ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 11, 1993
    DANIEL LORDEN & HELEN LORDEN,
    Complainants,
    v.
    )
    PCB 92—169
    (Enforcement)
    SHERIDAN SOUTH CONDOMINIUM
    )
    ASSOCIATION, JAMES A. HANSEN,
    )
    CHARLES
    3.
    LEBRUN, ANDREA
    3.
    )
    HROVATIN, JOAN LEE, IVAN and
    )
    CATALINA HORAK and STEVEN.
    )
    RICHARDS, CHARLES E. ALEXANDER,
    )
    and RE/MAX DEERFIELD,
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by 3.C. Marlin):
    This matter is before the Board on a March 10, 1993 letter
    filed by complainants Daniel and Helen Lorden (Lordens). The
    Board construes the letter as a motion for reconsideration of the
    Board’s December 3, 1992 order.
    In its December 3, 1992 order, the Board granted
    respondent’s motion to dismiss the Lordens’ noise pollution
    complaint on the basis of res ludicata and the Lorden’s failure
    to provide proof of service of the complaint. On that same day,
    but after the Board had entered its order dismissing the
    complaint, the Lordens filed a motion to file response instanter
    and response. The Lordens’ state in their letter that they have
    contacted the Clerk of the Board about the Boards December 3,
    1992 order and would like to discuss why they have not been able
    to obtain a hearing on their complaint.
    Once the Board entered its order of December 3, 1992
    granting respondent’s motion to dismiss, the Lordens had two
    avenues available for obtaining relief from that order. Both of
    these avenues for relief are set forth in the Board’s procedural
    rules and neither have been complied with by the Lordens. First,
    S100.300 of the Board’s procedural rules provide that a motion
    for reconsideration of a final Board order shall be filed within
    35 days of the date of that order. Therefore, if the Lordens’
    disagreed with the Board’s December 3, 1993 order, a motion for
    reconsideration should have been filed no later than January 7,
    1993. Even construing the Lorden’s letter of March 10, 1993 as a
    motion for reconsideration, it is clearly not timely filed. The
    Lorden’s filing of December 3, 1992 seeking to file their
    response instanter did not relieve them of the obligation to file
    01 ~iO-0O~5
    2
    a motion for reconsideration. By filing their motion to file
    instanter and response approximately two weeks late, the Lordens
    took the chance that the motion to dismiss would already be ruled
    upon by the Board. The Board declines to reconsider its decision
    of December 3, 1992 because the Lordens’ motion for
    reconsideration is untimely filed.
    The second avenue available to the Lordens is Sl00.301 of
    the Board’s procedural rules which provides for relief from final
    Board orders if a motion for such relief is filed within one year
    of the date of the order. The Lordens filing of March 10, 1993
    does not request relief pursuant to §100.301 nor can it be so
    construed
    -
    The Board declines to reconsider its order of December 3,
    1992 dismissing the Lordens’ complaint.
    IT IS DO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereb certify that the above order was adppted on
    the
    /1 ~
    day of
    ___________________,
    1993 by a vote of
    ~
    /7?
    Dorothy M. f3~t, Clerk
    Illinois P01 tion Control Board
    01 ~O-OOL~6

    Back to top