ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January
    8,
    1981
    DONALD
    J.
    HAMMAN,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 80—153
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    )
    AGENCY,
    Respondent,
    AR.
    JOSEPH
    H.
    BARNETT
    AND
    MS.
    TRIS
    NICHELS,
    PUCKETT,
    BARNETT,
    LAR-
    SON, MICKEY, WILSON
    & OCHSENSCHLAGER,
    APPEARED
    ON BEHALF OF THE
    PETITIONER.
    MS.
    MARY
    DRAKE,
    ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
    OF THE RESPONDENT.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER
    OF THE
    BOARD
    (by D.
    Satchell):
    This
    matter
    comes
    before
    the
    Board
    upon
    a
    petition
    for
    review
    filed
    August
    22,
    1980
    by
    Donald
    J.
    Hamman.
    The
    petition
    requests
    review of the denial by the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency
    (Agency)
    of
    a
    development
    permit
    for
    a
    sanitary
    landfill
    to be located in Will County.
    A public hearing
    was held December
    1, 1980
    in Joliet.
    There
    is no
    indication of public participation
    in the hearing and the Board has received no public comment.
    On March 25, 1980 Donald
    3.
    Hainman made application to the
    Agency to develop a
    sanitary landfill on
    a 145 acre site in the
    SW
    ¼
    of Sec.
    17,
    T.
    37 N.,
    R.
    9 E.,
    3
    PM,
    Will County.
    The site
    is situated on “111th Street,~an east—west road situated between
    Route
    30 and Illinois Route 59.
    On July 21, 1980 the Agency denied the application
    for a
    developmental permit.
    The letter cites Rules
    314 and 316(a) (4)
    of
    Chapter
    7:
    Solid
    Waste.
    On
    November
    25,
    1980
    the
    parties
    stipulated
    that
    Petitioner
    has met and satisfied all other pro-
    cedural and substantive requirements necessary for issuance of
    the requested permit.
    The denial “was based solely upon Petition-
    er’s failure to present any evidence of agreement by the Wheatland
    Township Road Commissioner for the upgrading of 111th Street in
    accordance with specifications set forth in the April 25, 1980
    traffic
    analysis
    of
    111th
    Street
    prepared
    by
    Planning
    Horizons,
    Inc.”
    *The petition indicates Township
    47 North, which is
    in
    T~isconsin
    The description given
    is inferred from maps.
    40—255
    —2—
    One hundred and eleventh street is
    a rural road under the
    jurisdiction of Wheatland Township, Will County.
    Petitioner ad-~
    mits that one and one-fourth miles of this are inadequate for the
    proposed truck traffic
    (R.
    7).
    One hundred and eleventh street
    consists of four segments from west to east as follows:
    1.
    Route 30 to main entrance
    .....,
    3700 feet
    2.
    Entrance to
    Norman
    Town Road
    ,
    .
    .
    .
    800 feet
    3.
    Norman Town Road to Blacktop
    .
    .
    .
    .
    1000 feet
    4.
    Blacktop to Route 59
    distance not given
    Petitioner has done engineering studies for 3780
    feet of the
    road from the west, from highway 30 to the entrance
    (R.
    22).
    The
    estimated cost would be $250,000
    (R.
    31).
    Petitioner has offered
    to improve this roadway at his expense but has received no re-
    sponse from the Township
    (R.
    13,
    18).
    Petitioner expects 75
    of
    the traffic from this direction
    CR. 26).
    Roadway improvements
    to the east of the main entrance have not yet been designed al-
    though the costs per lineal foot would be less
    (R.
    31).
    Rule 314(b)
    provides as follows:
    Except as otherwise authorized in writing by the Agency, no
    person shall cause or allow the development or operation of
    a sanitary landfill which does not provide:
    .
    .
    .
    roads
    adequate to allow orderly operations within the site.
    Rule 314(b)
    relates only to roads and operations within the
    site.
    The roads in question are not within
    the site.
    Rule 316(a) (4)
    requires that the permit application include
    “land use
    and
    population density of the proposed sanitary land-
    fill site and of the area surrounding the site within one mile
    of the site boundaries.”
    This Rule makes no direct reference to
    roads off the site.
    The Board holds that neither
    Rule 314 nor Rule
    316(a) (4),
    nor the combination of the two,
    is a sufficient reason to deny
    the permit under the circumstances
    in this case,
    This result is
    based upon an interpretation of existing Board rules.
    The Board further notes that the issue in this case is re-
    stricted by the stipulation and denial letter to a question of
    whether Rules
    314(b)
    or 316(a) (4)
    constitute a per se rule re-
    quiring denial of the permit where off-site roads
    are inadequate.
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    40—256
    —3—
    ORDER
    This matter is remanded to the Agency for
    issuance of a
    development permit subject to lawful conditions,
    IT IS SO ORDERED,
    I, Christan L.
    Moffett, Clerk
    of
    the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and
    Order
    were adopted on the Y~’ day of
    1981
    by
    a
    vote
    of
    L1~./
    ,
    /
    ~
    I
    I
    ~
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    40—257

    Back to top