The Village has posted recordings from the December 2nd Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing held at Countryside School. Unfortunately, Village Hall staff have chosen to release the recording, without breakdown by speakers, so we’ve created topical links for readers who might be interested in specific areas of discussion.
The first recording segment is that of Bob Kosin presenting the Anderson Commercial Horse Boarding Text Amendment proposal and that can be heard here.
Mr. Robert Kunz, Algonquin Township Assessor, was the first guest to provide his perspective on the Anderson amendment and any effect it might have on Village property tax revenues from McHenry County as it relates to Agricultural use designation. A link to his perspectives and discussion can be accessed here.
Readers should note that the minimum acreage requirements for McHenry County for agricultural use designation are not indicative of all four counties comprising Barrington Hills. For example, McHenry County requires a minimum of ten acres while Cook County requires six. Additionally, the requirements for documenting agricultural use vary among the four counties, so Mr. Kunz’s testimony is unique to McHenry County.
The next guest to speak was Constantine Savoy with Teska Associates, a consulting firm retained by the Village in 2008 to assist with the creation and maintenance of the Barrington Hills Comprehensive Plan. His testimony can be heard here.
Teska Associates has assisted other equestrian friendly communities in the Chicago area with development of their comprehensive plans such as Mettawa and Wayne to name a few. However, in his introductory remarks, Mr. Savoy indicated he was given guidelines on what his “role” was for his testimony. He later stated he was not aware of any community that had horse boarding codes like those proposed in the Anderson amendment.
The last person invited to speak before the board was Don Schuman, Code Enforcement Officer for Barrington Hills. The link to this discussion can be found here.
During his testimony, he stated his concerns regarding:
- Accessory buildings exceeding the size of the primary dwelling
- Apparent lack of building permit requirement for agricultural designated properties
- Retroactivity of the amendment as it relates to property owners that have been restricted in the size of proposed accessory buildings since June of 2006, and
- The lack of definition of “traffic should be reasonably minimized” as far as enforcement
Subsequent questions from the board members and audience members related to setbacks, building height limitations, insurance requirements, etc. also uncovered more potential concerns including the enforcement officer’s ability to differentiate boarded horses from those owned by the property owner. Further, when questioned about his preference regarding special use applying to boarding instead of the amendment, he stated he preferred special use.
Toward the end of his testimony, Schuman was questioned about his knowledge and involvement in the issuance of a letter to the owners of Oakwood Farm dated March 15, 2011, with his name declaring that that boarding operation was compliant with the then current Home Occupation Ordinance as it pertains to boarding.
The link to that recording, including Zoning Board Chair Judith Freeman’s objections to that line of questioning, can be accessed here.
It is clear from the full meeting recording that there are many questions regarding Anderson’s latest horse boarding text amendment proposal left unanswered from the three guests who had been invited to provide their expertise. Yet the very next evening, at December 3rd Zoning Board public hearing, the Anderson amendment proposal was approved for submission to our Village Board by a vote of 4-2.
Perhaps the release of the recordings from that second public hearing will shed more light on those unanswered questions, but we have our doubts. The link to the menu of the full meeting recordings can be found here.
Observer, help me out. If all it took was a letter which you refer to as “letter to owners of Oakwood Farm” in this article to make Oakwood home occupation compliant under the VBH’s HOO, why did BOT under Abboud authorize payment of @184,000.00 of taxpayer money to Burke-Warren to shut down boarding operations at Oakwood Farm which B-W succesfully did at both the trial and appellate court level? Wouldn’t it have been more beneficial to VBH taxpayers to have issued the 40 Cent (postage) letter to LeCompte legalizing his boarding operation before embroiling VBH in expensive and unnecessary lawsuit?
Am I being overly cynical by asking the question whether LeCompte’s 3 secret campaign donations (finding by IL Election Board) to Save 5 Acre slate members Messer, Meroni and Selman 34 days before this letter by VBH was issued played a role in suddenly changing the Village’s opinion concerning Oakwood Farm’s commercial horse boarding activities?
Is it possible at present there is a rush to get Anderson II enacted so this question is never answered in court (Drury v. LeCompte)? I think we can all agree given these circumstances, BOT members, Messer, Meroni and Selman are materially conflcted thus barred from either discussing or casting a vote on Anderson II at the BOT level. Any other course of action on their part would be foolish exposing taxpayers and themselves to needless liability.
(A “tidbit”: Observer readers may not know. The LeCompte affidavit testified to by Schuman at the ZBA hearing was possibly helped along by former VBH riding club member Daniel Lundmark who sent an e-mail to LeCompte informing LeCompte what language Abboud would like to see in LeCompte’s Affidavit.)
Putting aside your opinion on the substance of the Anderson II Amendment, it behooves all fair minded VBH residents to ask, why is there this extraordinary effort on the part of Chairman Freeman and BOT Messer to get Anderson II legislated? By now, I hope you get the picture.