorney for Bull Valley is the same attorney used by the Riding Club. I guess we are VBH and the 4 members who make up the majority on the ZBA know better than these Village managers, attorneys, zoning lawyers and communities. After all the “public interest” of Bull Valley is vastly different than the “public interest” of VBH according to the slim majority on the ZBA.
In fact, as a self inflicted wound which will destroy residential zoning over time, VBH would be the first municipality in Illinois and possibly in the U.S. to deposit a major commercial use in the definition section of its Village Code under “agriculture” [permitted use] but having no designated “agriculture” districts on our zoning map . [Wayne treats large scale commercial boarding under “zoning map” designation E-3 where specific parcels on its zoning map are desinated for this use which are located away from residential areas]. In VBH code agriculture means, growing beans, corn, flowers etc, bee keeping, horse breeding and soon to be added through Anderson II Amendment horse boarding for a fee.
Chairman Freeman and her patsy believe these uses are all the same. Remember, while you can grow corn, beans, flowers and honey, you cannot sell it in VBH because the activity of “selling” was deemed to invite increased traffic and considered to be a business. Good thing commercial horse boarding does not invite increased traffic and is not a business according to current ZBA majority.
VBH for the first time in its history is in the process of radically altering its zoning code (placing major commercial activity in pari delecti with residential estate living and growing corn) which has served residents for 50 years; all on the recommendation of an accountant, tax lawyer, Rosene and Beckendorf. You have 3 BOT who are materially conflicted due to private litigation but refuse to recuse themselves from this process. Think about what an experienced land use and zoning lawyer will do to the Anderson II [Freeman] Amendment for the interest of his/her commercial boarding business client? Who knows, maybe I will be retained by one of these future horse boarding proprietors.
I suspect these meetings would not be taking place on the 10th or 12th if Freeman’s patsy or any of the other two ZBA majority members on the Board had a conflict in their schedule. Not that my attendance or Wolfgram’s make a difference because behind closed doors the AGENDA for you, me and the VBH is already a “fait complit”. The rest is just going through the motion to satisfy legal public notice requirements and to convince you, that the process of the horse boarding legislation to be recommended by the ZBA has been a fair, open, thoroughly studied and vetted process. Are you convinced?
This brand of politics instituted during Abboud’s tenure carried on by fringe group of equestrians has been going for too many years. Having known Freeman some years serving with her on the BACT Board I always found her to be fair, open, accomodating, honest, even handed and not part of this distructive group. My opinion of Freeman has obviously changed. All of you are now witnessing what I have been witnessing in VBH for many years now. The insider dealing by the radical equestrian group is now OPEN, BLATANT and IN YOUR FACE! The question now is what are you, the responsible public, going to do about it? Not because of the miguided outcome, but because of the “process”.
Keep in mind the floor area ratio (“FAR”) in VBH is 10,000 square feet for every 5 acres. Under the current VBH code, commercial horse boarding must comply with the Home Occupation Ordinance, that is to say boarding must be an ancillary to the primary residential use. What this means under VBH FAR for a barn would max. out on a 5 acre lot at about 2700 square feet allowing for max. of 8-9 horses.[Dr. LeCompte at public meeting declared me an expert on VBH Code’s FAR which I concur with great humility]
Under Anderson II Amendment [Freeman Amendment] commercial horse boarding in excess of 10 acres would be placed under “agriculture” in which the residential structure is no longer the primary use but the business, commercial boarding operation becomes the primary use. What this means is for a 180 acre farm commercial boarding structures can total 360,000 square feet. (180/5 x 10,000). This does extreme violence to VBH building code and question whether this is even legal but ZBA will not study this issue.
it should be further noted that Anderson II has moved the requirement that zoning amendments from the ZBA and Board not increase traffic and congestion to a standard of “what is reasonable under the circumstances”. No small modification. If you have a 100 horse boarding operation next to your home.The Anderson [Freeman] standard is what is reasonable not based upon residential zoning anymore, but what is reasonable given the standards of the commercial horse boarding operation. No longer would the court look to residential guidelines but rather commercial standards in light of the size and scope of commercial enterprise. This language is an example of the various language in the Anderson II Amendment which alters the intent of our code to protect residential estates and lifestyle.
I am told, Stieper do not worry and stop being such a trouble maker, trust the large scale proprietors, they would never do this because there is no money in boarding of horses; it is a labor of love. This may be the case for our current operators but when horse boarding beyond home occupation is legal in VBH what type of business operators might VBH attract in the future and how large?
For thosse of you who board under current home occupation supplementing your income, will these legalized large scale operations now and in the future put you out of business.
How much of our 26 square miles of Village do we want to designate for this business practice? Special use VBH can control it, under Anderson II cannot. Under the Anderson II Amendment, it is as much as the market will bear without right of limitation by VBH government, you or me. This my friends runs afoul of our CP and zoning map which is intended to control “use” of properties for the protection of primarily 5 acre residential zoning. VBH exists because of a proactive approach to land use and zoning not because of laissez faire legislation like Anderson II allowing business of any size beyond home occupation to coexist adjacent to homes. “Special use” with objective residential guidelines is the only way to approach this issue as all you have to do is look to the laws governing the other equestrian communities around VBH. This is what VBH ZBA concluded in 2011 but recommendation was pre-empted by Schuman Letter. At that time, it was about Oakwood Farm as well.
The ZBA under AGENDA driven Chairman is moving so fast that Freeman and her patsy have no idea what the consequences will be if Anderson II passes. This takes hours of study, discussion and hypotheticals which none of us has done, at least in public view. Are the words in the ordinance the best choice of words? Has it been matched with the other sections of the VBH code? Are there conflicts in language in Anderson II and rest of VBH code? Shouldn’t the ZBA have engaged in a philisophical discussion early on inviting experts discussnig the “pros” and “cons” of “special use” versus “agriculture”.
They apparently do not care and this is why all residents on all sides of the issue should be concerned. There are the law of unintended consequences even in the most carefully researched and crafted legislation, which Anderson II is not. But we are to rely on faith upon the thousands of hours of testimony, research and e-mails Freeman and her patsy have been privy too in support of Anderson II but refuse to share with the rest of the Board. Karen Rosene in her vote hearkens back on those wise words from John Hart about every property being unique (special use) but votes instead for the Anderson II amendment not recognizing the difference between “agriculture” and “special use”. Beckendorf contributes nothing accept a vote in line with Freeman and her patsy. Responsible government, I say not!
Wait until astute experienced zoning trial lawyers get ahold of Anderson II should it pass. Hey, at least it will pass through the ZBA without further bullying and antagonists like Stieper. and Speaker 8 will no longer be inconvenienced by the many long ZBA meetings.
Maybe at the end of the day, Anderson II will be good for my zoning law practice. Maybe I should be more grateful of the potential business opportunity the tax lawyer and accountant on the ZBA Board are creating by this recommendation.
These are some of my words for the 10th as I will not be there, I am trying to rearrange my schedule for the 12th. April cannot come too soon!
David Stieper ZBA member
Thank you David.
Time to take a deep breath and hold off. If Chairman Freeman continues to rush this, it only proves her biased and conflicted agenda. David is correct. Both he and Wolfgram stated they could not be in attendance at meetings next week. Doesn’t make any difference though, Judy and her band of Oakwood lap dogs will vote this through without the facts. Wondering who owes who and how much to risk so much. This is looking more and more like a call for a legal investigation is necessary and must be invoked using the Village President’s emergency powers. Can people go to jail for this kind of excessive abuse if found guilty?
It is crystal clear what the agenda for the ZBA will be, knowing full well that two key members that are not “on board” with the plan will be absent when a key vote will be scheduled.
After listening to several consecutive audio recordings, Chairwoman Freeman is comical figure, with her nervous laughter and lack of decorum. Despite the introduction of actual facts on the number of horses per acre recommended along with the health issue posed, nothing seems to slow the Oakwood train. Residents should demand loudly for a referendum on this matter, since this board shows that it will do as it pleases regardless of resident opposition. This amendment shows no respect or appreciation for residents whose homes are near or next to these types of facilities. It is reckless proposal with no regard for anyone other than the authors of these amendments.
I certainly hope that in time, their guilt and violations of the OMA will be exposed for all to see, that is the only way this matter will successfully be resolved.
I posted this as a response to a concerned resident, but thought it should be repeated. I absolutely respect the concerns of our non-equestrian residents, and perhaps I can shed a little light that will ease some of them. First of all, the problem is that a practice which has existed in Barrington Hills since the village was born, was recently challenged in a court fight between two neighbors. Unfortunately, the existing language within the current village code which applies to horse boarding did not stand up to the test. Therefore, other facilities which are currently operating horse boarding operations are in legal jeopardy. The solution is to amend the village code in a way that protects this long standing activity – and very few residents, equestrian or non-equestrian, deny that a solution is needed. The division is over what the right approach is. The other element which is fueling dissent in a somewhat cloaked approach is the ongoing legal case, in which the plaintiff has filed to recoup his legal fees, reportedly in excess of 3 million dollars. Apparently, and I am no legal expert so cannot say absolutely if this is true, if the village takes steps to reword the code to protect the boarding of horses as it currently exists, it may adversely affect the plaintiff’s ability to recoup that money. Clearly his interest is in protecting the status quo, for financial reasons. An awful lot of misinformation and fear has been generated, and the motivation of those responsible for distributing that information should certainly be called into question. Regarding the text amendment currently proposed by the ZBA, I would like to make a couple of things perfectly clear: 1. At this time, under the current village code, there is no limit to the number of horses any resident of Barrington Hills may have or board on their property. The text amendment being considered would put a practical formula on numbers in place. 2. All properties in Barrington Hills will remain R1. There is currently an allowance for “permitted uses” under R1 zoning, which includes “Agriculture: The use of land for agricultural purposes, including farming, dairying, pasturage, apiculture, horticulture, floriculture, viticulture and animal and poultry husbandry (including the breeding and raising of horses as an occupation) and the necessary accessory uses for handling or storing the produce; provided, however, that the operation of any such accessory uses shall be secondary to that of the normal agricultural activities.” The proposed text amendment would add “the boarding and training of horses” to that existing list of permitted activities – under R1. 3. There is an existing floor plan square footage ratio regulation within the village code which limits the total square footage by size of property. That will continue to regulate, just as it does now, the size of buildings per the number of acres. In addition, all of the other existing regulations regarding lighting, noise, traffic and all other potential nuisances will continue to apply. 4. There is no tax implication – there will be no change whatsoever. Currently, the county assessor views all properties in Barrington Hills first and foremost as residential, so the first five acres, as is directed by our village code, is assessed as residential. Beyond that, a property may be assessed as agricultural if the property meets the state burden for being categorized as agricultural, which is based on use, and only use. This is the current way properties are assessed, and that will continue exactly the same regardless of a change in our R1 permitted use language. 5. Horse boarding would be added UNDER R1 permitted uses – agriculture. This in no way “opens a door” for other types of commercial enterprise, it is specific to R1 permitted agricultural use, and we have many different uses already permitted. 6. The protection of horse boarding under agriculture has been used successfully to protect and support large tracts of land as open green pastures through the promotion of horse boarding and training, in many, many other equestrian neighborhoods across the country. This is not some pie-in-the-sky idea that was just now hatched. It is the cleanest and simplest way to proceed with a minimum of negative impact on the community. It is also the method that best preserves these green spaces for the future. In closing, I would like to say that we are all probably in favor of preserving and protecting this beautiful place we call home – just the way it is. I have followed all the discussion, done a ton of research, consulted legal and municipal experts extensively, and come to the following conclusion: I truly, truly believe that amending the village code to include “Horse boarding and training” on the EXISTING list of permitted agricultural uses UNDER R1, is by far the best approach.
Dear Jennifer;
It appears that you are a lone voice in the wilderness crying out for justice and fair play for the LeCompts. Perhaps we could take up a collection to help the good doctor pay the court costs that he has generated for the victim of his comerical farm boon-doggle.
I believe when the LeCompts first disreguarded the village law they put themselves in the position they now find themselvs in. No one forced them to overbuild their property with money making comercial barns and the traffic pattern of Wrigley field.
I for one, do not feel sorry for the good doctor because of the misery he has put his neighbors through and his attempt to donate large cash sums to the ruling class of Barrington Hills.
I do hope that all the villagers realize that if this amendment passes the LeCompts are home free, law suit over, pass go and collect.
Jennifer is not a lone voice. Many equestrians completely believe what Jennifer is representing. Many of her comments fairly represent the views of this group. The LeCompte’s built a beautiful facility for commercial horse boarding. Their location is perfect from a business perspective across from the Riding Club. There is great synergy with these two locations and Oakwood has been a wonderful partner for the Riding Club. The riding community should be proud of the public events held there and positive images and operations that these two facilities represent. In fact, every equestrian and non-equestrian that owns land in Barrington Hills should look at this as a positive location. Many of us sincerely believe this to be true.
Except, two issues can’t be ignored. First, Oakwood broke the laws of the Village. They overbuilt beyond code and building specifications. They ignored the laws of Home Occupation and Special Use. To make matters worse, Village government allowed the operation for political gain. The courts have upheld that Oakwood is illegal – laws matter. Oakwood may have been able to work a different access location and gained special use building permits, but chose to let ego dictate allowing anything they wanted and ignore the law.
Second, Code changes to save Oakwood have unintended consequences. Many who are loudest promoting Oakwood do not own land in Barrington Hills are don’t care about property values or the impact of an overpopulated commercial boarding operations with noise and traffic and other consequences. By making changes to protect Oakwood, the obsession of many like Jennifer, this code change will destroy the residential and home occupation standards of our Village legacy. They look at Oakwood and say why not, but have no respect for the residential characteristics unique to our wonderful Village. Large scale boarding works in certain locations and are welcomed, but opening it up everywhere with these code changes for the sake of Oakwood is illegal and filled with bad unintended consequences.
These proposed code changes destroy protections of the normal property owner from commercial activity that does not fit as nicely as Oakwood’s financial benefits for the Riding Club community. Don’t fix Oakwood at the expense of what works for decades in Barrington Hills protecting our legacy of Open Spaces and non-commercial operations.