ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 8, 1998
    W.R. MEADOWS, INC.,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    THE ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 97-195
    (Permit Appeal - Air)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Yi):
    On June 12, 1998, petitioner, W.R. Meadows (Meadows), filed a motion asking the
    Board to reconsider or modify its May 7, 1998, order denying petitioner’s motion for
    summary judgment on two grounds. On June 19, 1998, the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency (Agency) filed a response opposing Meadows’ motion. On June 29, Meadows filed
    both a motion for leave to file instanter a reply to the Agency’s response and a reply.
    In ruling upon a motion for reconsideration, the Board is to consider factors including,
    but not limited to, error in the previous decision and facts in the record which are overlooked.
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246(d). In
     
    Citizens Against Regional Landfill v. County Board of
    Whiteside County (March 11, 1993), PCB 93-156, the Board stated that “[t]he intended
    purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to bring to the court’s attention newly-discovered
    evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing, changes in the law, or errors in
    the court’s previous application of the existing law.” Korogluyan v. Chicago Title & Trust
    Co., 213 Ill. App.3d 622, 572 N.E.2d 1154 (1st Dist. 1992).
    The motion to reconsider is denied. The Board finds nothing in the motion to
    reconsider that persuades the Board that its decision of May 7, 1998, was in error, or that facts
    were overlooked.
    To the extent that Meadows seeks further explanation regarding whether Section
    203.206(e) conflicts with Section 203.211, the Board believes it has sufficiently addressed this
    matter. In its May 7, 1998 order, the Board agreed with the Agency’s assertion that the two
    sections did not conflict. Nothing in Meadows’ motion persuades the Board that its finding
    regarding these two sections needs further explanation.
    Meadows’ motion for leave to file instanter a reply to the Agency’s response is denied.
    The Board’s procedural rules do not permit filing a reply to a response. Further, in the reply,
    Meadows asks the Board to declare the Agency’s permit denial invalid. As the Board noted in
    2
    its May 7, 1998, order, whether a permit was properly denied involves issues of fact.
    Therefore, this matter is inappropriate for summary judgment.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the 8th day of July 1998, by a vote of 5-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top