Public Comment to the Barrington Hills Board of Trustees, 24th February 2025

Good evening, members of the Board.

My husband Chris Yamamoto cannot be here tonight as he is at work, but I am here on behalf of both of us to discuss two important matters: our third text amendment proposal for clarifying agricultural sales in Barrington Hills, and the proposed fee increases for zoning matters that will be voted on tonight.

First, I’d like to revisit our third proposal for agricultural sales. This proposal does not seek to change the residential zoning of Barrington Hills. It is about allowing small-scale, on-site agricultural sales as an extension of farming, not a retail business. Importantly, this proposal ensures that 100% of the crops sold are grown on-site—reinforcing that this is an agricultural operation, not a commercial venture.

We’ve designed this proposal to minimize any impact on the community. Sales would be by appointment only and all parking would be on-site. The proposal does not introduce retail stands, signage, or any activities that would alter the residential environment. Instead, it fills an existing gap in the code, providing clarity and preventing unnecessary restrictions on small-scale farms. It allows Barrington Hills to honor its agricultural roots while respecting the needs of all residents. By leaving operational details to the board’s discretion, we ensure that any activities remain within acceptable limits.

Next, I want to address the proposed fee increases for zoning matters. I appreciate that changes in fees are sometimes necessary in response to increased operational costs. However, I must express concern over the recent fee increases, which seem to go far beyond merely addressing inflation. The new rates are unjustifiably high and appear to be a significant barrier to due process rather than a reasonable attempt to keep up with costs, especially since it is being initiated shortly after some text amendments.

As someone who is invested in the ongoing efforts for agricultural experiences and land use within our community, I ask the board to consider whether these fees are an undue financial burden meant to deter participation in the very system that is meant to serve us all.

To ensure transparency and fairness, I would appreciate answers to the following questions:

What data or analysis supports the up to 650% increase in these fees? Can the board provide a breakdown of the calculations that led to this increase?
How will these fees be tracked, and will the revenue from these fees be allocated for the purposes they were intended for, or could they potentially be used for other village purposes?
What justifies additional fees in the case of ongoing discussions or hearings concerning the same issue?
Will the village provide advance notice to the applicant before engaging with outside experts to ensure that there are no surprises regarding costs, and that these consultations are truly necessary?

I look forward to your responses and hope that the board will consider adjustments to these fees that are more in line with reasonable expectations for public participation and fair access to due process. Thank you for your time.