ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 20,
1993
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF
)
WILLIAMSON
COUNTY,
and
)
R.S.
BLAKELY
and
MAX
)
STUCKER,
as
members
of
)
Concerned
Citizens
of
)
Williamson County,
)
Petitioners,
)
v.
)
PCB
92—204
(Landfill Siting Review)
BILL KIBLER DEVELOPMENT
CORP., a/k/a KIBLER
)
DEVELOPMENT CORP., and the
)
WILLIAMSON COUNTY BOARD OF
)
COMMISSIONERS,
Respondents.
KENNETH
A. BLEYER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONERS;
THOMAS
~I.IMMEL APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT BILL KIBLER
DEVELOPMENT CORP.; AND
LISA BEATY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT WILLIAMSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Theodore Meyer):
This matter
is before the Board on a December 14, 1992
petition for review,
filed by Concerned Citizens of Williamson
County,
and R.S. Blakely and Max Stucker as members of Concerned
Citizens of Williamson County (collectively,
Citizens).
In
response to a Board order, Citizens filed an amended petition on
January 27,
1993.
Citizens seeks review of a November 13,
1992
decision of respondent Williamson County Board of Conunissioners
(County Board) granting site approval to respondent Bill Kibler
Development Corporation
(Kibler) for a new regional pollution
control facility.
A public hearing on the petition for review
was held on April
2,
1993,
in Marion,
Illinois.
For reasons articulated below, the Board finds that a defect
in the newspaper notice required by Section 39.2(b)
of the
Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
(415 ILCS 5/39.2(b))
is a
jurisdictional defect,
and vacates the county board’s decision.
0
L~2-U573
2
PROCEDURAL
HISTORY
On April 25,
1992,
Kibler published a “public
notice” in the
Southern Illinoisan,
a newspaper of general circulation, which
stated that “in
14 days from the date of this publication”,
Kibler would submit an application for site approval for a new
regional pollution control facility.
(C0020.)
The notice stated
that Kibler proposes to develop a recycling center,
transfer
station, and landfill disposal site within a single solid waste
management facility.
On May 19,
1992,
24 days after publication
of
the
newspaper
notice, Kibler filed its application for site
approval with the Williamson County Clerk.
(C0030-C0121.)
The
County Board held public hearings on the application on September
10,
11,
and 14,
1992.
(C0402—C0903.)
On November
13,
1992,
the
County Board issued its decision granting Kibler’s request for
site approval.
(C1248—1249.)
Citizens filed the instant
petition for review with the Board on December 14,
1992,
and
filed an amended petition on January 27,
1993.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
At
the local level, the siting process
is governed by
Section 39.2 of the Act.
Section 39.2(a)
provides that local
authorities are to consider as many as nine criteria when
reviewing an application for siting approval.
These statutory
criteria are the
only issues which can be considered when ruling
on an
application for siting approval.
Only if the local body
finds that all applicable criteria have been met by the applicant
can siting approval be granted.
When reviewing a local decision on the criteria,
this Board
must
determine
whether
the
local
decision
is
against
the
manifest
weight
of
the
evidence.
(McLean
County
Disoosal.
Inc.
v.
County
of McLean
(4th Dist.
1991),
207 Ill.App.3d 352, 566 N.E.2d 26,
29;
Waste Management of Illinois,
Inc.
v. Pollution Control
Board
(2d Dist.
1987),
160 Ill.App.3d
434,
513 N.E.2d
592;
E
& E
Hauling,
Inc.
v. Pollution Control Board
(2d Dist.
1983),
116
I1l.App.3d
586,
451 N.E.2d
555, aff’d
in part
(1985)
107 Il1.2d
33,
481 N.E.2d 664.)
Additionally, the Board must review the
areas
of jurisdiction and fundamental fairness.
Section 40.1 of
the Act requires the Board to review the procedures used at the
local level to determine whether those procedures were
fundamentally fair.
(E
&
E Hauling,
451 N.E.2d at 562.)
Citizens
raise four claims of procedural error, including a jurisdictional
claim.
Because jurisdiction is a threshold issue, we will
address that claim first.
JURISDICTION
The notice requirements of Section 39.2(b) are
jurisdictional prerequisites to the local county board’s power to
0
~2-O57L~.
3
hear
a
landfill
proposal.
On
this
basis,
the
lack
of
jurisdiction at the county board level made it unnecessary to
review
petitioners’
other
arguments
in
Kane County Defenders
v.
Pollution Control Board
(2d Dist.
1985),
139 Ill.App.3d 588,
487
N.E.2d 743,
93 Il1.Dec. 918.
In that case,
failure to publish
the appropriate newspaper notice
14 days prior to the request for
site
approval
resulted
in
the court’s vacating the county board’s
decision.
The
appellate
court
applied
the
reasoning
of
Illinois
Power
Company
v.
Pollution
Control
Board
(4th
Dist.
1985),
137
Ill.App.3d
449,
484
N.E.2d
898,
92
Ill.Dec.
167,
which
found
that
the
Board’s
failure
to
publish
notice
as
required
by
Section
40(a)
of the Act divested the Board of jurisdiction.
The
notice
requirements
of
Section
39.2
are
to
be
strictly
construed
as to timing,
and even a one day deviation in the
notice requirement renders the county without jurisdiction.
(Browning-Ferris
Industries
of
Illinois
v.
Pollution
Control
Board
(5th Dist.
1987)
,
162 Ill.App.3d 801,
516 N.E.
2d 804,
114
Il1.Dec.
649;
Concerned Boone Citizens,
Inc.
v. M.I.G.
Investments
(2d Dist.
1986),
144 Ill.App.3d
334,
494 N.E.2d
180,
98 Ill.Dec.
253.)
Citizens
argues
that
the
newspaper
notice
published
by
Kibler
is void.
Citizens points to Section 39.2(b)
of the Act,
which
states
in
part:
No
later
than
14
days
prior
to
a
request
for
location
approval the applicant shall cause written notice of
such request to be served
***
on the owners of all
property
***
within 250 feet in each direction of the
lot line of the subject property
*~
Such written notice shall also be served upon members
of the General Assembly from the legislative district
in which the proposed facility is located and shall be
published in a newspaper of general circulation
published in the county in which the site is
located.
Such notice shall state the name and address of the
applicant,
the location of the proposed site, the
nature and size of the development, the nature of the
activity proposed, the probable life of the proposed
activity, the date when the request for site approval
will be submitted, and a description of the right of
persons to comment on such request as hereafter
provided.
415 ILCS 5/39.2(b)
(1992).
Citizens maintains that the newspaper notice did not state any
date on which the application would be submitted,
and that the
implication that the application would be filed 14 days after
publication was not followed.
Citizens states that although the
r’r
Ut
4~LJ3
4
newspaper notice, which stated that the application would be
submitted “in 14 days” was published on April 25, the application
was not filed until May
19.1
Citizens argues that because the
application
was
submitted
more
than
14 days after publication of
the newspaper notice, the notice is void and does not meet the
requirements of the Act.
Citizens cites several appellate court
cases for the proposition that failure to properly give notice
under Section 39.2 is jurisdictional.
(Kane County Defenders,
139 I11.App.3d 588; Browning—Ferris Industries,
162 Il1.App.3d
801; Concerned Boone Citizens,
144 Ill.App.3d 334.)
Citizens
maintains that a jurisdictional defect requires no showing of
prejudice, and thus contends that the siting procedure at the
local level
is void.
In response, Kibler argues that filing an application after
14 days has passed is not error.
Kibler acknowledges that case
law establishes that an application cannot be submitted less than
14 days after notice
is given, but contends that the cases cited
by Citizens do not hold that filing an application after the 14
day statutory period has passed creates
a jurisdictional defect.
Thus, Kibler maintains that the Board should reject Citizens’
argument.
Initially,
the Board
notes that the parties seem to be
arguing different issues.
Citizens contends that the
jurisdictional defect arises from the discrepancy between the
newspaper notice
(which stated that the application would be
submitted “in 14 days”)
and the actual date of filing,
24 days
after notice was published.
On the other hand,
Kibler views the
issue as whether it is error to submit an
application
more
than
14 days
(the minimum notice period established by Section 39.2)
after notice
is given.
After reviewing the record and the cases
cited, the Board believes that the issue
in this case is properly
stated as:
where a newspaper notice states that an application
will be submitted “in 14 days”,
but the application is submitted
24 days after publication, does that notice comply with the
provision of Section 39.2(b) that the notice include “the date
when the request
...
will be submitted”?
In
sum, the statutory
provision at issue here is not the minimum 14 day notice period,
but the requirement that the notice include the date when the
request will be submitted.
The text of the notice clearly includes the statement that
the application was to be submitted “in 14 days from the date of
1
In both its initial brief and its response brief,
Citizens refers to the date of filing of the application as April
19.
The
record
clearly
reflects
that
the
application
was
filed
on May 19.
The Board assumes that the reference to April
is a
typographical
error.
01
~2-O576
5
this publication.”
(C0020.)
The Board finds that this statement
is sufficient to fulfill the statutory requirement that the
notice
include
“the
date
when
the
request
for
site
approval
will
be submitted”.
(415 ILCS 5/39.2(b)
(1992).)
It is easy to
calculate the anticipated date of submittal from that
information.
However, the problem in this case is that the
application was not submitted on the date given in the newspaper
notice.
The record clearly shows that the application was
submitted to the county clerk on May 19,
24 days after the
newspaper notice was published.
(C0030.)
In other words,
the
notice did include a date when the application was to be
submitted,
but the application was not submitted on that date.
After reviewing the case law established on the issue of
notice pursuant to Section 39.2(b), the Board finds that Kibler’s
failure to submit its application on the date included in the
newspaper notice renders that notice void.
We believe that the
requirement that the notice include the date on which the
application will be submitted is intended to allow interested
persons to easily ascertain when the local decisionmaking
procedure, with its statutory deadlines for hearings, public
comments,
and final decision,
will begin.
This allows interested
persons to begin to prepare to participate in the procedure.
A
situation,
such as this,
where an applicant includes the required
date in the notice, but then fails to follow that date, does not
fulfill that purpose.
Thus,
although the text of the notice may
have complied with the requirements of Section 39.2(b), the
applicant did not comply with the representations made in that
notice.
Thus,
the Board finds that because Kibler’s subsequent
actions in submitting the application did not comport with the
information in the notice, the newspaper notice is void.2
The case law is quite clear that failure to follow Section
39.2(b)
notice procedures
is a jurisdictional defect,
•such that a
local decisionmaker is not vested with jurisdiction to hear an
application for siting approval.
(Kane County Defenders,
139
Ill.App.3d 588; Browning—Ferris Industries,
162 Ill.App.3d 801;
Concerned Boone Citizens,
144 Ill.App.3d 334.)
As the court
stated in Kane County Defenders:
The notice requirements contained in section 39.2(b)
of
the Environmental Protection Act citation
are
jurisdictional prerequisites which must be followed in
2
For example,
if an administrative agency, such as the
Board, published notice stating that a public hearing that was to
be held on January
1, but the hearing was not held until January
12,
that notice would also be void.
The notice itself might
comply with the applicable statutory requirements, but the
representations made in that notice were not carried out.
01
L~2-O577
6
order to vest the county board with the power to hear a
landfill proposal.
Citations.
Thus,
the
applicant’s
failure to publish appropriate newspaper
notice and notice of the date it filed the site
location request rendered the county board hearing
invalid for lack of jurisdiction.
(Kane County
Defenders,
93 Ill.Dec. at 921—922.)
Therefore, we find that the Williamson County Board did not have
jurisdiction to consider Kibler’s request for site approval,
because
the
newspaper
notice
published
prior to the submittal of
that application was void.
The Board notes that Kibler argues that Citizens did not
claim
any
prejudice and did not suffer any prejudice.
However,
as
Citizens
points
out,
the
issue of prejudice is not relevant to
a jurisdictional inquiry.
The applicable notice requirements
must be met in order to confer jurisdiction on the local
decisionmaker, regardless of whether any party is, or claims to
be, prejudiced by a failure to meet the notice provisions.
Additionally,
the Board notes that Kibler has not raised any
contention that it was prevented,
in some way,
from submitting
its application on the date included in the newspaper notice.
An
applicant has complete control over when an application is
submitted to a local decisionmaker.
CONCLUSION
In sum, the Board finds that because Kibler did not submit
its application on the date contained in the newspaper notice,
that notice was void.
Thus, the County Board lacked jurisdiction
to consider the Kibler’s application for site approval.
As
previously stated, the courts have held that lack of jurisdiction
at the local level makes it unnecessary to review any additional
arguments.
(Kane County Defenders,
93 Ill.Dec. at 922.)
Thus,
we will not address Citizens’ three other contentions.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law.
ORDER
The Board finds that the Williamson County Board of
Commissioners
lacked
jurisdiction
to
hear
Bill
Kibler
Development
Corporation’s
application
for site approval, because the
newspaper notice was void.
Therefore, the November 13,
1992
decision
of
the
Williamson
County
Board
of
Commissioners,
granting
site
approval,
is
vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act
(415 ILCS
U
1~.2-Q578
7
5/41)
provides
for
the
appeal
of
final
Board
orders.
The
Rules
of the Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
(See also 35 Ill.Adm.Code 101.246 “Motions for Reconsideration”.)
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the above opinion and order was
adopted
on
the
2~’~Z day
of
_______________,
1993,
by a vote
of
~
Dorothy M. G9~n,Clerk
Illinois Po13A.ltion Control Board
01
~2-0579