ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February
    3,
    1994
    JOHN ZARLENGA and
    )
    JEAN
    ZARLENGA,
    )
    )
    Complainants,
    PCB 92—178
    v.
    )
    (Enforcement)
    PARTNERSHIP CONCEPTS,
    )
    HOWARD EDISON, BRUCE
    )
    McCLAREN, COVE DEVELOPMENT
    )
    COMPANY, THOMAS O’BRIEN,
    )
    BLOOMINGDALE PARTNERS, an
    )
    Illinois Limited Partnership,
    )
    and GARY LAXIN,
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by M. McFawn):
    On December 3,
    1993 complainants filed a motion to compel
    production of documents in this case with the hearing officer.
    On December 16,
    1993,
    respondents filed
    a memorandum in
    opposition to complaints’ motion to compel production of
    documents.
    On December
    17,
    1993 the hearing officer granted
    complainants’ motion in part,
    compelling production of Document
    Requests
    14 and 15, and denied Document Request 16.
    On December 30,
    1993, respondents moved for leave to take
    interlocutory appeal of the hearing officer’s order.
    On
    January 10,
    1994,
    complainants filed their response opposing
    respondents’ motion for interlocutory appeal, and in the
    alternative, their motion for leave to take an interlocutory
    appeal of the hearing officer’s order.
    Both parties’ motions for leave to take an interlocutory
    appeal are denied.
    Neither party has presented cause sufficient
    to overturn the Hearing Officer’s order.
    On January 26,
    1994,
    respondents filed an expedited motion
    to approve implementation of respondents’ proposed noise
    abatement plan which was filed concurrently with that motion.
    Respondents are requesting approval of their plan at today’s
    Board meeting because hearing on this matter is scheduled for
    February 8 through 10,
    1994.
    In the alternative, respondents
    request that the Board vacate the order scheduling those hearings
    until such time as the Board can rule on their expedited motion
    for approval.
    Respondents’ motion for expedited approval is denied.
    Complainants’ response to this motion is not due until today,
    2
    leaving the Board insufficient time to consider its content.
    Furthermore, seven days is insufficient time for the Board to
    review respondents’ proposed plan.
    Finally, the Board cannot
    decide this case absent a hearing on the complaint.
    Therefore,
    the Board also denies respondents’ request to vacate the order
    scheduling the hearing scheduled February
    8 through 10,
    1994.
    The Board,
    however, will limit the scope of that hearing to
    the allegations contained in the Complaint,
    and order the hearing
    officer to continue until a future date any hearing on the
    proposed noise abatement plan.
    In setting that date, the hearing
    officer is directed to allow sufficient time for the parties to
    review the proposed plan and prepare for hearing.
    That will also
    provide the Board time to study the proposed plan.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn, clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Boa~d,hereby cer ify that the above order was adopted on the
    3~z~e.
    day of
    _______________,
    1994,
    by a vote of
    ______
    ~L
    A~.
    /~_~J
    Dorothy M. ~nn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Po~~L~ution
    Control Board

    Back to top