Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Audio Recordings’ Category

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 »

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 »

Audio recordings from the August 1st Zoning Board of Appeals public hearing regarding a proposed text amendment to commercial horse boarding codes have been posted to the Village website.  To access the menu of edited recordings by agenda item, click here.

The hearing lasted just over two hours and fifteen minutes.  It would likely have lasted much longer, but the multipurpose room at Countryside Elementary School was only available until 10:00 PM.

We’ve reviewed the recordings entirely, and after a certain point, it became readily apparent that accurately summarizing what transpired during the entire meeting would be too long for readers to endure.  Indeed, after an hour and a half we felt like the crew assigned to clean up after horses in a holiday parade of equal duration – overloaded with muck, good for nothing except composting.

Two residents made public comments prior to the hearing.  The first to speak was a sitting trustee on our Village Board, and his remarks can be heard by clicking here.

The second person to speak was a resident who took exception to comments made at a prior Board of Trustees meeting regarding groundwater pollutants from equestrian facilities, and also volunteered to provide the Zoning Board with documentation in her possession of groundwater contamination.  Her comments can be heard here.

When the public hearing was convened, the Zoning Board chair read a statement from the Village regarding the petition before the board and the Village’s position as it relates to ongoing litigation between neighbors.  Click here to review this recording.

The attorney representing the petition applicant was then invited to present their proposed text amendment, which took about forty-five minutes, including questions from the board.  This recording can be heard here.

Attendees were then invited to ask questions or provide facts for the board to consider in their deliberations.  Unfortunately, the hour that ensued was spent on matters from the past on horse boarding issues, some personal assaults and little, if anything, productive for the board to consider.

In our opinion, the chair and counsel allowed too much latitude for attendees to pursue personal agendas instead of presenting facts at this meeting.  But then again, they are not veterans of these contentious testimony rodeos.  Perhaps with the first hearing under their belts, tonight’s continuation will include more relevant testimony for the Zoning Board to consider and less infighting that serves no useful purpose.

Read Full Post »

The Village has posted audio recordings from the July 18th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.  The meeting was continued until August 1st due to the excessive crowd that attended, however there are about ten minutes of recordings that are available for review.

Unfortunately, the recordings begin after the chair gaveled the meeting to order.  However, those in attendance were allowed to make public comment only as it related to the continuance of the meeting, not the agenda for that night, and six people spoke.

The first speaker complained that “A lot of people went to a great deal of inconvenience to come here tonight.  Something [the meeting] was noticed on very short notice, contrary to the agenda that you had that this board decided in June.”

We’re not sure what the speaker meant by “noticed,” but we saw the agenda and document packet including the petition posted to the Village website at least two weeks in advance of the meeting.  Additionally, it was noticed in the Daily Herald classified ads per the Open Meetings Act.

RJE ButtonsHis comments can be heard here, and we’re told he was seen handing out spiffy buttons to some in the crowd (inset left) prior to the meeting.  It seems odd that the speaker complained he had such short notice, yet he managed to have buttons produced in time for the meeting. 

The second speaker acknowledged the board’s decision for continuing the meeting, but expressed his disappointment, since he had suggested a larger venue for the hearing be chosen, as can be heard here.

Speaker number three questioned why proceeding with the meeting would violate the Open Meetings Act.  Mary Dickson, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals answered stating:

The Illinois Open Meetings Act requires that for a public body to hold a meeting, among the other requirements, the meeting must be held so that everyone who seeks to participate, to hear, to witness, can do so comfortably  We have an overflow crowd in the, out in the hallway, many of whom are standing.  I believe that this is by interpretation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act would begin to run afoul of the Act, and it is my legal recommendation that to comply with the Act we continue the meeting so that we have a venue large enough and comfortable enough for everyone to participate.”

The full question and answer recording can be heard here.

Speaker five has become a familiar voice in recent public meetings, and it would seem that his only purpose was to point out that the attorney representing the petitioner for commercial horse boarding code amendments also represented the Fritz Duda Company some years ago in their legal battle over 602 acres that was in Barrington Hills at that time. 

That tract of land has been, and is now, in unincorporated in McHenry County ever since the Village lost the case against the petitioner’s attorney, so the speaker’s remarks (heard here) were likely ill-advised since the attorney appears to be qualified when it comes to matters of land use and zoning.

Once public comment concluded, a motion to continue the meeting was made, and the vote was not unanimous.  Board members voted 5 to 2 to continue the meeting until August 1st as can be heard here.   

To access the menu of edited recordings by agenda topic from this abbreviated meeting, click here.

Read Full Post »

Audio recordings from the June 20th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting are available for review on the Village website.  The menu of edited recordings by agenda topic can be accessed by clicking here.

Nine residents made public comments at the beginning of the meeting, and since the sole topic for discussion that evening was the commercial horse boarding zoning text, a handful of historically vocal equestrians on the matter made most of the remarks.

The first speaker was the chairman of Barrington Hills Farms (formerly known as the “Duda” property), who stated, “we have invested in this property with the intention of housing two wonderful organizations, one of which is HARPS, which we’re all familiar with.  We very much depend on the horse boarding text amendment as it exists today, and hope that there is nothing that is ever done to change that.”  His comments can be heard here.

As we’ve reported recently (see  Plans unveiled for new HARPS facility), most of the 600 plus acres that compromise Barrington Hills Farms is not in Barrington Hills, but instead in unincorporated McHenry County, so few, if any, of our codes pertain to their plans.  And the HARPS facility is already going through the McHenry County zoning process.  So, even if the proposed new HARPS facility were being built in Barrington Hills, codes outside of any commercial boarding text would require that a special use permit be granted, since the HARPS complex is an animal rescue facility and it will also be providing out-patient veterinary treatment.

It’s also worth noting that Barrington Hills Farms was organized on June 25, 2014, according to records seen here.  The Zoning Board of Appeals didn’t even hold a public hearing on any of the four commercial horse boarding text amendments submitted that year until July 21, 2014, so at the time the 602 acres were purchased, boarding was still classified under “Home Occupation” in our codes.

The second speaker is a professional horse and rider trainer in the Village who was very vocal during the last public hearings in 2014.  Since that time, she has moved her base of operations from Tudor Oaks Farm to Oakwood Farms.  Her comments can be heard here.

During her remarks, she stated, “I have to surmise that the only possible reason that the Village Board of Trustees wants a ‘do over’ would be to satisfy their own egos to get their own way at any cost.”  It would seem that if this were this the case, this meeting would have taken place a year ago after the 2015 election.

Further on she stated that, “every discussion regarding horse boarding is held in executive session now in the, with the Board of Trustees, so the general public is left out of the loop.”   

We cannot comment on her allegation since executive sessions by the Board of Trustees are confidential, but we are interested in which trustee(s) might be sharing information from these meetings with interested parties.

Later on, a resident at the heart of the boarding controversy, who was allowed a protracted amount of time to comment said, “We’ve been debating this horse boarding issue since two-thousand and five, OK?  The only year I think it may not have been on the agenda in the last 12 years is 2013.  But I could be wrong, I’d have to go back and look.

So for 12 years we’ve been going through this.  We’ve considered special use.  We’ve considered a bunch of things.  We’ve considered agriculture, all this stuff, and finally a year ago, or it’s two years ago, a year ago we passed it, two years ago it started, we passed an amendment.  Yah, some people may not like it, but that’s the democratic process, and it passed.” 

The speaker’s full comments can be heard here, but we would be remiss if we did not remind readers of the change in presidency of our Village in 2013 when horse boarding was not an issue according to the speaker. 

Two years later, the “democratic process” the speaker referred to may have contributed to the ouster of two incumbent trustees in the 2015 elections who voted to approve a commercial horse boarding amendment considerably based on the language the speaker himself proposed in 2014.

The last public speaker, who happens to be in the real estate profession, added his perspectives on how the recently enacted commercial horse boarding codes have affected property values and sales in Barrington Hills.  His comments can be heard here.

When the board got down to their business at hand, the question of whether the current commercial horse boarding text enacted in early 2015 should be revisited was posed by the chair and the attorney  to the board members .  The question was prompted by a recent petition submitted to the village by a resident to amend the current commercial horse boarding codes.

The first member to respond did not hesitate, but we cannot do his comments justice by summarizing them.  What we will state is his remarks on what has transpired in recent years were remarkably candid.

We also believe he has coined a phrase that will be repeated often when he referred to a “handful” in our community as “Radical Jihadist Equestrians” (henceforth RJE’s) who shoved the current commercial horse boarding text down residents’ throats.  He later apologized for the frankness of his remarks, however, we believe many readers will appreciate them, and they can be heard here.

The next member to speak suggested that perhaps the Home Occupation Ordinance (which was the former code for all boarding operations since 2005), was “far too restrictive” on larger existing boarding operations, and that the 2015 text amendment “compensated too far in the opposite direction.”   She went on to state the board should revisit horse boarding codes in an attempt to find a middle ground.  Those comments can be heard here.

The third board member’s comments, again, cannot be summarized in order to do them justice. However, his historical knowledge and prior experience on the Plan Commission warrant readers to take note and listen to them by clicking here.

Another member stated he would like to learn more of the history of the matter, but expressed his belief that the recently enacted ordinance provided, “large powers to businesses.” 

He went on to say, “I think everyone here in Barrington Hills moved here for the space, and for the quiet, for the nature.  Some wanted horses, which is great.  I prefer to ride bicycles, that’s great.  Some people like to bird or hike or whatever, it’s always been a place, I think, peace and quiet and neighbors getting along.”  His remarks can be heard here.

The next member to speak was on the Zoning Board when the draft of the current boarding text was being fast-tracked, and he recalled, “I was on the Zoning Board when it was passed, and I was given assurances that wasn’t going to be passed the way it was, that we going to discuss alternatives, and that never occurred, so it doesn’t bother me to come back and revisit the issue.”  His comments can be heard here.

The chair then stated he thought there was a consensus to review the text that is currently in place, but also suggested options that included doing nothing at all.  He then laid out a preliminary action plan and timeline for the process to proceed.  Both remarks can be heard here.

During the discussion that ensued, the board agreed they wished to hear from residents on the matter during the process, and they would solicit expert testimony as needed. 

They also would like to have the Barrington Hills Park District weigh in on the matter.  We find this curious, since there may be conflict of interest on the part of at least three members of that board, two of whom spoke during public comments at this meeting (John Rosene and Dennis Kelly).  Nonetheless, we look forward to hearing their perspectives.

The next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for Monday, July 18th.

Read Full Post »

The Zoning Board of Appeals held two public hearings at their April 18th meeting.  The first was a continuation of the application for a permit for a small addition to the rectory of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church on Ridge Road, and the second was a new petition by Consolidated Unit School District 220 for an outdoor basketball court and a new sign at Countryside Elementary School.

The St. Mark’s hearing lasted just over an hour with little discussion of the proposed addition and most centering on improvements made by the church to septic systems and installation of new efficient plumbing fixtures to reduce water usage.  These improvements seemed to satisfy board members that sufficient measures have been taken to alleviate runoff issues that have occurred in the past, and they voted unanimously to approve the construction of a screened porch.

Countryside SignNext, during the second hearing, a representative of District 220 presented plans to construct an outdoor asphalt basketball court of the east side of Countryside School that is being funded by the school PTO and the Barrington Hills Park District, though it is unclear what the ratio of investment is.  The district also is planning to install a new sign on the County Line Road frontage (inset left) similar to signs at other district schools.  It was emphasized both will be non-illuminated, and with relatively little discussion by the board, the plans were approved unanimously.

The menu of edited recordings by agenda items from the meeting can be accessed here.

Read Full Post »

Audio recordings from the March 16th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting are available for review on the Village website.  Board members had three matters before them that evening, but only two were discussed and decided. 

The first item on the agenda, a variance for an addition to the rectory at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church, was continued until the April meeting since only five members of the board were present, and one was abstaining since he is a member of the church.  With only four voting members, the matter would have required a unanimous vote, and a representative of the church accepted the chair’s offer to table the matter.

The application to allow a berm to be constructed from the Paganica homeowner association was approved as was a petition to construct an addition to a residence on Ridge Road.  In both cases the votes were unanimous.

To access the menu of edited recordings by topic from the meeting, click here.

Read Full Post »

The Zoning Board of Appeals had a relatively full agenda when they met on February 17th, including two public hearings on special use permit applications, review and approval of the official 2016 Village Zoning Map, and a general discussion of how to better address various special events that occur in Barrington Hills.

The first special use application heard was for a back-lit lettered LED sign and cross mounted on the northwestern face of the Barrington United Methodist Church located at 98 Algonquin Rd.  The sign was desired to better help those unfamiliar with the area to locate the church at night.

The sign was approved, and if approved by the Board of Trustees, it will be the first of its kind in Barrington Hills on a structure.  The recording of the public hearing can be heard here, and the discussion and vote by the board can be heard here.

Another special use application was presented by representatives of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church at 337 Ridge Rd. for an addition of a small screened porch to the church’s rectory.  The permit was required due to a needed setback variation. 

The matter was tabled until the March meeting after discussion turned to some ongoing drainage and septic issues in the general area, and board members wished to look into those matters before deciding on the permit.  That public hearing recording can be accessed here.

Board members then went through the ritual of approving the yearly official zoning map, but it was not unanimous, and was the subject of debate on if it accurately depicts R-1 zoning in the Village as can be heard here.

The board then began to consider how the Village might draft or better define codes related to the variety of special events held on private properties in the Village throughout the year, as can be heard here.

The menu of edited recordings by agenda topic from the full two and a half hour meeting can be accessed here.

Read Full Post »

The recordings from the November 16th Zoning Board of Appeals meeting have been posted to the Village website for review.

Five people made public comments at the beginning of the meeting.  Two had nothing to do with the matter before the Board that night, two pertained to the issue to be considered, and one had us scratching our heads attempting to discern what the point was, if any.

Pro-TemGohlThe rather obtuse comments made by Trustee Fritz Gohl can be heard here.  Should any readers be able to guess exactly what he was trying to say, please enlighten the rest of us, since we are completely at a loss to explain.

When the board members then took up the business before them, Mary Dickson, the attorney assigned to the ZBA, shed some light on the situation regarding the matter as it related to our Village Codes of the repaired shed that was continued from the October meeting

In approximately thirty minutes, Zoning Board members voted unanimously to overturn the letter issued to the property owner by the former Building Enforcement Officer, Don Schuman, demanding demolition of the nonconforming building (shed). 

Perhaps it’s now time for a full review of our Village Codes, since we believe it should not take an attorney to “interpret” them, considering the experienced Village Administrator of over thirty years attends most meetings, and apparently, a former contract employee who served as code enforcement officer could not effectively communicate with a property owner in our village.     

The menu of edited recordings from the full meeting can be accessed by clicking here.

Read Full Post »

The Village has posted a portion of the recordings from the October meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals.  We understand there were issues with the recording computer, thus the entire meeting is not available for review.

The first matter reviewed was an application for a special use permit for an artificial lake at 300 Donlea Road.  The recording for this discussion is not available, however the permit was approved.

The second agenda item for the meeting was discussion of a shed built in 1961 prior to enactment of current zoning codes that had fallen into disrepair.  Since the shed was positioned against the property line with no setback, it would no longer be considered conforming to codes.

At issue in the two and a half hours of testimony and discussion spent on this topic was whether the structure was repaired or rebuilt by the homeowner as a result of a neighbor’s complaint, and depending on the answer, whether it even qualified to be “grandfathered” so it could remain in its’ original location.  The subject ended up being continued to the November meeting.

The link to the menu of recordings that are available from the meeting can be accessed here.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »