RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
STATC
JUL
Or
122004
ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
)
ILLINOIS, iNC., A Delaware
)
Corporation,
)
)
Docket Number:
PCB 04-186
Petitioner,
)
(Pollution Control Facility
vs.
)
Siting Appeal)
)
COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on this 12th
day of July, 2004,
we had filed with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board, the attached document entitled:
MICHAEL WATSON’S MOTION TO
STRIKE
PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY BOARD’S RESPONSE TO HIS MOTION TO
INTERVENE/FILE AMICUS BRIEF, a
copy of which is hereby served upon you.
Intervener, Michael Watson
By _____________________
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
QUERREY & HARROW, LTD.
175 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 540-7000
PROOF OF SERVICE
Karen Gryczan, a non-attorney, on oath
,
certifies that she served the foregoing
Notice ofFiling,
and document set forth herein, on
the attorneys named on the attached
service list via U.S. Mail at 175 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, I linois this 12th day ofJuly,
2004, before the hour of 5:00 p.m.
~
x
Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to
IL. REV. STAT. CHAP 110 SEC 1-109 1 certif~y
that the statements set forth herein are true and correct.
Document #: 939748 vi
SERVICE LIST
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Clerk’s Office
James R. Thompson Center
Ste. 11-500
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
One Original and 9 copies
Charles Heisten
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100 Park Avenue
P.O. Box 1389
Rockford, Illinois 61105-1389
815-490-4901
Fax
Representing County
Board ofKankakee
Via U.S. Mail
Keith Runyon
1165 Plum Creek Drive
Bourbonnais, IL 60914
Pro-Se
Via U.S. Mail
Christopher W. Bohien
Barmann, Kramer & Bohien, P.C.
200 East Court
Street, Suite
502
P.O. Box 1787
Kankakee, IL 60901
Representing Oty ofKankakee
Via U.S. Mail
Bradley Halloran
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Hearing Officer
James R. Thompson Center
11th Floor
100 W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60602
Via Hand Delivery
Donald Moran
Pedersen & Houpt
161 North Clark Street, Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60601-3242
312-261-1149 Fax
Representing Waste Management ofIllinois,
Inc.
Via U.S. Mail
Elizabeth S. Harvey,
Esq.
Swanson, Martin & Bell
One
IBM Plaza, Suite 2900
330 North
Wabash
Chicago, IL 60611
312-321-0990 Fax
Representing County Board ofKankakee
Via U.S. Mail
George Mueller
-
George Mueller, P.C.
501 State Street
Ottawa, IL
61350
Representing Interested Party Karlock
Via U.S. Mail
Kenneth A. Bleyer
Attorney at Law
923 W Gordon Terrace #3
Chicago, IL 60613-2013
Representing Interested Party
Via U.S. Mail
Printed on Recycled Paper
Document #: 934021 vi
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD JUL
122004
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLiNOIS, iNC.,
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
A
Delaware corporation,
)
Pollution Control Board
)
Petitioner,
)
)
Docket Number: PCB 04-186
v.
)
(Pollution Control Facility
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE
)
)
Respondent.
)
MICHAEL WATSON’S MOTION TO
STRIKE
PORTIONS OF THE COUNTY
BOARD’S RESPONSE TO HIS MOTION TO INTERVENE/FILE AMICUS BRIEF
Now comes MICHAEL WATSON (Watson), by and through his attorneys, QUERREY
&
HARROW, LTD., and moves this Honorable Pollution Control Board (Board)
to strike
Paragraphs 24, 36-39, 42-44 of the County Board’s response to Watson’s Motion to
intervene/amicus brief. In support of this motion, Watson states as follows:
1. The County Board, while alleging that it will proceed to represent the “public
interest” in this matter, falsely attacks one of the citizens of Kankakee. The allegations set forth
in Paragraphs 24, 36-39, and 42-44 are
not only not supported by the record before the Board,
but they are
plainly false and therefore should be stricken. As such, these references should be
stricken. State Security Insurance Company v. Ramon Soto Burgos,
et al., 145
II1.2d 423,
430,
583 N.E.2d 587,
550
(S.Ct. 1991)(statements in a brief not supported by the record were
stricken).
•2. In Paragraph 24, the County Board alleges that a property value protection plan will
protect Watson’s property interests and, thus, should be deemed by the Board adequate and
-
should serve as, essentially, a
bar to Watson submitting any brief, be it intervener or
amicus,
in
Printed on Recycled Paper
this proceeding. However, the County Board’s assertion is simply false. The property value
protection plan fails and, as written, apparently does not apply, to protect property zoned
agricultural. Further, Watson has been excluded from WMII’s property value protection plan
correspondence
and told that the plan does not apply to his adjacent property to the East, even
though it has a home on it, as it is zoned agricultural.’ Further, the remaining acreage ofwhich
Watson is a beneficial. owner, surrounding the proposed
site, is agricultural. As such;
there is
absolutely no protection for and no protection for the majority,
of the property, including but
not limited to Watson’s, in the immediate vicinity of the proposed expansion.
3.
Likewise, the County Board’s allegation in Paragraphs 36-39 that Watson is• a
“competitor” of WMII is false. Watson is an individual and a beneficial owner ofproperty. He
also is an officer and
shareholder of United Disposal of Bradley, Inc. (hauling company and
transfer station). However, United Disposal of Bradley, Inc. is not seeking intervention or leave
to file an
amicus,
is not the owner ofproperty adjacent to the proposed WMII landfill expansion,
and has not taken a role in any of the WMII proceedings. Further,. United Disposal of Bradley,
. -
Inc. is an Illinois corporation and, under Illinois law, a separate person from Watson. Finally,.
even if United Disposal
of Bradley, Inc. were the one
to be seeking leave to intervene or file an
amicus
(which it is not), the County Board’s statement is still false, as WMII does not have
hauling routes in Kankakee (and thus does not compete with
United Disposal of Bradley, .Inc.—for.
customers)
and,
pursuant to a recent Board opinion in United Disposal of Bradley, Inc.,
et al.
v.
IEPA, PCB 03-23
5,
the transfer station has geographic boundaries set per a condition on its
1
Watson has been a beneficial owner of this property, since the 1980’s, long before this landfill expansion was
proposed.
2
Printed on Recycled Paper
permit.
Thus, even if United Disposal of Bradley, Inc. were
the
person seeking
interventionlamicus status, which
it is not, the County Board’s allegation ofbeing a competitor is
incorrect.
4. Additionally, as respects
Paragraphs 43-44, the County Board’s allegations that
Watson delayed the
appeal of the Board’s decision on Watson,
et al.
v. County Board of
Kankakee,
et al.,
PCB PCB
03-134 (consolidated with PCB
03-125, 03-133, 03-135) is false.
On appeal (3”’ Dist. Appellate No. 03-03-0924), it is WIvHI who has delayed the proceedings, not
Watson. WMII’s first brief
in
the appeal was due on January 27, 2004. That deadline was
extended by the Appellate Court, at WMII’s request, by order of February 3, 2004, to March 16,
2004. WMII then filed another motion to extend the briefing schedule, which was granted by this
Appellate Court on March 24, 2004 and which moved WMII’s brief date to April 20, 2004~
Thus, WM1I sought 84 days of extended time in the appeal. Watson never sought an extension
that was not likewise sought by other parties to the appeal. All totaled, the period of time the
briefing was extended for all
appellees’ briefs (not including the County, who has conflicting
interests with the
other appellees
and
filed a brief separately, as it supported
WMII’s arguments
in the appeal, whereas the other appellees did not) is
49 days, which is not nearly as long as the
delay caused in the appeal by WMII. Therefore, Paragraphs 43-44 should be stricken as they
allege incorrect information that is not contained anywhere in the record before the Board.
5. Finally, the County Board’s position in its brief that it, alone, should be trusted to
protect the “public interest” is nothing less than shocking, when by its own writings, the County
Board’s (or at least its counsel’s) conflicted position in this proceeding should be questioned.
For example, the County Board, not WMII, argues that Watson should be denied any status
3
Printed on Recycled Paper
before the Board by falsely alleging he is a competitor ofWMII. Further, amazingly, the County
Board argues that Watson should be denied access to brief the issues before the Board, based on
the allegation that he
“will not simply be advising
this
Board regarding the law, but he will be
advocating a point of view and urging this Board to find in favor ofthe County Board and
against Wi’J’IIL”
Thus, apparently, as ridiculous as it sounds, the County Board’s attorneys do
not want anyone advocating the law in favor of the County Board.
6. The aforementioned portions of the County Board’s response to Watson’s Motion
only reinforces Watson’s concern that the public interest and his property interests are not being
represented on appeal in this matter. Particularly given th~fact that the County Board not only
fails to recognize that the property value protection plan, as written, does not apply to
agriculturally zoned property such as Watson’s (and the majority of the property in the vicinity
of the proposed expansion), but falsely asserts that it does apply, and, as shown by the other
incorrect references in its response to Watson’s Motion, that the County Board actively
represents the interests ofWMII in this (and the 3rd Dist. Appellate No. 03-03-0924) appeal.
WHEREFORE, MICHAEL WATSON respectfully prays that the Illinois Pollution
Control Board grant this Motion and strike Paragraphs 24, 36-39, 42-44.
Additionally,
WATSON respectfully prays that the Illinois Pollution Control Board grants his Motion to
Intervene, or in the alternative, grant permission for Watson to file an
Amicus Curiae Brief
in this
matter.
4
Printed on Recycled Paper
Dated: July 12,2004
Respectfully Submitted,
MICHAEL WATSON
By:_____
Jennifer
J.
Sackett Pohlenz
Querrey & Harrow, Ltd.
175 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Phone: (312) 540-7000
Facsimile: (312)
540-0578
5
Printed on RecycledPaper
