Lexplug logoLexplug

Drury v. Village of Barrington Hills

Appellate Court of Illinois
428 Ill. Dec. 567, 2018 IL App (1st) 173042, 123 N.E.3d 31 (2018)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A zoning ordinance violates substantive due process if it is not rationally related to the public health, safety, or welfare, but is instead enacted for the sole benefit of a single private individual.


Facts:

  • In 2008, the Village of Barrington Hills cited resident Benjamin LeCompte III for running a commercial horse boarding operation that violated the Village's 'home occupation' zoning ordinance.
  • LeCompte fought the citation in court and also faced a separate lawsuit from his neighbors, including James Drury III, who sought to restrain his operation.
  • In February 2011, LeCompte made campaign contributions to three village trustees who were later instrumental in passing a new ordinance.
  • While LeCompte's legal challenges were ongoing, he petitioned the Village Board of Trustees for a legislative remedy.
  • In February 2015, the Board of Trustees passed Ordinance 14-19, which permitted large-scale horse boarding as a matter of right throughout the Village.
  • Ordinance 14-19 was made retroactive to 2006, which effectively validated LeCompte's past operations and eliminated the fines he had accumulated.
  • Following a 2015 election that changed its composition, the new Village Board repealed Ordinance 14-19 in 2016.

Procedural Posture:

  • James Drury III and other residents filed a lawsuit against the Village of Barrington Hills in the state circuit court, seeking to have Ordinance 14-19 declared facially unconstitutional.
  • Benjamin LeCompte III and other residents (the intervenors) were granted leave to intervene in the lawsuit to defend the ordinance.
  • The Village, after a change in its Board's composition, entered into a settlement agreement with Drury, stipulating that the ordinance was void ab initio.
  • The circuit court denied the joint motion to approve the settlement, siding with the intervenors' objections.
  • The intervenors then filed a motion to dismiss Drury's amended complaint for failure to state a claim.
  • The circuit court granted the intervenors' motion and dismissed Drury's complaint with prejudice.
  • Drury (appellant) appealed the dismissal and the denial of the settlement to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, with the intervenors acting as appellees.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a zoning ordinance violate substantive due process when it is passed for the exclusive benefit of a single resident, contains an unprecedented retroactive provision to absolve that resident of past violations, and is not rationally related to the public health, safety, or welfare?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice Ellis

Yes. A zoning ordinance violates substantive due process if it is not rationally related to the public welfare and is instead passed solely for the benefit of one person. The plaintiff, Drury, pleaded sufficient facts to state such a claim. Drury's complaint alleges with factual specificity that Ordinance 14-19 was passed for the exclusive benefit of LeCompte, as evidenced by the unprecedented 8.5-year retroactivity provision which served as a 'legislative pardon' for LeCompte's violations. The timing of the ordinance, passed only after LeCompte's legal options were diminishing, further suggests a private rather than public purpose. Additionally, the complaint details significant procedural irregularities, such as the Board ignoring its own directive for further study and the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) failing to provide mandated written findings of fact. These well-pleaded allegations, unlike the conclusory claims in Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale, are sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss and proceed to a factual determination of whether the ordinance was arbitrary and lacked a rational relationship to a legitimate public interest.



Analysis:

This decision provides a clear framework for pleading a successful facial substantive due process challenge against a zoning ordinance. It clarifies that while rational-basis review is highly deferential, courts will scrutinize ordinances where there are specific, well-pleaded allegations of improper motive, procedural irregularities, and private benefit. The case serves as a warning to municipalities that legislative actions appearing to be 'special interest' legislation for a single individual are vulnerable to constitutional challenges. For future litigants, it highlights the importance of pleading concrete facts—such as unusual retroactivity, suspicious timing, and deviations from normal legislative processes—to overcome the high bar of a motion to dismiss in a zoning case.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Drury v. Village of Barrington Hills (2018)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"