The latest horse boarding text amendment proposal prepared by Kurt Anderson will be subject to a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals on Tuesday evening. We’ve previously documented most of the highlights of his proposal and those can be viewed in a previous article here.
We take exception to many aspects of this latest proposal, including:
Expanded operating hours: Employees are permitted to work from 6:00 AM to 9:00 PM, including weekends. Boarding customers can make use of the facility or receive training from 7:00 AM to 8:30 PM every day, and it can be assumed most of the work and training will occur outdoors most of the year. Machinery can be used from 7:00 AM to 9:00 PM.
These far exceed the current hours generally prescribed under the Home Occupation Ordinance allowed of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM.
Horse density: While Anderson’s proposal has limits to the number of boarded horses to 2 horses per acre on ten or more acres to one on smaller properties, it still doesn’t limit the total number of horses allowed on any R-1 property. This differs significantly from nearly all “equestrian communities” in the Chicagoland area and horse rescue organizations where a limit of one horse per acre, boarded or owned, is enforced, and when it comes to differentiation, how is the Village zoning officer to discern a boarded horse from one that is owned?
Comprehensive Plan adherence: ZBA chair Judith Freeman expressed her vehement desire that any amendment to the horse boarding and keeping codes support the Village Comprehensive Plan. Excerpts from the plan related to keeping of horses include:
- “Keep the size of intensively used areas [for horses] small to help reduce the volume of polluted water.”
- “Avoid soil compaction and excessive removal of vegetation by timing the use of pastures and controlling the number of horses.”
Anderson’s proposed amendment will not address these issues, since there are no guidelines for the overall ratio of space to be used for horse keeping compared to the gross property acreage.
Retroactivity: Anderson’s amendment calls for retroactive application if enacted to June 26, 2006. Clearly this seems to be for the benefit of one large-scale boarding operation currently involved in litigation with its neighbors, namely Oakwood Farm.
Public interest: Three other boarding proposals submitted by residents were dismissed a vote by the Zoning Board, ostensibly because they did not represent the good of the public interest. They were the Drury, Elder/Riding Club and Hammond proposals, and Anderson initiated motions to dismiss all three.
We’d like to remind Mr. Anderson, members of the Zoning Board and our readers of the results of our 2012 resident survey when we asked participants what their motivation was to move to Barrington Hills:
Click on image to enlarge
The overwhelming response to this survey question was open spaces drew residents to Barrington Hills.
Yet the Anderson amendment allows for the size of the stable or barn to exceed that of the dwelling to maximize capacity for horses, thus, presumably increasing the fenced area of a typical five-acre property.
A quarter of respondents moved here for privacy. Anderson’s amendment will only protect those property owners for nine hours a day per year. The rest of the day, neighbors will be subjected to customers and employees of the boarding businesses with no recourse.
Thirteen percent stated they moved here to keep horses. (And should anyone question the response opinions, a link to the 2012 open survey was sent directly to every Riding Club of Barrington Hills resident member from their directory of that year.)
So, where must we go from here and what conclusions do we have?
Our Zoning Board needs to stop rushing to quick, reactive fixes benefiting a minority of commercial horse boarding facilities, whether the fixes are meant to help with their private legal matters or to eliminate uncertainty of their futures, perceived through misinformation.
Further, the ZBA either needs to rely on the vast, pragmatic information that has been submitted to them by residents, or to do research using their own resources or those of the Board of Health, Plan Commission or an independent ad hoc body to provide balanced guidance.
In other words, a sound approach needs to be taken, beginning with creating a process that will ensure the resulting codes are supportive of the Comprehensive Plan, and more importantly, one that all residents can live with. Failure to do so will only protract this divisive issue in our Village for years to come.
– The Observer
Read Full Post »
The Village has released audio recordings from the December 9th meeting of our Board of Health. The menu to the topical recordings from the meeting can be accessed here.
