ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June
    4, 1992
    VILLAGE OF MATTESON,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    V.
    )
    PCB 90—146
    )
    (Enforcement)
    WORLD MUSIC THEATRE,
    )
    JAN
    PRODUCTIONS, LTD. and
    )
    DISCOVERY
    SOUTH
    GROUP, LTD.
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by B.
    Forcade):
    This matter is before the Board on a motion to hear an
    appeal of the hearing officer’s ruling and to expedite ruling,
    filed by Respondent on June
    1,
    1992.
    On Nay 19, 1992, Respondent,
    Discovery South Group
    (herinafter Theatre), filed a motion to postpone the hearing
    scheduled for June 9,
    1992.
    On May 22,
    1992, village of Matteson
    (hereinafter Matteson) filed its objection to the motion to
    postpone the scheduled hearing.
    After considering the motion and
    response, the hearing officer denied the motion.
    On May 29,
    1992,
    Theatre filed a motion to reconsider the hearing officer’s
    order.
    In its motion appealing the hearing officer’s decision
    Theatre stated that the hearing officer has indicated that he
    will not rule on the motion for reconsideration and directed
    Theatre to obtain a ruling from the Board.
    However, the hearing
    officer issued an order on June
    2,
    1992, affirming his prior
    decision and stating his belief that the hearing could proceed as
    scheduled.
    Counsel for Matteson has indicated to counsel for Theatre,
    that Matteson does not intend to file a response to the motion
    appealing the hearing officer’s denial of the motion to postpone.
    Because the scheduled hearing date is less than a week away,
    the
    Boardwill rule on this motion prior to the expiration of the 7-
    day response period.
    Theatre is requesting the hearing be postponed for 30 days
    in order to present its case ~effectively. Theatre contends that
    Matteson has indicated that it will raise several new issues at
    the hearing, expanding the scope of the hearing.
    Theatre argues
    that it does not have adequate time to prepare for the scheduled
    hearing.
    Theatre argues that there is inadequate time to conduct
    discovery and that two of its witnesses will not be available the
    week prior to the hearing for preparation.
    Theatre contends that
    the scheduled hearing coincides with the start of the concert
    season for which its employees and consultants are critically
    needed.
    134—25
    2
    Matteson argues that the hearing should proceed as scheduled
    because it has scheduled the testimony of Village residents,
    sound technicians and expert witnesses.
    It further argues that
    because Theatre’s operatio~is limited to the summer months any
    delay will unnecessarily subject the residents to prejudice and
    harm
    as a result of the chronic noise pollution.
    While
    the Board agrees that the hearing should proceed as
    scheduled,
    it does not believe that
    a
    delay in the proceeding
    will
    subject the residents of Matteson to prejudice and
    harm
    from
    chronic noIse pollution.
    The Board notes that the sound
    limitations of Section 900.102 and Section 901.102 apply to
    Theatre independent of this proceeding.
    (See April 25,
    1991
    Interim Order at p.
    37.)
    The Board has instructed Theatre to
    perform continuous monitoring during all concerts and to correct
    any violations.
    This monitoring is to be performed in accordance
    with the Board’s previous orders.
    The Board again reiterates
    that the results of this monitoring are to be submitted to the
    Board and Natteson on a weekly basis.
    The Board is disturbed by Theatre’s inability to prepare for
    a scheduled hearing.
    The Board is also concerned with Theatre’s
    failure to propose an alternate expedited schedule to conduct the
    hearing.
    The Board’s March 26,
    1992 order instructed the parties
    to conduct an additional hearing in this matter.
    In this order
    the Board expressed the need for this matter to proceed as
    expeditiously as possible.
    The order further instructed the
    parties to agree to a date for the hearing within 14 days of the
    order (April
    9,
    1992)
    and complete all hearings within 60 days of
    the order
    (May 26,
    1992).
    This tiineframe provided adequate time
    to prepare for the hearing,
    especially considering that the
    matters to be covered at hearing had been previously addressed in
    earlier filings by the parties.
    The June hearing date was agreed to by the parties in the
    beginning of May,
    40 days after the order instructing the parties
    to set a hearing date.
    Given the delay in setting the hearing
    date,
    it was no longer possible to complete the hearing within 60
    days as specified by the order.
    Two
    weeks after the hearing date
    was agreed on by the parties, Theatre filed its motion to
    postpone the hearing for 30 days.
    Theatre did not justify why 30
    additional days would provide adequate time to prepare for the
    hearing.
    The Board believes that this matter has already been
    unnecessarily delayed and that all efforts should be employed to
    prevent future delays in this proceeding.
    However, the Board is also concerned that the testimony and
    evidence presented at the hearing be complete and accurate.
    The
    Board’s.goal in holding this hearing is to obtain information on
    sound control procedures to formulate a final order in this
    matter preventing future violations by Theatre of the noise
    regulations.
    The Board believes that a complete and accurate
    134—26
    3
    record can be developed by proceeding with the hearing as
    scheduled and scheduling additional hearings,
    if required.
    The two main issues to be presented at the hearing were
    discussed in detail in the Board’s orders dated March 26,
    1992
    and September 12,
    1991.
    The two matters to be discussed are:
    1)
    whether unreasonable interference continued through the
    1991 concert season such that sound control is
    necessary and
    2)
    if sound control is necessary, the nature of the sound
    control,
    i.e. measurement times and sound levels that
    may not be exceeded at the sound monitoring locations
    and recommended averaging time.
    The hearing officer’s denial of Theatre’s motion to postpone
    the hearing is affirmed.
    The parties are instructed to proceed
    with the hearing as scheduled.
    Matteson has stated that it is
    prepared to go ahead with the scheduled hearing.
    The Board
    believes that the issues are such that Theatre will be able to
    effectively cross examine the witnesses presented by Matteson and
    present testimony on its own behalf.
    The hearing shall proceed
    in the following manner:
    Natteson shall present its available
    witnesses who will be subject to cross examination by Theatre and
    then Theatre will present its available witnesses who will be
    subject to cross examination by Matteson.
    The hearing shall
    continue in this manner from day to day as required by the
    testimony.
    After all available testimony has been presented, the
    hearing officer may schedule additional hearing time,
    if Theatre
    demonstrates that additional hearing time is required to prevent
    material prejudice.
    The Board reiterates that all hearings
    should be completed as expeditiously as possible.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    J. T. Meyer dissented.
    I,
    Dorothy Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certi
    that the above order was adopted
    the
    ‘fr~—
    day of
    ______________,
    1992, by a vote of
    —
    /
    ~4
    ~L~4
    ~.
    Dorothy M. G~inn,Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    134—2
    7

    Back to top