In the Zone: Court Upholds Constitutionality of Horse Boarding Zoning Ordinance
An Illinois Appellate Court issued a ruling in favor of a Village in a longstanding dispute over a commercial horse boarding operation in Drury et al. v. Village of Barrington Hills, et al.
A property owner filed suit against the Village and his neighboring property owner to challenge the constitutionality of a zoning approval ordinance that allowed a horse boarding operation on his neighbor's property. The lawsuit claimed that the ordinance was unconstitutional because it did not benefit the "public welfare" but instead was intended to personally benefit his neighbor. The trial court upheld the zoning ordinance finding that it was "rationally related to the legitimate public interest of promoting horse-boarding operations" in the Village and plaintiffs appealed.
On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's ruling upholding the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance. First, the Court held that even though the zoning approval ordinance had since been repealed, the constitutionality of the ordinance was still relevant because the operator of the horse-boarding facility had filed a separate lawsuit claiming he had a vested right to continue his operations. Second, the Appellate Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard, holding that the "rational basis" test applied to their facial substantive due process challenge to the zoning ordinance. Applying the rational basis test to this challenge, the Court acknowledged that the Village had conducted extensive public hearings and received testimony and evidence from experts and numerous members of the public before acting on the zoning ordinance. The Court found the trial court's findings to be well reasoned and thorough, and agreed with its legal conclusion that the zoning ordinance was rationally related to a legitimate public welfare purpose. Finally, the Court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the zoning ordinance's "retroactivity" provision only benefited his neighbor, finding that it was actually beneficial to a number of other horse boarders in the Village.
0 comments:
Post a Comment