Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Barrington Hills Farm’ Category

Audio recordings from the September 26th Village Board of Trustees regular monthly meeting are available for review on the Village website.  To access the menu of edited recordings by agenda topic, click here.

One resident made remarks during public comment regarding the condition of a property at the corner of Braeburn and Spring Creek Roads, which can be heard here.

The board then spent roughly twenty minutes reviewing the minutes from their prior meeting.  Most of the discussion related to how detailed the minutes should be, since audio recordings are kept in perpetuity as backup for details of what transpired in any given meeting, but it seems some (or one board member) prefers their statements be as detailed as possible in the minutes as can be heard here.

Moving on to Finance and approval of the monthly bills, discussion revealed legal and managerial expenses related to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests were high again.  Oakwood Farm, LLC and Barrington Hills Farm contributed to the increased expenditures again last month coming in well over $9,000.

Additionally, a former member of the board also added to the legal financial burden with his requests for Open Meetings Act (OMA) investigations filed with the Illinois Attorney General’s office.  When the response to his first request did not meet with his satisfaction, he apparently filed an appeal, further adding to our legal expenses.

Citing this and other instances, attorney Patrick Bond was then asked by Trustee Konicek at what point the requestor might be required to pay for the expense rather than the taxpayer being saddled with the outlay.  Konicek’s questions and Bond’s responses can be heard here.

Later in the meeting the board took up a recommendation for amended codes from the Heritage & Environs Committee (HEC) pertaining to how trash must be contained in their “Refuse Lid Ordinance (RLO).”  Their recommendation would require all refuse to be placed in containers with hinged lids. Failure to comply will result in a fine of $50.

The intention of the HEC proposal was to alleviate trash being strewn along Village roads when plastic garbage bags either fail or animals tear into them before pickup.  A copy of their proposal can be viewed here.

Trustee Gohl motioned to approve the proposed HEC ordinance.  When asked how it would be enforced, Gohl stated, “Well, you have obviously the trash Nazi running up and down the road,” as can be heard here.

After some discussion, board members decided to survey residents prior to moving forward, and they tabled the proposal to a later meeting.  The recording of the full discussion of the HEC proposal can be heard here.

The next regular meeting of the Board of Trustees is scheduled for October 24th.

Read Full Post »

Partial audio recordings* from the Sept. 20th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting at Countryside Elementary School are available for review, however the quality of the recordings is very poor.  This likely contributed to the fact that the only recording available is the meeting in its entirety, and not edited by meeting agenda topic.

The meeting began with member David Stieper withdrawing his motion from the August 30th meeting.  He stated he was doing so “for the sake of simplicity.”  From what we can gather, the better path was to vote on the amendment before them as originally proposed, and not amend it, as Stieper had previously moved.

In the discussion that ensued, it appears the direction some on the Zoning Board wished to pursue was twofold:

  • Restore boarding codes to pre-2015 language, or the Home Occupation Ordinance, and
  • Draft new codes based on historical information already gathered and new information available

One member stated they had reviewed the “Anderson II”/”LeCompte/Anderson” language and stated the longer it stays on the books the more problematic it may become due to multiple “loopholes” and “ambiguities” in the drafting. 

Another member chose to take the matter entirely away from the topic of horse boarding when they stated, “I think what it comes down to is, are we a residential community or a commercial community?  I think everyone sitting here would agree first, and foremost, we are a residential community.”

We strongly encourage readers to listen to his full remarks on the matter by clicking here.

Multiple members also concurred that smaller or “backyard” boarding operations should be left alone for the most part, as should most of the larger scale “commercial” boarding businesses.

After an hour (as measured by the recording) of discussion, member Stieper made a fairly detailed motion to effectively repeal the current, newly enacted horse boarding codes and revert back to the Home Occupation Ordinance management of boarding.  His motion can be heard here.

Once his motion was seconded, he handed out printed copies of new language for the board to review before their next meeting in October.  This contrasts greatly with what occurred at the September 2014 Zoning Board meeting when a new amendment draft (Anderson II) was distributed and voted upon at the same meeting, before some board members had an adequate opportunity to review and consider it.

To access the recording of the full meeting, click here.

The Zoning Board will meet on October 17th at 6:30 PM at Countryside Elementary School to discuss this latest proposed horse boarding amendment.

*According to the Village website, only a portion of the meeting was recorded, presumably due to some technical malfunction.  The recording of the unanimous vote to not accept the proposed Drury commercial horse boarding text amendment apparently was among the missing recordings.

Perhaps since some of the recordings are barely audible at times, the Village might consider publishing the transcript of the meeting at some future date.  

Read Full Post »

Friday FlashbackFollowing are some of the articles published by The Observer for the month of September in recent years. These articles, gathered from various publications and editorials, are noteworthy for residents in that they remind us of where we’ve been as a community.

Appellate court sides with Barrington Hills on horse boarding issue – 2011

The village of Barrington Hills has the authority to regulate horse boarding on residential property, according to a recent appellate court ruling that could end at least one part of three-year legal fight over a local horse farm.

Barrington Hills residents Cathleen and Benjamin LeCompte sued the village last year, challenging its jurisdiction over their Oakwood Farms, located on a residentially zoned 130-acre site along Bateman Road.

The couple appeared before Barrington Hills’ zoning board of appeals in August 2008, arguing that the operation — which features a barn large enough to house 60 horses and 110 acres of riding space — is an agricultural use outside the village’s ability to regulate. The zoning board disagreed, and a Cook County court later sided with the village.

Read the full Daily Herald article here.

Zoning Board approves horse boarding text amendment – 2014

The Zoning Board of Appeals met last Thursday evening to discuss, and possibly recommend, one of four horse boarding text amendment proposals that they had heard testimony and public comment on during previous meetings.  By the end of the meeting, the board narrowly approved a text amendment, but it was not one of the four that had been previously been heard by the board and had never before been made available to residents for comment.

Read the original Observer commentary with 33 reader comments here.

Barrington Hills board debates horse boarding plan – 2014

Barrington Hills trustees sent a controversial horse boarding plan back to the village’s zoning board Monday night for clarification on 11 points before they take a vote.

The board’s action came after more than 2½ hours of public comment and board discussion before a large group of residents in the Countryside Elementary School gymnasium.

Critics of the plan, which would allow landowners to board three horses for each acre of property, said it did not receive the proper scrutiny of the zoning board.

Revisit one of the most commented stories ever here.

So why is the Village being sued (again) over commercial horse boarding? – 2015

The simple answer to the question of why we’re being sued is that some elected and appointed Village officials put us in this position last December when they approved a commercial horse boarding amendment to our code which clearly favored one party over another in a private lawsuit that did not involve our Village.

In order to fully understand the rationale behind the suit, residents need to understand the history of one commercial horse boarding operation in the Village that has, in our opinion, consumed an inordinate amount of time, energy and taxpayers’ money for too long now.

Read or revisit the full Observer editorial with reader comments here.

Commercial horse boarding amendment commentary – 2015

When you get right down to brass tacks, the seven of you are called upon to decide whether 5-acre residential zoning standards will be the “only consideration” concerning “development” and “use” on parcels of land in Barrington Hills zoned R-1 (5 acres) or will these residential zoning standards take a “back seat” to commercial enterprise when this enterprise takes the form of “horse boarding for a fee”; on any scale; large or small?

Read this guest essay from a year ago here.

* * * * * * * * *

Editor’s note: Since 2009, 223 articles have been categorized with a reference tag of “Commercial Horse Boarding” including this one in The Observer.

By any measure, this is far too many, and it is our fervent hope the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Trustees can finally come to an agreement in the near future on regulations for horse boarding that all residents can live with for decades to come.  This semi-annual (and sometimes annual) unnecessary dispute between residents is a senseless waste of time and energy, and only serves to continue to divide our community.

-The Observer

Read Full Post »

Audio recordings from the August 30th Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing regarding a text amendment proposal for horse boarding codes have been released.  The menu of recordings edited by agenda topic from the meeting can be accessed by clicking here.

This third and final hearing held by the Zoning Board on the matter included two hours and forty-five minutes of testimony.  Since this process began in July, the ZBA has heard a total of seven hours of testimony, including what can only be described as an hour of filibustering by the owner of Oakwood Farms at the end of the latest hearing.

Throughout this hearing process, board members have heard very few specific amendment recommendations related to the proposed text amendment, aside from, “It’s too restrictive” or “We don’t like it.” This provided little, if any, guidance for them to make changes to improve it.

As a matter of fact, not one person who testified suggested any modifications to the language itself.

However, board members also heard that the LeCompte/Anderson, or “Anderson II” codes are too liberal leaving neighbors with few, if any, options to protect their peace and privacy, especially should a new boarding and training facility be built next door without anyone asking of they would approve of such a facility.

But what was clearly evident is that many residents felt the Village had no business entertaining any petitions from residents who were currently involved in active court proceedings related to horse boarding.  A number of attorneys, whether residents, or those advising our Board of Trustees, consistently and strongly recommended that the Village not tamper with codes related to a private lawsuit.

Instead of heeding these cautions, the ZBA which was presiding in 2014 marginally approved the LeCompte/Anderson amendment, and then in 2015 by a majority of the Board of Trustees, including three trustees who are no longer on the board,  despite a presidential override of the ill-advised legislation.

Once it was confirmed that everyone who had wished to testify had had their say in the matter, the chair then adjourned the public hearing and opened the public meeting to entertain comments from the members of the Zoning Board.

There was one procedural question regarding the disposition of the amendment, and then about a twenty-minute recap of the history, both good and bad, behind the history of how Barrington Hills has handled, and mishandled, horse boarding zoning codes for over ten years was provided by David Stieper.

His commentary, opinions and citations of Village and court records can be heard here.  Once he concluded his remarks, Stieper then made the following motion:

“The Drury Amendment be adopted to the limited extent that the former Home Occupation Ordinance, which has served this Village so well in recent years, be fully reinstated into the Village Code, and that all other language in the Drury Amendment be rejected for now, and that all language in the Village Code constituting the 2014 Anderson II boarding amendment be rejected, removed from the code and held for naught.  In other words, I move that our Village Code as it relates to horse boarding be restored to that it was in year 2011.”

His motion was seconded, however due to the time limits on the use of the room, the discussion and vote was continued to the next meeting of the Zoning Board scheduled for September 20th at Countryside Elementary School at 6:30 PM.

Read Full Post »

Audio recordings from the August 29th Village Board of Trustees meeting have been posted to the Village website.  To access the menu of edited recordings by agenda topic, click here.

Three residents made public comments at the beginning of the meeting.  The comments ranged from a complaint regarding an abandoned home at Braeburn and Spring Creek Roads (heard here), to the Village Tree Ordinance (heard here), and the upcoming hearing on the environmental study of the Longmeadow Parkway project (heard here).

Alice Runvik was then presented an award for 25 years of service to the Barrington Hills Police Department, and the presentation can be heard here.  Alice was unable to attend the previous month’s meeting when awards were presented, and we congratulate her on her milestone of service to our community.

Unfortunately, after this high note of recognition and applause, Trustee Mike Harrington found it necessary to interrupt the proceedings with a point of order regarding the evening’s agenda.  It seems he and Trustee Gohl (or more likely their handlers outside of the boardroom) had requested the agenda to include, “a discussion and vote on whether we should have a public hearing to consider removing Jan Goss from the ZBA.”  He cited a petition including only 102 signatures as the basis for their request.

In the thirteen-minute discussion that ensued, Harrington’s best efforts to create more of the political theater residents are weary of fell flat.

President McLaughlin had asked Gohl (who made the first request) if he had contacted the chairman of the Zoning Board to discuss the matter, and Gohl had not.  McLaughlin explained that it is the Zoning Board chairman’s position to bring forth any issues, and since neither Gohl nor Harrington had afforded the chair the courtesy of input, rather than usurp the chair’s authority, McLaughlin decided not to place the matter on the agenda.

Attorney Patrick Bond then explained it is within the president’s authority to set the agendas of the Board of Trustee meetings per our Village Code, but he also told Harrington he could make a motion to discuss, but not vote on, the matter if he wished.  Harrington declined take advantage of this opportunity for discussion (since Gohl was absent from yet another meeting), instead choosing to protest and waste taxpayer’s money by demanding a written opinion from Bond.

What was not discussed is the fact that Village employee personnel matters are never discussed in public session.  They are always conducted in executive session.  Yet Harrington and Gohl did not want to afford a private citizen the same courtesy, clearly looking to grill a volunteer resident in their proposed public forum.  We find this disgraceful and ill-considered —  no matter whose idea it was.

The recording of this discussion can be heard here, and for the record, we’re told Mr. Goss was in attendance at the meeting.  It’s unknown if any political “handlers” made an appearance, however, but we doubt it.

When the business before the board resumed, the meeting became more productive.

The Village Treasurer reported during the finance report that expenditures are below budget.  She also reported that building permit revenue is “way up” from last year, perhaps indicating the slow housing economy that has dogged Barrington Hills is finally showing some promise.

On the downside, however, she stated Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) expenses are “way over” budget for this year, to the tune of 140%, including $23,000 for the prior month alone in legal fees. 

When asked for some explanation during the review of the bills for the expense increase, Patrick Bond reported, “We have received a number of FOIA’s and voluminous requests from Barrington Hills Farm, ah, J.R. Davis was the requestor (see “Barrington Hills Farm”) and also from, ah, Dr. LeCompte (Oakwood Farm).”  That recording can be heard here.

Later in the meeting, the board approved amended and restated code related to the Tree Preservation Ordinance as proposed by the Plan Commission after nearly a year’s worth of work by that body.  The new code has not yet been posted to the Village website, but those interested can check back at a later date by accessing this link.

During the Administration report, trustees were informed that the necessary updates to Village Hall, such as paint, carpeting and bringing bathrooms up to ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) standards is estimated to cost approximately $68,000.  After some discussion, the board voted to begin “refreshing” the interior of Village Hall.

The next meeting of the Village Board is scheduled for September 26th.

Editor’s Note:  This review of these recordings marks the 2,000th article published in the Barrington Hills Observer.  We would like to express our thanks to our readers for their continued support, and look forward to providing timely news services to the residents of Barrington Hills in the future.

Read Full Post »

The Village has released audio recordings from the August 15th Zoning Board of Appeals continued public hearing regarding proposed amendments to commercial horse boarding codes.  The menu of edited recordings by agenda topic can be accessed here.

Before the hearing began, Dr. Gwynne Johnston, chair of the Board of Health, made a brief presentation on the board’s positions on horse boarding and well water quality.  A copy of his presentation can be read here, or the audio recording can be heard here.

The Board of Health has begun a long-term study of water samples from nine wells throughout the Village, beginning with baseline sampling for long-term tracking of any changes to water quality, due to any number of factors, including horse keeping and boarding.

While their focus has been on “sub-surface” water, however, Gewalt Hamilton has been studying the Flint and Spring Creek waterways in Barrington Hills, and their February 2016 report to Bob Kosin, Village Administrator, indicated water testing levels above acceptable limits for fecal coliform, phosphorus, etc., as depicted below:GH Creek Water Testing

A copy of the complete Gewalt Hamilton surface water testing report can be viewed here.  We suggest that the Board of Health participate in this ongoing study as well, since it’s unclear what Mr. Kosin does with these reports.

The next person to speak was John Blackburn of Blackburn Architects, the firm that designed the proposed HARPS facility in unincorporated McHenry County for the developers of Barrington Hills Farm.  The chair allowed him to speak next since he was purportedly scheduled to return to Washington, D.C. (However, he remained in attendance for the entire meeting.)

Blackburn provided a summary of his experience and his philosophies for designing equestrian facilities which must include the health needs of the horse, the needs of the owner and must meet the demands of the site where the facility is to be built.

At no point did he mention consideration of surrounding properties.  Similarly, his design of the HARPS facility calls for parking stalls for ten horse trailers near a northern border of the development  — closest to the neighboring Barrington Hills residential properties, as seen here.

When Blackburn concluded his remarks, a ZBA member asked his opinion on how much space is needed for horses in order to have a “successful horse facility?”  Blackburn responded, “Generally the rule of thumb is an acre per horse,” but stressing that each property is different.  That exchange can be heard here.

Later on, Blackburn was asked the same question, but with more qualifications such as if the horse is fed grain and other nutrients such that they aren’t reliant on grazing on grasses for sustenance, would his one acre rule of thumb apply, and he answered with a qualified “yes” as can be heard here.

When the public hearing was opened, the first person to speak was the chairman of Barrington Hills Farm.  During his testimony, he stated, “Barrington Hills Farm invested significant money and effort based on the village’s identity as an equestrian community and the current ordinances in the village code.”

By “current ordinances,” we assume he referred to the LeCompte/Anderson code.

He went on to state, “Both the village’s longstanding image as an equestrian community and Barrington Hills Farm’s purpose in acquiring land in Barrington Hills will be devastated by the proposed amendment.” Both statements can be heard here.

When a board member asked him when the Barrington Hills Farm property was purchased, he replied, “I don’t have an exact date.”  When asked if it was prior to 2015, he responded, “Oh, hell, I don’t know.”  The recording of this exchange can be heard here.

The McHenry County records show most, if not all, of the property titles that make up Barrington Hills Farm were transferred on September 29th and 30th of 2014.  One can assume negotiations and closure of the sale of those properties occurred at least a month or more prior to those dates.

The LeCompte/Anderson horse boarding code was not approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals until early December of 2014, and it was not passed by the Board of Trustees until February of 2015.  As a matter of fact, in early September of 2014, the Zoning Board was still considering four separate boarding text amendments before them from four residents according to records.

And, as we’ve previously written, most of the 602 acre Barrington Hills Farm property is in unincorporated McHenry County, and Barrington Hills codes do not apply to the present or future development plans of his organization.

The balance of the nearly two and a half hour meeting revealed nothing new to report.  It was too much more of “he said, she said” banter that’s really unproductive, so much so, that even those in the audience who are allies of a given speaker are even telling them to sit down.

What is clearly evident is some in our community are attempting to stall the progress of the Zoning Board, and most are now becoming weary of it.  We’re aware of why some are stretching this out, and we’ll be reporting the reason at a future date.

In the meantime, the next meeting of the Zoning Board is scheduled for Tuesday, August 30th at 6:30 PM at Countryside Elementary School.

Read Full Post »

microphoneThe Zoning Board of Appeals will holding a meeting tonight at Countryside Elementary School to continue their public hearing from August 1st regarding a proposed amendment to commercial horse boarding codes.  The meeting begins at 7:30 PM, and a copy of the full agenda, including updated written comments for consideration by the board, can be viewed and downloaded here.

Read Full Post »

Twain FoolNow that the Zoning Board of Appeals has begun to consider amending regulations of commercial horse boarding and training in Barrington Hills, we’re noticing the same “timeworn misinformation” surfacing in blogs and comments to the Zoning Board, which we shared in a recent editorial titled, “Here we go again”.

This misinformation is emanating from a small, but raucous group of resident and non-resident equestrians.  And, unfortunately, this has made it very difficult for other homeowners living in the village to determine what to believe amidst all of the noise, so we decided to do some factual research to set the record straight.

We reviewed meeting minutes from Village archives dating back to 1957 in search of some facts and discovered the following information excerpted from the minutes of an April 25, 1960, meeting of the Board of Trustees (seen here):

     “The President [Andrew Dallstream] advised the board that he and Mr. Harold Smith, Trustee, had visited the Countryside Riding School on Bateman and Penny Roads, had examined their facilities and discussed the operation of the school with the manager.  After a resume of the importance of horsemanship to the community, the President asked for a report from the Zoning Committee. 

[Trustees] Mr. Delmar Olson and Mr. Stresen-Reuter then reported they had also visited the school and had found the facilities adequate, the plan of operation satisfactory, but that it was a riding school for profit.   Mr. Canby [Village Attorney] advised that it is his considered opinion that a school for profit is not an agricultural pursuit and that therefore the Countryside Riding School is in violation of the zoning ordinance of Barrington Hills. 

Mr. Stresen-Reuter asked Mr. Albert F. Moore and Dr. M. J. Thompson, whose properties are near the school, to express their views.  Both Mr. Moore and Dr. Thompson said they are against any violation of the zoning ordinance.  Mr. Grigsby, chairman of the Zoning Committee, asked them to submit a formal written complaint, at which time the Village will advise the Countryside Riding School that they are in violation of the village statutes and order them to cease and desist.” 

Two months later, the village attorney reported, “… the Countryside Riding School was no longer in operation,” during the June 19, 1960 Board of Trustees meeting.

But how could this happen way back then?  Couldn’t equestrians do nearly anything they wished as some residents are being led to believe today?

After all, this was 1960 Barrington Hills!  There were only 1,726 residents at that time and much of Barrington Hills land was still being farmed, so neighbors were likely distant from the school.  And Andrew Dallstream (“Andy” as the SOS Party referred to him) supposedly founded Barrington Hills to be, “Dedicated to an equestrian lifestyle,” (according to a post on the SOS Party’s Facebook page in April 2015), so what changed his mind?

Clearly the answer is that the founders of Barrington Hills did not approve of commercial businesses in our village, and considering their decision regarding the aforementioned riding school in 1960, they would not have agreed with anything remotely similar to the current Anderson/LeCompte Commercial Horse Boarding Ordinance – regardless of the acknowledged “importance of horsemanship to the community”.

Some may wonder if we’re advocating the closure of existing commercial boarding and training facilities in the Village based on this historical precedent, and the answer is NO.  Sometime after 1960, someone “left the barn door open” to large-scale boarding.  However, we do fervently believe the Village should regulate any proposed new facilities.

-The Observer

Read Full Post »

Phantom Developer

The Zoning Board of Appeals will be holding a continuation of their July meeting this evening at 7:30 PM at Countryside Elementary School.  Tonight’s meeting will include a public hearing followed by a board discussion of a proposed amendment to the current commercial horse boarding codes. A copy of the agenda, including reference documents, can be viewed here.

Many residents have reported they received a form letter over the weekend urging them to attend the meeting.  The letter (seen here) came from a resident who wrote, “Some months ago a clique of [unnamed] area residents associated with [undocumented] high density commercial housing development initiated a subtle, but strategic campaign to defeat and dismantle the statutory defenses that preserve the character of the Village of Barrington Hills.”

As we illustrated in our recent editorial,Here we go again,” playing the unsubstantiated “developer” card has become extremely wearisome to most residents after so many years. 

If “high density commercial housing development,” is the motivation behind the currently proposed amendment, then where was this letter writer’s outcry when recommendations from both the Equestrian Commission (seen here) and an equestrian-laden Zoning Board of Appeals (seen here) advocated very similar guidelines for commercial horse boarding under a previous administration back in 2011?  

In fact, there was little, if any, uproar from the equestrian community at that time, so why is the sky suddenly falling now? 

Frankly, we think residents are too savvy to fall for the incessant cries of “wolf” such as this latest one in every election cycle and every time prudent commercial horse boarding codes are being considered.

However, since he raised the topic of commercial residential development, we’d like to pass along something we recently ran across that should be of interest to residents.

It seems Barrington Hills Farm (whose chairman happens to be the aforementioned letter writer) has engaged a website developer to promote, “600 acres of pristine, undeveloped land located at Haegers Bend and Spring Creek Roads at the northwestern most corner of Barrington Hills,” as depicted below (please click on the image to enlarge for better viewing):

BHF Splash Cropped

We found it interesting that this prototype website (click here to view it) is grouped with other sites under development promoting businesses and commercial developments in Chicago in a staging web address as seen here, so perhaps the chair of Barrington Hills Farm would like to share their development plans sometime sooner than later with residents.

Read Full Post »

OMG

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)

(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

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »