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:
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
Excellent piece. Thank you.
thank you for the facts not idle fiction. Perception on any issue is just one person’s interpretation and not necessarily pure fact.
I don’t understand how anyone with a conscience can advocate for rules that would upset or contradict the ordinances which support 5 acres zoning and no commercial business at home-sites. Large scale horse boarding is so obviously a business and brings dramatic conflicts to the zoning that has been the hallmark of this town for such along time. Those who for whatever reason, think that subterfuge and misinformation can overwhelm the rest of us who want peace and tranquility, have been defeated before and will be again. But we have to be visible, clear and be loudly heard, to keep this push to commercialize/normalize the horse boarding businesses here from becoming the new standard.
SAY WHAT!
“However, several properties have attempted to operate commercial scale equestrian operations on properties not zoned for this activity. The Village has enforced this area of zoning code in the past and will continue to do so in the future. The effort ensures the protection of surrounding properties, protects health and safety, and prevents traffic congestion.”
(Former VBH Pres. Robt. G. Abboud, The Village of Barrington Hills Newsletter dated February 2008.)
The above statement was made by former VBH Pres. Robt. G. Abboud 3 years before the 3 illegal-secret LeCompte-Oakwood Farm campaign donations to Abboud’s “Save 5 Acres” political teammates of Messer, Meroni and Selman totaling $15,000.00 and 3 years and 34 days before Abboud’s issuance of the illegal Schuman Letter.
Not quite fitting into the “VBH landowners have always been able to do what they want” comment given by Robt Abboud Sr. to the VBH BOT last month.
Be suspicious of certain commercial boarding profiteers and vocal relative newcomers to Barrington Hills who in the past have hitched their wagon to this “Judas of the Public Trust” putting down their campaign checkbooks for now, instead, opting to use this same pen to wax “revisionist history” when it comes to “horse boarding for a fee” in VBH.
There is a wide gap between Horse Sense and Common Sense!
That damn record keeps getting in the way of a good story!
“In 2005, the ZBA recommended and the Board of Trustees approved changes to the Home Occupation Ordinance which allowed horse boarding as a home occupation. While we considered simply allowing all boarding operations to operate as home occupations, we felt that this was not the best approach. Larger boarding operations can have impacts on the surrounding properties. In these circumstances, we are recommending that larger boarding operations should be required to obtain a Special Use Permit. The special use permit requirement would allow the community to have some involvement in whether such operations are appropriate at the particular location and, if so, under what conditions they should operate. As a result, we are suggesting that those facilities that board ten (10) horses or more be regulated as Special Uses. We discussed at length requiring stables or barns of a certain size to also obtain Special Use Permit, but in the end determined that was burdensome and potentially overreaching.
We feel that the attached proposal represents a good balance between preserving and protecting the equestrian nature of the Village while taking into account the concerns of residents who might be impacted by larger boarding facilities.”
(Former VBH ZBA Chairman Judith Freeman in a letter dated July 20, 2011 to former President Robt. G. Abboud and his “Save 5 Acres” VBH BOT majority with courtesy copy to each member of ZBA explaining that consensus reached by ZBA when it came to horse boarding for a fee in VBH.)
The above statement was made by former VBH ZBA Chairman Judith Freeman about 5 months after the 3 illegal-secret LeCompte-Oakwood Farm campaign donations to Abboud’s “Save 5 Acres” political teammates of Messer, Meroni and Selman totaling $15,000.00 and about 4 months after Abboud’s issuance of the illegal Schuman Letter.
Trustee Fritz Gohl and former ZBA Chairman Judith Freeman are on the record as strong proponents for Special Use when it comes to horse boarding for a fee in Barrington Hills.
Completely agree your report; please continue your good work and protect most of barrington hills residents completely fed up with these horse boarders.
Dear Residents;
As a majestic village of eclectic interests and affluent people we are a perfect target for carpet baggers from outside and particularly from within.
There is so much potential to make the “fast buck” at the expense of residents life styles that I’m sure the idea has been discussed extensively. I’m suprised we lasted as long as we have and still remained semi-intact.
When you purchase a potential commercial horse property, out side of Barrington Hills and name it Barringtoh Hills Farms, a red flag should should be in evidence. If said property were to be re-annexed back into the village its value would sky rocket and its commercial potential would be nearly unlimited. All of this at the cost of our laconic life styles!
BEWARE!
Mr. Stieper and others summarize allegations of wrongdoing in the zoning process leading to the change of our code in 2014. They remind us that BH was originally R-1 zoned for residential use with unique attributes of Open Spaces. The Home Occupation Ordinance defined allowable exceptions and with Special Use, but with rights for adjacent neighbors through Home Occupation.
Three questions:
1. Why did the ZBA in 2014 change the R-1 code to permit commercial boarding without special use requirement, define excessive allowance of horses per acre (2), increase hours of commercial activity (6AM to 9 AM, 7 days a week), expand equestrian building floor area ratio allowances (unlimited) …, and eliminate Home Occupation protections?
2. In a letter to the BOT dated July 20, 2011, Chairperson Freeman recommended Home Occupation and Special Use stating allowance of commercial horse boarding. What changed in the Village to cause the 2014 Text Amendment and Ms. Freeman to reverse her position? (Other than Appellate Court decisions affecting Oakwood Farms?)
3. Allegations of wrong doing in the process include conflicts of interest, ZBA members refusing to vacate expired seats, illegal submission of the “Schuman letter”, etc. Why don’t those accused repudiate these allegations, including in this comment section?
A resident offered input included in Monday’s meeting packet. He states: “Is it the business of this Village government to step in the middle of this [LeCompte/Drury] dispute? No. Should the Village by legislation choose the winner of their dispute? No.” Furthermore, he states: “It is not the function of a Village government to choose sides in a private dispute between neighbors.” I agree.
Then why did the Village act to pass the Text Amendment in 2014 with a 7 year retroactive provision? Is that Legal? Why else would the ZBA include a 7 year retroactive provision other than to solely protect Oakwood Farms and for the benefit of the Riding Club – expanding commercial operations in the Village?