Audio recordings from the January 17th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting are available for review on the Village website. Board members had two items on their agenda that evening.
The first item on the agenda was a review of possible agenda topics that the ZBA could take up for consideration at future meetings. Board members were in general agreement that they should at least engage in public discussion and review at a later time to determine:
- if special use permits should be required for events being held on private properties, as has been suggested in the past by ZBA member David Stieper.
- if only elected or appointed officials should be allowed to file proposals for zoning text amendments. Currently any village resident can file a text amendment for consideration. Concerns were expressed that continuing with present system could result in excessive expenditure of village resources.
- if regulation of structure heights should be added to the zoning code. Currently there are floor area ratio and setback restrictions, but heights are not addressed.
- if new regulations should determine the status of advertising signs put up by building and or landscape contractors on properties where they are currently performing work. Some of these signs tend to almost be permanent fixtures.
- what are the village’s procedures for follow up of identified zoning violations. Although enforcement is not the role of the ZBA, members expressed a need for clarification of the steps and process by which the Village addresses violations.
The second item on the ZBA agenda was the public hearing for a special use permit for construction of a boathouse for a residence at 61 Otis Road. The construction of the boathouse and pier would project into Hawley Lake, which is privately owned by adjacent homeowners. Testimony was heard from the project’s architect and the applicant homeowner, as well as from neighboring homeowners and the legal representative for three other homeowners who were in opposition to the project.
Concerns were voiced about the blocking of unobstructed lake views, disruption of the neighborhood’s serenity, disruption of the lake’s ecology and and long-maintained natural setting. Neighbors feared that approval of this permit would create a precedent for construction of other boathouses along the lake’s shores, forever changing the character of Hawley Lake.
Although the project seemed, for the most part, to comply technically with the Village’s zoning requirements, members of ZBA expressed concerns about superseding the neighborhood’s homeowner association (HOA) which has a long, albeit informal, tradition of maintaining minimal development and construction around the shared lake.
The ZBA’s attorney, Mary Dickson, advised the ZBA that the HOA can do nothing to prevent this project on their own because the HOA doesn’t have bylaws, hasn’t held an associational meeting, nor is one required. As a result, it is her opinion that it is solely up to the ZBA to determine if this special use is appropriate, and if it should recommend approval to the Board of Trustees.
During deliberations, members of the Zoning Board continued to be troubled about approving the special use permit without having the affirmation of the neighbors, and they expressed a strong desire for the applicants to meet with HOA and neighbors to see if they could work out a new boathouse plan which could satisfy all parties.
The ZBA voted unanimously to continue the consideration of the special use permit until their February 21st meeting.
The standard menu of edited recordings by topic from the meeting is currently not available, but readers may access the recordings at the village’s archiving source by clicking here
May I ask what is going on in Barrington Hills with this whole horse debacle and why? All I see is a bunch of grown-ups acting like children; wasting time, money and ruining the reputation of a very special horse community. It is sad and extremely pathetic!! My family moved to Barrington in 1971 because of the peaceful and supportive horse community that has always existed here. That is no longer the case and shame on all of you who have taken this away. Commercial horse boarding was never allowed and never questioned. If you did board horses, it was for friends and kept quiet. No big deal. My sister and I rode competivly and our trainer boarded our horses and his students horses outside of Barrington Hills yet we were still a part of the horse community. It was like a family. The LeCompte family now blows into town and purchases a horse property that is not zoned for a large, commercial equestrian facility. Is that surprising? The previous owners of the property moved and sold it to the LeComptes because they were told that they could not put a commercial equestrian facility on the property. So, my question now is, who are the LeComptes to think that they are special enough to do what Barrington Hills stopped the previous owner from wanting to do. Sickening!! STOP ALL OF THIS BARRINGTON HILLS and act like adults. Marty McLaughlin and all of your social, charity loving, party hoping buddies are ruining Barrington Hills. Go back to St.Charles and let the horse loving people of the community run Barrington Hills. That’s great that you have lowered taxes. WooHoo!! Barrington Hills IS about beautiful, open spaces for all of you newcomers who are trying to ruin this community with huge commercial barns and subdivisions. Hey Marty- let’s see more pictures of you doing some kind of a job instead of being pictured at parties with a drink in your hand. Again, it saddens me to see such a special place with so many great memories being ripped apart by incompetent people and money hungry, greedy fools. Elect people who actually care about Barrington Hills and bring it back to the wonderful, old, peaceful horse community that it once was.
P.S. I am also curious as to why Michelle Nagy Maison continues to state that she grew-up in Barrington Hills, riding and boarding horses. That is not true. Michelle grew-up in South Barrington playing tennis and maybe riding a bike. Never did I ever know of Michelle taking part in any equestrian activities. Thank you Barrington Hills for electing honest people.
You might want to do some fact checking before you post statements about honesty . I too moved to south Barrington in 1971 and then to Otis Road in Barrington Hills 5 years later when I was 10. We had our house on Otis Road for 20 years . I then moved back to Brinker Rd in 2001. As far as equestrian activities my family owned horses both in South Barrington and in our backyard in Barrington Hills. We used to board for free to give me the opportunity to ride. I grew up riding just never had a lesson. I’m not sure who you are but obviously do not know me well. I’m posting as myself as I am stating facts and do not appreciate comments like this . I was a member of both South Barrington Club and Barrington Hills Country Club and I really do enjoy tennis that part of your comment is true.
As far as your comment about the charity hopping group once again you might want to do your fact checking . We ( either the President , Trustees and their immediate families) have all been on committees and been involved heavily in these local charities. I have never been involved with a more dedicated group of people who put an incredible amount of time and energy behind the scenes on a regular basis to help these causes. I’m sorry you haven’t witnessed this and once again it’s obvious you don’t know us well but again please do your fact checking .
Sassy indeed. However, I think you have some of your facts mixed up, or at least “Who’s on first” mixed up (tossing it back to Abbott & Costello). Yes, Dr. LeComte put up a commercial barn which was cited by the Village, then under President Abboud, of being in violation of Village code and the Village spent over 100k in legal fees to defend the code and won its lawsuit against LeComte/Oakwood. Then former President Abboud realized this action was counter to the wishes of some influential people in the riding community so he wrote a ‘get of jail’ you’re magically in compliance letter for the property and had the clerk sign it for the Village Engineer (google Schuman letter for some fun) making LeComte/Oakwood ‘legal.’ Residents in the area then brought their own suit against LeComte/Oakwood asking a Cook County judge to enforce the Village Code since the Village wouldn’t do it. Then former President Abboud lost the 2013 election to now President McLaughlin and realizing the only way to protect LeComte/Oakwood was to stack the Zoning Board in favor of LeComte he (Abboud) made appointments to these commissions and boards at his last meeting just prior to the new president (McLaughlin) being sworn in. That new ZBA voted in favor of an ordinance that allowed for wide ranging commercial boarding activities, often cited as Anderson II (incidentally, it also made the ordinance retroactive seven years, thus presumably making all of LeComte/Oakwood’s prior activities legal) and their recommendation was brought to the Village Board (the one in place prior to Trustees Maison, Cecola & Croll winning the 2015 election) which had 5 members of the 7 member board having run on the former President Abboud’s slate. Trustee Konicek was the only vote against the ordinance (3 board members called a special meeting at a time when they knew President McLaughlin would be out of town). President McLaughlin had Trustee Konicek read a statement voicing his opposition to an ordinance allowing for commercial activity as well as one that interfered with a private lawsuit against neighbors. As a result, Anderson II became law 2014, after President McLaughlin’s veto of the original vote passing it was overturned by a supermajority of the Board, with President McLughlin and Trustee Konicek voting against it. In 2016 a proposed amendment to the village code was brought before the ZBA, the ZBA held several hearings and ultimately recommended to the BOT that Barrington Hills be returned to a residential setting with horse boarding being allowed under the Home Occupation Ordinance in the same manner it had been for years without issue or complaint, until LeComte/Oakwood came along. Both President McLaughlin and Trustee Maison voted in favor of returning the activity to Home Occupation, as did Trustees Konicek, Cecola & Croll, and the recommendation passed by a vote of 5 to 7. So, it seems you would be in favor of these actions by your apparent desire to keep “huge commercial barns and subdivisions” from destroying Barrington Hills’ “beautiful, open spaces.” Maybe I’m wrong, but if that’s the case, Marty’s your guy, and Michelle’s your gal!
Sassy, see this Observer article for a timeline: https://barringtonhillsobserver.com/2015/09/18/so-why-is-the-village-being-sued-again-over-commercial-horse-boarding/
*Should read: “Both President McLaughlin and Trustee Maison voted in favor of returning the activity to Home Occupation, as did Trustees Konicek, Cecola & Croll, and the recommendation passed by a vote of 5 to 2.”
There is truth to Sassylady in one respect namely her request to act like adults. The horseboarding issue is but one of many ‘injustices’ here in Barrington Hills especially when one has to file suit to enforce village codes. And that same inequity still exists under the McLaughlin administration if not more. That will be exposed soon – plausibible deniability Michelle – remember that term.