ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 19,
1981
DONALT) J.
HAt’4MAN,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 80—153
tf~LINOISENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
D.tSSENTING OPINION
(by I. Goodman):
Although today’s majority Opinion considers the issues of
this
case in much greater detail than its prior Opinion, the
~o1ding and the end result remains the same~the Agency may not
deny a permit for the development or operation of a sanitary
ianclfill even if the access
roads to the site are admittedly
inadequate and the petitioner is unable to prove
that
he
is
able to correct the situation.
Today’s majority Opinion strains to refine the issue to
the precise wording of the Agency’s denial, citing an Agency
reference to the Petitioner’s
lack of a written agreement with
the Township Road Commissioner to allow the access roads to
the site to be upgraded.
At great
length, the Opinion comments
about the rights and duties of the Township Road. Commissioner
with
respect to Hainman’s site and its access roads.
I do not
5elieve that the Agency or this Board should even consider this
question, let alone base
a decision upon the results of such
consideration.
The majority Opinion
states on page 11,
“Denial
oE the Hamman permit for failure of a local
official, for what-
ever reason,
to agree
to do that
which
he
is
empowered to do,
and has the duty to do
—-
improve
township roads
—-
at the cost
of the permit applicant was improper~” The majority
misinterprets
the
Agency’s denial.
Denial was
based
upon the inability of the
Petitioner to prove to the Agency that
the access roads
to his
proposed landfill would ever be
upgraded to a suitable condition.
That the Agency demanded a written
agreement with the Township
Road Commissioner as the means of such proof is not
the
question.
After cutting away all of the extraneous issues discussed
so carefully in today’s Opinion,
the results remain the same.
The Board is ordering the Agency to issue
a permit for a pro~
posed landfill with absolutely no assurance that the access
roads to the facility will ever be adequate to convey the re-
fuse through the surrounding community to the site in a safe
44—85
2
and reasonable manner, Regardless of the reasons for the lack
of such assurance,
I do not believe the site should he permitted
until
that issue is resolved.
I, therefore, respectfully dissent
from today’s decision
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, do hereby certify that the above Dissenting Opinion was filed
on
the
~
day
of
/7
4_~i~
,
1981.
Christan
L.
Moffet’tj.~lerk
Illinois Pollution Control Boar~
,
Board
Member
44—86