ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January
    20,
    1994
    ANNE
    SHEPARD,
    JAMES
    VERHEIN,
    )
    and JEROLD LECKMAN,
    Complainants,
    v.
    )
    PCB 94-2
    )
    (Enforcement)
    )
    NORTHBROOK SPORTS CLUB,
    )
    and VILLAGE OF HAINESVILLE,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by M. Nardulli):
    On January
    3,
    1994, Anne Shepard,
    James Verhein, and Jerold
    Leckman
    (Shepard or complainants)
    filed a complaint against
    Northbrook Sports Club and the Village of Hainesville
    (Northbrook
    or respondents) alleging that Northbrook emits noise in violation
    of Sections 23 and 24 of the Environmental Protection Act
    (Act)
    (415 ILCS 5/23 and 24).
    On January 19,
    1994,
    respondents filed a
    motion for extension of time until January 26,
    1994,
    to move to
    dismiss complaint as frivolous.
    The Board grants the motion
    subject to the conditions stated below.
    Section 31(b)
    of the Act states that when a citizen’s
    enforcement complaint is filed:
    Unless the Board determines that such complaint is
    duplicitous or frivolous,
    it shall schedule a hearing.
    415 ILCS 5/31(b)
    (1992)
    Also, the Board regulations in part provide:
    If a complaint is filed by a person other than the
    Agency,
    ~
    the Chairman shall place the matter on the
    Board agenda for Board determination whether the
    complaint is duplicitous or frivolous.
    If the Board
    rules that the complaint is duplicitous or frivolous,
    it shall enter an order setting forth its reasons for
    so ruling and shall notify the parties of its decision.
    If the Board rules that the complaint is not
    duplicitous or frivolous, this does not preclude the
    filing of motions regarding the insufficiency of the
    pleadings.
    35
    Ill. Adm.
    Code 103.124
    2
    An action before the Board is duplicitous if the matter is
    identical or substantially similar to one brought before the
    Board or in another forum.
    (See, Fore v. Midstate Kart Club
    (October
    7,
    1993) PCB 93—171;
    Mandel v. Kulpaka PCB 92-33
    (August 26,
    1993); In re Duplicitous or Frivolous Determination
    (June
    8,
    1989),
    RES 89—2,
    100 PCB 53.)
    A complaint is frivolous
    if it fails to state a cause of action upon relief can be
    granted.
    (~.)
    For instance,, a complaint is frivolous if it
    alleges violations of sections of the Act which do not fall
    within the Board’s purview or if the Act places certain
    activities outside of regulation by the Board.
    The Board notes that Section 25 of the Act places
    restrictions on the Board’s ability to hear noise violations
    proceedings involving certain sporting activities:
    No Board standards for monitoring noise or regulations
    prescribing limitations on noise emissions shall apply
    to any organized or amateur or professional sporting
    activity except as otherwise provided for in this
    Section.
    415 ILCS 5/25
    (1992)
    In addition, the Board notes that Section 3.25 of the Act
    defines “Organized Amateur or Professional Sporting Activity” as:
    a)n
    activity or event carried out at a facility by
    persons who engaged in that activity as a business or
    for education,
    charity or entertainment for the general
    public, including all necessary actions and activities
    associated with such an activity.
    This definition
    includes, but is not limited to,
    skeet, trap or
    shooting sports clubs
    in existence prior to January
    1,
    1975, organized motor sports, and sporting events
    organized or controlled by school districts, units of
    local government,
    state agencies, colleges,
    universities or professional sports clubs offering
    exhibitions to the public.
    415 ILCS 5/3.25
    (1992)
    The Board directs each party in this proceeding to file a
    written document with the Board addressing whether the complained
    of activity is an “organized amateur or professional sporting
    activity” and whether the claim alleges violations of the Act
    which fall within the Board’s purview.
    The Board directs the
    parties’ attention to the Appellate Court ruling in Hinsdale Golf
    Club v. Kochanski
    (2d Dist. 1990),
    197 Ill.App.3d 634,
    555 N.E.2d
    31; and to this Board’s decisions in Fore v. Midstate Kart Club,
    PCB 93-171
    (December 16,
    1993)
    and Pecka v. Skylarks Remote
    Control Airplane Club, PCB 92-27
    (May 7,
    1992).
    The Board notes
    3
    the Hinsdale, Fore and Pecka cases contain interpretations of the
    “organized amateur or professional sporting activity” exemption
    that may be applicable to this proceeding.
    We remind the parties
    that they must follow Board’s procedural rules governing filing
    and service requirements.
    Respondents’ document must be received
    by the Board on or before January 26,
    1994.
    Complainants’
    document must be received by the Board on or before February 9,
    1994.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify th~tthe above order was adopted on the
    ~~~“zj
    day of
    ________,
    1994, by a vote of
    7—0
    .
    7;
    Control Board

    Back to top