advertisement

Barrington Hills candidates debate horse-boarding solutions, veto

Barrington Hills officials have spent years trying to come up with a solution to the commercial horse-boarding controversy sparked by a neighbor dispute and an ongoing lawsuit pitting residents against one another.

The village board recently passed a zoning text amendment aimed at resolving the controversy, but the measure was vetoed by Village President Martin McLaughlin, in what's believed to be the first veto in village history.

The six candidates for three village trustee seats in the April 7 election recently debated the proposed solution, and McLaughlin's veto, during an endorsement conference with the Daily Herald.

The amendment, approved by a 5-1 vote of the village board, would allow one boarded horse per acre on properties 10 acres or smaller. There are no properties in the village under 5 acres. For properties larger than 10 acres, two boarded horses per acre would be allowed.

But McLaughlin — and at least one of the three candidates he's endorsing in the April election — favors requiring special-use permits for individual commercial horse boarding operations so as not to change local law in the midst of a private lawsuit.

Candidate Bryan Croll said he believes the proposed zoning change could drag the village into the litigation between the two neighbors.

“(The zoning amendment) is a less well understood and less tested way to handle it,” Croll said. “None of the other villages in the area that have large equestrian activities have used this method to try to address the issue of commercial barns.”

He said he wishes the zoning board had considered special-use permits before recommending the text amendment to trustees.

Candidates Michelle Maison and Brian Cecola are also being endorsed by McLaughlin but said they still haven't made up their minds about the best possible solution.

Maison, an attorney who works as a mediator, said she's unhappy with all the solutions she's heard so far.

“I really believe we can come up with something that would be more palatable for more of the village,” Maison said.

Cecola said he's been a resident of the Barrington area for 49 years, moving to Barrington Hills a few years back for its greater open space. A horse owner himself, he said he wants to return to the time when horse ownership did not pit neighbor against neighbor.

“It kept disgusting me to see the residents going after each other,” Cecola said of recent zoning board meetings. “I want peace, that's all.”

Incumbents Patty Meroni and Karen Selman are seeking re-election and supporting new candidate Mary Naumann, who led the cause to keep the village's narrow roads free of bike lanes last year.

Selman said the village shouldn't be afraid of the debate it's been having, because solid policies come from such debate. But she argues the democratic process was overturned by McLaughlin's veto.

Meroni believes she's heard nearly every solution under the sun during the past 10 years and concluded that nothing the village does is likely to expedite the private lawsuit that probably needs to run its course.

“It's just too bad we can't get to the point where we seem to be able to put it behind us,” Meroni said. “As long as the litigation goes on, I don't see that it's going to be particularly peaceful.”

Naumann said she's interested in finding a solution because the horse-boarding dispute is a distraction from other issues residents might find important. Such was the case when she brought her opposition to bike lanes before village trustees.

“I mean, I really didn't feel like I could be heard because people who were all worked up about horse boarding were really making a lot of noise and heckling in the back of the room and things like that,” Naumann said. “I would love for it to be settled.”

Brian Cecola
Bryan Croll
Michelle Maison
Mary Naumann
Karen Selman
Patty Meroni
Article Comments
Guidelines: Keep it civil and on topic; no profanity, vulgarity, slurs or personal attacks. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked. If a comment violates these standards or our terms of service, click the "flag" link in the lower-right corner of the comment box. To find our more, read our FAQ.