Last month during a special Village Board meeting, the Board of Trustees had the opportunity to ask questions of three law firms who were invited to present their qualifications to serve Barrington Hills. Board members asked representatives of Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle their opinion on whether the Village should undertake legislation changing our Village Code related to horse boarding when there is active litigation occurring between two private parties if such legislation might affect one party over the other.
David McArdle, a partner with the firm, responded, “We wouldn’t recommend that you pass a rule, pass a law, that favors one party over another.” When asked again in a different way, he stated, “We wouldn’t recommend that.” (A link to the recording of that discussion can be accessed here)
Mr. McArdle is not alone in his opinion. Other attorneys, including current Village special counsel Patrick Bond, have expressed the same when asked.
Yet tonight, the Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a public hearing on the Anderson horse boarding amendment which distinctly favors one party over another. On Wednesday evening, they are scheduled to vote on the amendment. If approved, it will then go to the Village Board.
If the latest Anderson text amendment clears all three hurdles with approvals and becomes part of our Zoning Code, the next likely step will be an expensive legal defense of the unethical and biased actions by both boards that will significantly drain Village financial resources. And who could begin to blame the adversely affected party if they did decide to sue the village?
For these reasons, we believe it’s time for this obvious charade to stop immediately. As we’ve pointed out in our editorials “Here We Go Again. . . . Commercial Horse Boarding Drama Returns” and “Conflicted,” the only way to fairly draft sensible horse boarding codes that benefit all residents is to create a committee representing a fair and proportional cross-section of Village residents. But even that process should wait until the private litigation between two residents regarding boarding is resolved.
– The Observer