ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 12, 2007
YORK HIGH NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMITTEE (a voluntary organization),
JANET HODGE, FRED HODGE, PATRICIA
BENNETT, DAVID BENNETT, SHEILA
TRANT, MIKE TRANT, JOE VOSICKY,
JEAN CONROY, PETER CONROY, FRANK
SOLDANO, JOSEPH REAMER,
ELIZABETH LALIBERTE, and CHARLES
LALIBERTE,
Complainants,
v.
ELMHURST PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DISTRICT
205,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
PCB 05-93
(Enforcement - Noise)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):
On November 15, 2004, York High Neighborhood Committee, Janet Hodge, Fred Hodge,
Patricia Bennet, David Bennet, Sheila Trant, Mike Trant, Joe Vosicky, Jean Conroy, Peter
Conroy, Frank Soldano, Joseph Reamer, Elizabeth Laliberte, and Charles Laliberte
(complainants) filed a complaint against Elmhurst Public Schools, District 205 (respondent).
See
415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2006); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.204. The complaint concerns alleged sound
emissions from respondent’s school, York Community High School, at 355 W. St. Charles Road
in Elmhurst, DuPage County. The parties now seek to settle. For the reasons below, the Board
accepts the parties’ stipulation and proposed settlement.
Section 31(d)(1) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) allows any person to file a
complaint with the Board.
See
415 ILCS 5/31(d)(1) (2006); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.212. In this
case, complainants allege that respondent violated certain noise provisions of the Act and the
Board’s regulations. According to the complaint, excessive noise is caused by the operation of
air conditioner chillers and ventilation fans located near the northwest corner of the roof of York
Community High School. Complaint at 3.
Under Section 31(d)(2) of the Act:
Whenever a complaint has been filed by a person other than the Attorney General
or State’s Attorney, the parties may file with the Board a stipulation and proposed
settlement accompanied by a request for relief from the hearing requirement of
Section 31(c)(1) of the Act [415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2006)]. Unless the Board, in its
2
discretion, concludes that a hearing should be held, no hearing on the stipulation
and proposal for settlement is required. 415 ILCS 5/31(d)(2) (2006);
see also
35
Ill. Adm. Code 103.301.
On February 27, 2007, the Board hearing officer conducted a hearing at which the parties
discussed that they had agreed to the terms of a stipulation and proposal for settlement and that
they intended to soon file the document with the Board.
See
Transcript at 4-5. On March 19,
2007, the parties filed the stipulation and proposed settlement, accompanied by a motion for
relief from the hearing requirement of Section 31(c)(1) of the Act. Notice of the stipulation and
settlement agreement was published on March 23, 2007, in the Elmhurst Press/Liberty Suburban
Chicago Newspapers. On April 19, 2007, the Board denied the motion for relief from the
hearing requirement as moot because the parties went to hearing.
Section 103.302 of the Board’s procedural rules sets forth the required contents of
stipulations and proposed settlements. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.302. These requirements include
stipulating to facts on the nature, extent, and causes of the alleged violations and the nature of
respondent’s operations. Section 103.302 also requires that the parties stipulate to facts called
for by Section 33(c) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/33(c) (2006)).
On April 19, 2007, the Board declined to accept the proposed stipulation and identified
deficiencies in the parties’ March 19, 2007 stipulation and proposal for settlement. The Board
allowed the parties until June 4, 2007, to file any amended stipulation and proposed settlement
addressing the deficiencies identified in the order. On June 4, 2007, the parties filed an “agreed
motion for extension of time” until June 18, 2007, to comply with the order. The Board granted
this motion.
On June 18, 2007, the parties filed a “Motion to Supplement Settlement Agreement” as
well as “Supplemental Stipulations Regarding Settlement Agreement.” The Board grants the
motion and finds that complainants and respondent have satisfied Section 103.302. Under the
proposed stipulation, respondent does not admit the alleged violations but agrees to the terms of
the stipulation. The Board accepts the stipulation and proposed settlement.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of law.
ORDER
The Board accepts and incorporates by reference the stipulation and proposed settlement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Section 41(a) of the Environmental Protection Act provides that final Board orders may
be appealed directly to the Illinois Appellate Court within 35 days after the Board serves the
order. 415 ILCS 5/41(a) (2006);
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.300(d)(2), 101.906, 102.706.
Illinois Supreme Court Rule 335 establishes filing requirements that apply when the Illinois
Appellate Court, by statute, directly reviews administrative orders. 172 Ill. 2d R. 335. The
Board’s procedural rules provide that motions for the Board to reconsider or modify its final
3
orders may be filed with the Board within 35 days after the order is received. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
101.520;
see also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.902, 102.700, 102.702.
I, John Therriault, Assistant Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the
Board adopted the above opinion and order on July 12, 2007, by a vote of 4-0.
___________________________________
John Therriault, Assistant Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
