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.