ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 7, 2003
     
    LOWE TRANSFER, INC. and MARSHALL
    LOWE,
     
    Petitioners,
     
    v.
     
    COUNTY BOARD OF MCHENRY
    COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
     
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
          
    PCB 03-221
    (Pollution Control Facility
    Siting Appeal)
     
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by G.T. Girard):
     
    The Board has pending two motions and responses in this case. First on July 28, 2003,
    the Village of Cary (Cary) filed a motion appealing determinations of the hearing officer (Cary’s
    Motion) in this proceeding. Also on July 28, 2003, petitioners filed a motion
    in limine
    . On
    August 4, 2003, Cary filed a response to the motion
    in limine
    and on August 6, 2003, the County
    Board of McHenry County, Illinois (McHenry County) filed a response to the motion
    in limine
    .
    On August 5, 2003, petitioners filed a motion to strike the response filed by Cary and a request
    for sanctions against Cary. On August 7, 2003, Cary filed a response to the motion to strike and
    request for sanctions. For the reasons discussed below the Board grants the petitioners’ motion
    to strike, but denies petitioners’ motion for sanctions. In addition, the Board strikes Cary’s
    Motion and the response to the motion to strike and request for sanctions. Finally, the Board
    denies the petitioners’ motion
    in limine
    , in part.
     
    This proceeding was initiated on June 5, 2003, when petitioners timely filed a petition
    asking the Board to review a May 6, 2003 decision of McHenry County.
    See
    415 ILCS 5/40.1(a)
    (2002); 35 Ill. Adm. Code 107.204. McHenry County denied petitioners’ application to site a
    pollution control facility located on U.S. Route 14 in McHenry County. On June 19, 2003, Cary
    filed a motion to intervene in the siting appeal. On July 10, 2003, Board denied the motion to
    intervene because the Environmental Protection Act (Act) and Board’s rules do not authorize
    party status for Cary (
    see
    415 ILCS 5/40.1 (2002) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 107.200). However,
    the Board allowed Cary to file an
    amicus curiae
    brief.
     
    In Cary’s Motion, Cary asks that the Board reverse the hearing officer’s determinations
    regarding: participation in or auditing of status conferences, the public comment period and the
    withdrawal of the record. Mot. at 6. Cary also responded to petitioners’ motion
    in limine
    .
    Petitioners do not specifically ask to strike Cary’s July 28, 2003 motion appealing hearing officer
    determinations, but petitioners do ask that Cary’s response to the motion
    in limine
    be stricken.
    The Board previously ruled on June 19, 2003, that the Act does not allow Cary to be a party to
    this proceeding.
    See
    415 ILCS 5/40.1 (2002). The Board’s rules specify that only a party may
    file a motion or a response.
    See
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.500(a) and (d). Therefore, the Board
     
    2
    strikes Cary’s Motion, Cary’s response to the motion to strike and request for sanctions, and the
    response filed by Cary to the motion
    in limine
    . The Board denies petitioners’ motion for
    sanctions.
     
    In the motion
    in limine
    , petitioners seek to restrict the scope of the hearing in this matter
    by either precluding oral statements on the record or by limiting the time allowed for statements.
    motion
    in limine
    at 4. Further, petitioners ask that all statements be limited to the record
    generated by McHenry County.
    Id
    . In response to the motion
    in limine
    , McHenry County urges
    the Board to deny the motion
    in limine
    because the Board’s rules encourage public participation.
     
    The Board will deny petitioners’ motion
    in limine
    in part. However, the Board will grant
    the motion
    in limine
    to the extent that petitioners seek
    to limit the time allowed for oral
    statements. The Board’s rules clearly allow oral statements “when
    time
    , facilities, and concerns
    for a clear and concise hearing record so allow.” 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.628(a). To ensure that
    the hearing can be completed with a clear and concise record, the hearing officer may limit the
    time allowed for oral statements consistent with the provisions of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.628(a).
     
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
     
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board
    adopted the above order on August 7, 2003, by a vote of 7-0.
     
     
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top