Thirteen residents made public comments regarding the amendment, though one resident was allowed to speak at both hearings so there were fourteen total comments. Another person’s honest perspectives on the current situation and the Zoning Board’s actions are shared by many residents. His comments can be heard here.
Twenty-five residents submitted written comments prior to the hearing. A consolidated copy of their comments can be downloaded here.
While the number of favorable comments, written or oral, were slightly higher than those who found issues with the amendment, there was a distinct difference between the two groups, and that is their explanation for their stand.
Those in favor primarily wrote a single sentence generally stating, “I support the Anderson amendment,” with nothing more to substantiate why they supported it. Those opposing the amendment were much more specific in their objections including matters such as:
- Extended hours of operations
- Horse density allowed
- Lack of original Home Occupation Ordinance protections
- Tax burden shifts due to agricultural designation
- The rush to a decision and potential legal consequences, and
- Accessory buildings that can exceed the size of the residence, etc.
As to the last point, during discussion, both Village Administrator Bob Kosin and ZBA member Kurt Anderson, after lengthy dialog, conceded that under the amendment, a person could purchase a five-acre parcel and build a 2,000 square foot residence and an 8,000 square foot barn with no special use permit. Under the current codes, this is not allowed.
When discussion turned to the specific questions that the Village Board posed to the Zoning Board back in September, as we suspected, there are still unanswered questions including a comparison of the Anderson amendment and the others presented by residents. A link to that discussion can be found here.
When discussions ended, Anderson motioned to approve his proposed code changes, noting some further changes he had recently made, some of which some board members had not seen prior to the meeting. That recording, beginning with the prior vote on the findings, can be heard here.
To anyone who has attended meetings, listened to recordings or read transcripts, it is abundantly clear some members of the Zoning Board were never able to think beyond their conflicted views, nor were they able to consider viable options to satisfy all Barrington Hills residents. We believe this is because no proposal they could draft could ever pass without including one large commercial boarding operation: Oakwood Farms.
Throughout their many meetings and public hearings, had they been able to step out of their conflicted shoes and be objective representatives of the community, the solution to satisfy all residents– but one–was staring them right in their faces.
Non-equestrian residents fear new commercial boarding operations springing up next door without the protection of the special use permit process. Equestrians fear longtime boarding operations are in jeopardy without new regulations. The solution to satisfying all residents was successfully accomplished with the contentious Exterior Lighting Ordinance (ELO) just a few years ago, and it was included on one of the dismissed proposals from a resident.
The Village should require a special use permit for any new boarding facilities over a certain size going forward in our codes. This will satisfy non-equestrian residents. The Village can then exempt any existing boarding facilities that have had no complaints from the Village or from residents from the special use requirement.
Readers, regardless of their views, should see the logic in this fair approach benefiting all concerned. After all, has anyone heard of any complaints about the ELO at meetings since it was passed?
We haven’t, but as much as this approach to commercial horse boarding makes sense, it won’t halt a matter of private litigation between two residents which is already in court, and that seems to be the only goal of some members on our Zoning Board and of the majority of our Village Board who are most certainly poised to approve the Anderson amendment Monday night.
– The Observer