ECVED
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARLERK’S
OFFICE
PEOPLE
OF
WILLIAMSON
COUNTY
ex
rel.
)
AVG
292008
STATE’S
ATFORNEY
CHARLES
GARNATI,
)
And
THE
WILLIAMSON
COUNTY
BOARD
)
STATE
0F
ILLINOIS
Onution
Control
Board
)
Petitioners,
)
)
V.
)
Case
No.
PCB
2008-93
)
Permit
Appeal-Land
KIBLER
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
)
MARION
RIDGE
LANDFILL,
INC.,
and
)
ILLINOIS
ENViRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
)
Respondents.
)
RESPONSE
OF
KIBLER
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
AND
MARION
RIDGE
LANDFILL.
INC.
TO
WILLIAMSON
COUNTY’S
STATE’S
ATTORNEY
CHARLES
GARNATI’S
MOTION
FOR
RECONSIDERATION
NOW
COME
Respondents,
KIBLER
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
and
MARION
RIDGE
LANDFILL,
INC.,
through
their
undersigned
attorney,
and
for
their
response
to
the
“Williamson
County
State’s
Attorney,
Charles
Garnati’s
Motion
for
Reconsideration,”
and
the
memorandum
and
other
materials
accompanying
and
supporting
that
motion,
state
as
follows:
1.
By
Opinion
and
Order
of
the
Board
dated
July
10,
2008,
this
Board
dismissed
the
permit
appeal
brought
by
People
of
Williamson
County
ex
rel
State’s
Attorney
Charles
Garnati,
and
the
Williamson
County
Board,
seeking
review
of
a
permit
granted
by
Respondent
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Agency”),
concerning
a
non-hazardous
waste
landfill
permit
issued
in
favor
of
Respondents
Kibler
Development
Corporation
and
Marion
Ridge
Landfill,
Inc.
2.
This
Board’s
July
10,
2008
Opinion
and
Order
of
the
Board
dismissed
the
permit
proceedings
on
the
grounds
that
the
statute,
415
ILCS
5/40(a)(1),
makes
no
provision
for
any
appeal
of
such
a
permit
granted
by
the
Agency,
but
only
allows
appeals
from
permit
denials
or
from
conditions
unilaterally
imposed
by
the
Agency
in
granting
a
permit.
Simply
put,
this
Board
specifically
ruled
that
no
statutory
authority
supported
the
unprecedented
and
meritless
petition
filed
by
the
Petitioners
in
this
case.
“For
the
Board
to
allow
this
action
to
proceed
as
a
permit
appeal
would
amount
to
an
unlawful
extension
of
appeal
rights
by
the
Board.”
(Opinion,
at
13).
3.
Petitioner
purports
to
have
filed
a
motion
for
reconsideration
electronically
on
August
14,
2008.
(The
Williamson
County
Board
did
not
join
in
the
motion).
4.
Notably,
the
certificate
of
service
is
signed
by
one
“Joan
Lane,”
not
identified
as
an
attorney,
but
the
signature
is
not
notarized;
moreover,
it
fails
to
comply
with
the
provisions
of
verification
by
certification
allowed
by
Section
1-109
of
the
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,
735
ILCS
5/1-109.
In
addition,
the
Petitioner
purports
to
have
filed
the
document
by
electronic
means,
yet
there
is
no
indication
in
the
record
that
leave
to
do
so
has
been
granted
by
this
Board’s
clerk,
nor
by
the
hearing
officer
in
this
case.
For
these
reasons,
the
documents
should
be
stricken.
See 35
Ill.
Admin.
Code
101.302(d);
35
Ill.
Admin.
Code
Part
101,
App.
E
illustration
B.
5.
The
motion
for
reconsideration
correctly
acknowledges
that
in
order
to
seek
reconsideration,
the
Petitioner
must
identify
newly
discovered
evidence,
changes
in
the
law,
or
errors
in
application
of
existing
law.
Petitioner
claims
to
rely
upon
only
the
third
basis—that
is,
purported
errors
in
application
of
existing
law—and
so
Petitioner
has
waived
any
claim
that
newly
discovered
evidence
or
changes
in
the
law
warrant
reconsideration.
(S
Motion
for
Reconsideration,
paragraph
1).
6.
Fully
one
half
of
the
motion
(pages
3-4),
and
of
the
memorandum
supporting
the
motion
(memorandum,
pages
5-7),
as
well
as
all
documents
submitted
in
support,
constitute
“new
evidence”
which
Petitioner
attempts
to
argue
to
support
this
Board’s
reconsideration
of
its
July
11
ruling.
However,
Petitioners
do
not
assert
that
any
of
this
supposed
evidence
is
“newly
discovered,”
and
review
of
the
materials
reveals
that
virtually
all
of
it,
even
if
in
any
way
relevant
to
any
issues
pending
before
this
Board,
could
have
and
should
have
been
submitted
in
Petitioners’
response
to
the
motions
to
dismiss
that
were
dealt
with
by
this
Board’s
July
11
ruling.
Petitioner
does
not
even
attempt
to
explain
why
this
information,
if
relevant
to
its
petition,
was
not
submitted
sooner.
Accordingly,
the
second
halves
of
Petitioners’
motion
and
memorandum,
and
all
documents
submitted
by
Petitioner
in
support
of
the
motion,
should
be
stricken
and
completely
disregarded
by
this
Board.
7.
Petitioner
also
purports
to
argue
that
this
Board
misapplied
the
law.
However,
even
2
though
this
Board’s
ruling
centered
upon
the
statutory
restrictions
for
appealing
the
type
of
permit
involved
in
this
case,
Petitioner
is completely
silent
about the
statute
or
its
effect
on
the
attempted
permit
appeal.
Indeed,
Petitioner
does
not
even
cite
415
ILCS
5/40
in
the
entire
motion for
reconsideration,
or
supporting
memorandum!
8.
At
best,
Petitioner’s
argument
is
no
more
than
a
re-hash
of
arguments
Petitioner
previously
advanced.
No
new
cases
are
cited
in
Petitioner’s
motion
for
reconsideration,
and
Petitioner’s
arguments
repeat
the
arguments
previously
made.
This
Board has
already
considered
and
rejected
these
arguments,
and
Petitioner’s
motion
is
no
more
than
a
waste of
time.
9.
Petitioner
fails
to
explain
why
this
Board’s
July
11
Opinion
and
Order
was
an
incorrect
application
of
clear
statutory
requirements.
Petitioner’s
motion
for
reconsideration
is
as
frivolous
as
the
purported
permit
appeal
itself,
and
it
should
be
denied;
to
any
extent
this
Board
does
reconsider
its
opinion,
the
July
11
opinion
must
be reaffirmed,
as
a proper
application
of
clear
statutory
law.
WHEREFORE
Respondents,
KIBLER
DEVELOPMENT
CORP.
and
MARION
RIDGE
LANDFILL,
INC.,
request
that
this
Board
deny
the
motion
for
reconsideration
filed
by
Petitioner
Charles
Garnati,
State’s
Attorney
of
Williamson
County,
or
in the
alternative
if
this
Board
determines
a
basis
exists
to
reconsider,
that
this
Board
reaffirm
its
July 11
Opinion
and
Order
in
this
case,
and
deny
to
Petitioner
any
further
relief,
but
instead
grant
to
Respondents
all
relief
available
from
this
Board
including
the
imposition
of
sanctions.
Respectfully
submitted,
Kibler
Development
Corporation
&
Marion
Ridge
Landfill,
Inc.,
Respondents,
By
their
attorney,
HEDING.
By
Hedinger
Law
Office
2601
South
Fifth
Street
Springfield,
IL
62703
Telephone:
(217)
523-2753
Fax:
(217)
523-4366
3
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
NOTICE
OF FILING AND PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned
certifies that an original and nine copies of the foregoing Response to
Motion for Reconsideration
and of this Notice of Filing and Proof
of
Service, were served upon the
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, and one copy to each of the following parties of
record and hearing officer in this cause
by
enclosing
same in an envelope addressed to:
John
Therriault, Acting Clerk
(via FedEx)
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R.
Thompson
Center
100W. Randolph St.,
Suite
11-500
Chicago,
IL 60601
Melanie Jarvis
Division of Legal
Counsel
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency
1021 N. Grand
Ave. East
P.O. Box
19276
Springfield,
IL 62794-9276
Jennifer
Sackett Pohlenz
Querrey &
Harrow
75
West
Jackson Boulevard
Suite 1600
Chicago, IL
60604-2827
with
postage fully prepaid, and by
Springfield, Illinois before 5:30 p.m. on the
Hedinger
Law Office
2601
South Fifth Street
Springfield, IL 62703
Telephone:
(217)
523-2753
Michael J. Ruffley
Assistant State’s Attorney
200 Jefferson
Williamson
County
Courthouse
Marion, IL 62959
Carol
Webb,
Hearing
Officer
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand
Avenue East
P.O.
Box 19276
Springfield,
IL
62794-9276
This document
prepared
on
recycled
paper
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOAR.EflVED
S
OFFICE
PEOPLE OF
WILLIAMSON
COUNTY ex
rel
STATE’S ATFORNEY
CHARLES
GARNATI,
And THE
WILLIAMSON COUNTY
BOARD,
Petitioners,
V.
KIBLER
DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION,
MARION RIDGE LANDFILL,
INC., and
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondents.
AUG
292008
POllUtIOn
STATE
OFIL.LINO,
8
Control
Board
Case No. PCB 2008-93
Permit Appeal-Land
a
U.S. Post
Office Mail Box in
2008.
4