We’ve had the opportunity to listen to the recordings from the September 23rd Special Village Board Meeting to hear public comment on whether to settle a suit filed against the Village over the Recent Commercial Horse Boarding code amendment. Additionally, we’ve read all the published written comments which were submitted (seen here).
Thirty-nine people provided comments for the board to review. None of them criticized horses, nor did they call for banning boarding in Barrington Hills. No one called for existing horse boarding operations to be shuttered, and not one complaint was voiced against a neighboring barn, so it’s fair to say current boarding operations (save for one) are not in peril in Barrington Hills based on this small sampling.
What those in favor of settling the lawsuit against the Village have in common, though, are serious issues with the Commercial Horse Boarding amendment. In fact, very few mentioned the suit at all except that it provided a means to revisit the legislation.
Those opposed to settling the suit mentioned it quite often, particularly naming one of the litigants in the matter, Jim Drury. A few people stated they believed there is some political favoritism going on with the settlement being considered, particularly on the part of the Village President, yet they failed to make any substantial case to support their accusations, since they are baseless.
And if the purpose of the speedy passage of the Commercial Horse Boarding amendment in four months (including five special Zoning Board meetings), was an effort to ease the minds of all the larger existing boarding operations, why did those owners not speak or submit written comments? Furthermore, why were the owners of those facilities not mentioned at all?
For lack of substantial arguments in favor of fighting the lawsuit, some, particularly five members of the failed Save Open Space (SOS) party and the former Village President, chose to use the podium that night for political purposes. President McLaughlin is to be commended for giving them a wide berth to let them vent their frustrations, which became abusive at times. Hopefully, they found some consolation in being allowed to vent their anguish while providing entertainment for some others in the audience.
What seems to be clear from all we’ve heard and read is that most residents would like some say in whether their neighbors can establish a horse boarding operation beyond just a stall or two for friends in an existing barn. This is why they cannot accept the Commercial Horse Boarding amendment, which allows anyone to do so without complying with the more stringent terms of current Home Occupation Ordinance or without a special use permit.
It’s our hope the Village Board repeals the Commercial Horse Boarding Amendment. They should then send the last recommendation for horse boarding proposed by the Zoning Board in 2011 (seen here), which did take many years to develop, to the Zoning Board and/or Plan Commission for further review and revision for passage.
-The Observer