Drury v. Village of Barrington Hills

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that a Barrington Hills zoning ordinance was unconstitutional because it was not adopted for the public welfare, but rather to benefit a single individual by legalizing an existing commercial horse boarding facility. The trial court found that the ordinance reflected a community debate and that it satisfied rational-basis scrutiny and plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed by Rule 23 order, finding that the circuit court applied the proper standard for determining the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance and that the circuit court’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. (McBRIDE and HOWSE, concurring)