ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April 19, 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)
    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).
    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 declines to accept the parties’ stipulation and proposed
    settlement. The Board gives the parties until June 4, 2007, to file an amended stipulation and
    proposed settlement addressing the deficiencies identified in this order.
    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)(2) (2004); 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
    2
    Section 31(c)(1) of the Act [415 ILCS 5/31(c)(1) (2004)]. Unless the Board, in its
    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) (2004);
    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
    Tr. 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. The Board denies
    the motion for relief from the hearing requirement as moot because, as noted, the parties went to
    hearing.
    Section 103.302 of the Board’s procedural rules sets forth the required contents of
    stipulations and proposed settlements.
    See
    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. In addition, Section 103.302(c) requires that the parties
    stipulate to facts called for by Section 33(c) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/33(c) (2004)), which bears
    on the reasonableness of the circumstances surrounding the alleged violations.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm.
    Code 103.302(c). Specifically, Section 33(c) requires that the Board consider:
    all the facts and circumstances bearing upon the reasonableness of the emissions,
    discharges or deposits involved, including, but not limited to:
    i)
    the character and degree of injury to, or interference with the
    protection of the health, general welfare and physical property of
    the people;
    ii)
    the social and economic value of the pollution source;
    iii)
    the suitability or unsuitability of the pollution source to the area in
    which it is located, including the question of priority of location in
    the area involved;
    iv)
    the technical practicability and economic reasonableness of
    reducing or eliminating the emissions, discharges or deposits
    resulting from such pollution source; and
    v)
    any subsequent compliance. 415 ILCS 5/33(c) (2004).
    The Board finds that the parties’ stipulation and proposed settlement fails to address the
    Section 33(c) factors. Nor was any testimony or other evidence introduced at hearing pertaining
    to the factors. The Board accordingly holds that the stipulation and proposed settlement is
    deficient under the Board’s procedural rules and therefore declines to accept it.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm.
    Code 103.302, 103.306(a).
    3
    The parties have until June 4, 2007, to file an amended stipulation and proposed
    settlement with the Board, addressing the deficiencies identified above. Failure to do so may
    result in the dismissal of this case.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
    adopted the above order on April 19, 2007, by a vote of 3-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top