ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 21,
1994
MICHAEL
TURLEK,
LILLIAN
)
SMEJKAL
and
JOHN
LATHROP,
)
)
Petitioners,
)
v.
)
PCB 94—19
)
(Land Siting Review)
VILLAGE OF SUMMIT and
)
WEST SUBURBAN RECYCLING
)
AND
ENERGY CENTER,
INC.,
)
Respondents.
KAY
KULAGA
AND ALICE
ZEMAN,
)
)
Petitioners,
V.
)
PCB 94—21
(Land Siting Review)
VILLAGE OF SUMMIT and
WEST SUBURBAN RECYCLING
)
AND ENERGY CENTER,
INC.,
Respondents.
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER
)
ENVIRONMENT, PATRICIA J.
)
BARTLEMAN, NANCI KATZ
and MICHELLE SCHNITS,
)
Petitioners,
)
v.
)
PCB 94—22
)
(Land Siting Review)
VILLAGE OF SUMMIT and
)
(Consolidated)
WEST SUBURBAN RECYCLING
)
AND ENERGY CENTER,
INC.,
)
)
Respondents.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by M. McFawn):
This matter
is before the Board on two motions to
reconsider:
a June
7,
1994 motion filed by petitioners Michael
Turlek,
Lillian Sxnejkal, and John Lathrop
(Turlek), and a June 9,
1994 motion filed by petitioners Citizens for a Better
Environment, Patricia J.
Bartleman, Nanci Katz, and Michelle
Schmnits
(CBE).
Respondent West Suburban Recycling and Energy
2
Center,
Inc.
(WSREC)
filed a response to both motions on June 20,
1994.
Both motions ask the Board to reconsider its Nay 5,
1994
decision upholding the Village of Summit’s (Village) grant of
siting approval to WSREC for a waste-to-energy facility.
In ruling on a motion for reconsideration the Board is to
consider, but is not limited to, error in the decision and facts
in the record which may have been overlooked.
(35 Ill.
Admu.
Code
101.246(d).)
In Citizens Against Regional Landfill
v. County of
Board of Wbiteside (March 11,
1993), PCB 93-156, we stated that
“(t)he intended purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
bring to the court’s attention newly discovered evidence which
was not available at the time of hearing, changes in the law or
errors in the court’s previous application of the existing law.
(Korogluyan v. Chicago Title
& Trust Co.
(1st Dist.
1992),
213
Ill.App.3d 622,
572 N.E.2d 1154,
1158.)”
Neither motion for reconsideration presents the Board with
new evidence,
a change in the law,
or any other reason to
conclude that the Board’s May 5,
1994 decision was in error.
Accordingly, both motions for reconsideration are hereby denied.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certi~that the above order was adopted on the
~/4~Y
day of
_______________
1994, by a vote of
________
~
Dorothy M.4unn,
Clerk
Illinois Pb-~1lutionControl Board