Following is a copy of the remarks made by David Stieper at the September 23rd special Village Board meeting published with the permission of the author at the request of some of our readers:
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?
Barrington hills has always been zoned “residential R1-R4” and not commercial; with some minor exception none relevant here. Just take a look at our zoning map. To allow a business endeavor like horse boarding to trump residential zoning standards which have been in place in Barrington Hills for 42 years, amends our zoning code from “residential use” to mixed use “residential/commercial”.
Village government changed the paradigm of our code to commercial use in R1 zoning by legislative fiat rather than the statutory requirement of referendum; the latter action taken when our single purpose residential zoning code was adopted in 1977. If this board is inclined to allow the Anderson II Horse Boarding Ordinance to remain in our code, this should be done by vote of the people of Barrington Hills through referendum and not through the vote of a few volunteer elected officials; three of which who were materially conflicted and should have never participated in the process.
Like you, the previous village board took an “oath of office” to uphold and enforce our residential zoning code not change the substance of it from “residential use” to “residential use and something else.” From 1977, when the village code was adopted through the year 2006, boarding for a fee in Barrington Hills was not a permitted use. From 2006 to adoption of Anderson II, boarding for a fee was legal to a limited extent under the former home occupation ordinance, which provided boarding for a fee was legal so long as this business practice was sublime, not open and obvious to neighbors or the public at large.
Anderson II, not only allows boarding for a fee to be open and obvious, but provides when this business activity is in conflict with residential zoning standards – – boarding for a fee will prevail. Anderson II allows the business of horse boarding for a fee to the exclusion of residential zoning standards; the same residential standards which were granted to each and every one of us when we purchased our homes; whether we owned horses or not.
Anderson II is not an ordinance to be read in a vacuum standing alone simply creating a “new single use”; but is a rewrite of our entire zoning code changing us from zoning category “5-acre residential” to mixed use “residential and business” with the latter given priority when these two zoning uses converge.
When I moved here in 2000, the village zoning code treated equestrian activities as a hobby for those who enjoyed it and could afford it. 15 years later through adoption of Anderson II, we are told equestrian activities are no longer just a hobby but a business endeavor where residents are called upon to subsidize neighboring profiteers engaged in boarding through sacrifice of their individual residential zoning rights. Tell me, how does sacrificing “residential zoning standards” in a residential community like Barrington Hills for the sake of commercial enterprise help residential property values?
I am on the record in two elections for trustee supporting the business of boarding for a fee on larger properties; but under the guidelines of “special use” criterion where objective residential zoning standards remain paramount. For smaller boarding operations, we should reinstate the former home occupation ordinance which worked so well for so many over the years which Anderson II inexplicably took away from us.
“Special use” and “home occupation” is the only reasonable way to permit this or any business use in our residential community. All you have to do is see how other municipalities deal with desired “business activities” in “residentially zoned areas”. There is no municipality or county in any state in the united states (save Louisiana) which allows commercial endeavors like horse boarding to possess the designation “permitted use” in a residential zoned district; that is to say, until misguided Barrington Hills’ adoption of Anderson II.
I mean what I said before and is why I am here saying it again, if Anderson II is allowed to stand in present form as a “permitted use”, in time, Anderson II will lead to the destruction of 5 acre residential zoning in Barrington Hills.
Do not let supporters of Anderson II fool you!
You might in some municipalities or counties find horse boarding as a permitted use under the definition of “agriculture” when the municipality or county contains an “agriculture district” on its zoning map. Barrington Hills has no such district on its map. You will never find (except for Barrington Hills through adoption of Anderson II) horse boarding as a permitted use in geographical areas zoned exclusively residential.
For if you did, this would be an act of government malfeasance!
The board should do what former ZBA Chairman Judith Freeman recommended you to do in 2011, as the only approach for Barrington Hills; and that is zone larger scale horse boarding operations as a “special use”. Illinois courts support this approach; our village code supports this approach; in 2011, elected and appointed Barrington Hills political office holders supported this approach; And most importantly, the results of the last election demonstrate an overwhelming majority of Barrington Hills residents support this approach.
I close by saying: “Let’s be through with Anderson II!”
Read Full Post »
