IIt~ii~

AugustL~~I~N

I

20,

—

~ONTr~L

1987

DLJ

A.R.F. LANDFILL, INC.,

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB 87-5k

LAKE COUNT~,

Respondent.

OhDdJ~OF

ThE

bOI-.~ (by 3.C. Dumelle):

During the Board’s review of the record, it became apparent

that the County record failed to include the document(s)

evidencing Lake County’s denial of site approval. The Board

nct~s

t-~at

zrar~cri~t of tr~e

Lake County Board’s special

meeting held March 24, 1987, was introduced into the record as

A.R.F. exhitiz No. 2 at hearing neld June 24, 1987. Also, a copy

of the record of proceedings for that special meeting was

attached as an exhibit to Lake County’s answer to A.R.F’s motion

to compel response which was filed June 3, 1987. Although these

documents can be found in the Board’s files, the Board is not

inclined to assume that the County’s Certificate of Record is

complete for purposes of Board review, as well as any subsequent

appellate revie~. Therefore, the Board directs the Lake County

Clerk to subr~.it tnree copies of the report of proceedings of the

March 24, 1987 special meeting and any other documents evidencing

the County’s final action in this proceeding, seven copies of the

transcript of the March 24, 1967 hearing, and seven copies of an

amended certificate of record which notes such documents. The

County Clerk is granted until September 2, 1987 to comply with

this Oroer. Fceguests for extension of this date are not favorea

as tne Board’s decision is due September 17, 1987.

Also before the Board is a July 2b, 19&7 motion for leave to

file brief as amicus curiae filed by william Alter. In support

of his motion Mr. ~lter alleges that he participated at the

hearing held by the County on A..R.F. Landfill, Inc.’s

application, that at hearing he presented a motion to dismiss

A.R.F. ‘s application for lack of jurisdiction, that that motion

was opposed by both the County and A.R.F., and that neither of

the parties will present arguments on this issue before the

Board. Also, Mr. Alter desires to present arguments regarding

his particular property as it relates to criterion three.

On August 12, 1987, A.R.F. responded to Alter’s motion.

A.R.F. did not enunciate an objection to the filing or acceptance

of such amicus curiae brief, but rather responded to the merits.

80—34 5

---

It is tne general practice ot the courts that the granting

or denial of a motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae

lies wholly within the discretion of the court. Generally. the

motion will be granted where the irovant establishes the necessity

or advisability of aiding the Board in consideration of the case

in which it is presented. The Board sees no reason to differ in

this approach. The Board believes that Alter has satisfied that

standard. Therefore Alter’s motion is granted. The Board notes

that the granting of this motion is consistent with the Board’s

Order of May 14, 1987. Acceptance of the brief as amicus curiae

in no way bestows any of the rights or privileges of party status

upon Mr. Alter.

Ii IS SC ORDERED.

I, Dorothy N. Gunn. Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that th~ above Order was adopted on

tne

_____________

da~ of

,-~-.#~/

,

1987 by a vote

of

___________

0

Dorothy M. ~unn, Clerk

~ //~

Illinois Pollution Control Board

80—346