If the title of this piece sounds familiar, it should be. In May of 2014, we published a similarly titled editorial, “Here We Go Again. . . . Commercial Horse Boarding Drama Returns.” Click here to revisit it.
We’ve written numerous editorials about the seemingly incessant nearly decade–long debate on how Barrington Hills should regulate large-scale horse boarding– due primarily to misinformation circulated by a small faction of self-serving activists in our once peaceful community.
Since this same, timeworn misinformation is appearing again in social media now that the Zoning Board of Appeals is considering revisions to our boarding codes, we’d like to dispel what’s become “old nag’s tales” spun in websites, mailings and public hearings:
“Barrington Hills is an Equestrian Community” Only in 2005 was Barrington Hills branded as a rural equestrian community by the then newly elected village president in return for the Riding Club’s support of his campaign. The fact is Barrington Hills is a rural residential community that is equine friendly. However, the ability to keep horses is not what attracted most residents to our community.
A 2012 survey conducted by The Observer (seen here) showed 65% of residents moved to Barrington Hills for open space and privacy, while only 13% moved to Barrington Hills to keep horses. “Borrowing” our survey results, the 2015 “Save Open Space” (SOS) campaign committee tried to play on the motivations of the majority of residents who moved here for open space with rhetoric very similar to what we’re witnessing today.
“Barrington Hills was founded as an equestrian community” This is news to most, but nonetheless, false. Barrington Hills was incorporated in 1957 based on “A desire to retain the rustic landscape.”
In fact, the 1978 Barrington Hills Comprehensive Plan (seen here) only references the words horse, horses and horseback six times in the entire document, and horse boarding is never mentioned. And, the introduction of the 1978 plan described Barrington Hills as follows:
(Click on image to enlarge)
It’s also interesting to note that this 1978 plan encouraged a “safe and attractive system of pathways for walking, biking, horseback riding and cross-country skiing.” Clearly, times have changed.
The 1978 plan also cautions, “The possibility of pollution from animal wastes exists related to horses which are stabled in the lower portion of the reach,“ referring to an area, “west of the Spring Creek Nature Preserve between Lake-Cook Road to the north and Algonquin Road to the southwest.”
The 2008 Barrington Hills Comprehensive Plan mentions horse, horses and horseback eighteen times, but many of those references are cautionary regarding the environment and potential pollution to groundwater from the equines. And thirty years later, a warning of contamination from animal waste from horses stabled in that same area west of the Forest Preserve was reiterated.
As far as horse boarding is concerned, the 2008 plan makes no mention at all of horse boarding. NONE!
However, we believe, if properly regulated, boarding facilities can provide a benefit to residents seeking the pleasure of riding without the upkeep.
“Those favoring reasonable residential boarding codes are ‘anti-horse’ or ‘horse haters’” Ridiculous! Who among us in Barrington Hills doesn’t appreciate horses? We don’t know any – not one!
But many people have issues with the owners of the horses who choose to obfuscate their selfish behavior by capitalizing on the noble horse.
These ridiculous assertions fall flat when considering how some in social media seem to regard non-equestrians, as we opined in our 2015 editorial, “We’ve Been Clubbed by Commercial Horse Boarding.” Click here to revisit this piece, including many reader comments. Or, just click here to learn how non-equestrian homeowners are perceived by a current Barrington Hills Park District commissioner who is also president of the Barrington Hills Polo Club. The author has dismissed the outrage created by his essay, calling his piece “ironic”, yet his ilk finds nothing ironic about the current RJE debate.
“Our five-acre zoning depends on horses and boarding” This is another fallacy. Five-acre zoning in Barrington Hills is secured by our Comprehensive Plan and supporting Village Code. If we were four, three or two-acre zoned, the same claim would be made.
If five-acre zoning was ever threatened in our village history, it would likely have occurred in the mid-1970’s when village housing starts were at an all-time high, as were subdivision applications. Between building permits and subdivision plans, about 1,000 acres of property were protected by our five acre zoning at that time from developers wanting to build tract homes.
“Requiring special use permits for larger horse boarding operations mean the end of boarding in Barrington Hills” No it won’t. It just means boarding facilities over a certain size will need the approval of adjacent neighbors.
Under the 2014 boarding ordinance, a developer of a boarding facility can do just about whatever they wish, without any regard for neighboring property owners’ desires for peace, privacy or possible line of sight objections from their homes.
Considering that a homeowner must supply significant documentation to apply for a special use permit to construct even a small pond, it seems incomprehensible, and inconsistent that a large boarding operation can construct an arena larger than the size of the dwelling on a property and not be subject to such scrutiny.
“There have been no complaints under the new boarding codes” Well, when all the residential rights are stripped from people living adjacent to or near boarding facilities, so too are their grounds for complaints.
In order for a noise complaint to be addressed, the disturbance from the facility must be heard from inside the neighboring home. So, essentially, a neighbor is driven inside their house and is not free to enjoy their own property from their deck, or must keep their windows closed if the activity next door is too loud.
Plus, non-equestrian residents (and even some equestrians) are often discouraged from complaining, due to the overly aggressive and intimidating demeanor of many of the most zealous equestrians.
Summary: The time and energy to refute the misleading and false information we’ve described is of a far greater magnitude than it is for some in our community to spew it.
Unfortunately, as John Kass of the Chicago Tribune recently wrote, some people have no capacity for shame, so we’ll continue to endeavor to provide facts, not fiction, not fable and not nag’s tales.
-The Observer