RECEIVED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CLERK’S OFFICE
MAR
112004
David and Jacquelyn McDonough,
)
STATE
OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution Control Board
Complainants,
)
)
vs.
)
PCB No. 00-163
)(Citizens Enforcement-Noise)
Gary Robke,
)
)
Respondent
)
COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE
TO MOTION TO EXTEND STAY
Pursuant to the Opinion and Order ofthe Board
dated September 4,
2003, the
complainants hereby request that Respondent’s Motion to Extend the Stay
beyond March
1,
2004, be denied and, further, that the Board order construction of the noise barrier in
an alternate reasonable and necessary location within 90 days, and
in support thereofstate
as follows:
1.
On February 6, 2003, The Illinois Pollution Control Board
issued an
Order for
respondent to
construct a noise wall between respondent car wash and complainants
property.
The noise wall, in the form of a fence on top of dirt berm, structure was to be
completed in
180 days and run continuously
on the southern and western property line of
the car wash.
The order allowed that if respondent encountered insurmountable
difficulties with the City of Mascoutah during construction of the noise wall that
respondent could attempt to modify the Board order as required. Order at 6.
2.
In the order, the Board found against complainants request for the noise wall to be
constructed as close to the car wash as possible to maximize the effective noise reduction
from a 12-foot wall, as recommended by the noise expert Mr. Zak.
Citing respondents
plans forfuture expansion, the Board found that a noise
wall totaling 12-feet from the
ground, and located on the southern and western property line, was sufficient to reduce
the noise from the car wash. Order at
4,5,7.
3.
The Order stated that it would not be
reasonable or necessary to locate the noise
wall near the car wash, since it would limit future expansion potential.
Order at
5.
4.
Subsequent to the Order, the City ofMascoutah, in a letter to Mr. Wigginton on
June 16,
2003, indicated that underground utilities and electrical pedestals in
the area
could prohibit construction of the noise wall in the location ordered by the Board.
In that
letter, the City indicated a willingness to work with all parties to find a solution.
5.
On August 10, 2003, the complainants, the respondent and his partner, and Mr.
Wigginton
met with the City manager to discuss options.
The City agreed to
develop a
plan for constructing the noise barrier to minimize
interference with the City’s utilities.
6.
On September 4, 2003~,the Board ordered a stay on construction ofthe noise wall
until March
1, 2004,
pending resolution ofconstruction
issues with City of Mascoutah.
7.
On December
14, 2003,
the City of Mascoutah proposed an approved plan for the
noise wall.
The City’s plan requires construction of the noise wall in the general location
previously requested by the complainants.
8.
The available land proposed for future expansion at the car wash is limited.
Site
plan previously submitted as evidence showed “future” expansion potential for an
additional bay on the north end of the property, plus two bays and
a vacuum station
added at the
south end of the car wash.
PCB: 00-163 Exhibit C3.
9.
Future expansion potential on the north side of the car wash will be unaffected by
the location ofthe noise wall.
10.
In Respondent’s Motion to Extend Stay, the respondent indicates a willingness to
have City of Mascoutah buy
south expansion property and share costs in
the project.
The
options being discussed would eliminate future expansion potential on the south end of
the car wash.
11.
The effectiveness of a noise wall, as previously submitted in the report, Noise
Emissions From The Mascoutah
Car Wash To An Abutting Residential
Area, by Mr.
Zak, will be diminished for low
frequency sounds associated with engine combustion,
radios, and voices. The complainants are concerned that expansion on south side of car
wash would bring the unreasonable noises
closer to their property, home, and bedroom.
12.
The complainants are concerned that the location ofthe
12-foot noise wall is
critical for effective reduction of the unreasonable
noise from the car wash.
13.
It is unclear that expansion at the car wash would provide any significant benefits
to the car wash or community.
Expansion, as planned, would
enlarge capacity but
provide no new customer services. The added capacity would be ofpotential value only
when the car wash is
operating at relatively high rates ofactivity.
It is the complainants
Opinion,
given the observed willingness of customers to wait in line at the existing car
wash, and their option to return at a time that the facilities are less crowded, that
expansion could have little economic impact on the car wash.
14.
It is the complainants opinion that the primary benefactors, as a result of
expansion, would be
customers due to slightly reduced wait times during busy periods.
Customers, however, could more effectively minimize their wait time by choosing to use
the car wash during frequently available periods
when less customer traffic is
present.
15.
The complainants believe that the wide
base requirements for a fence on top of
berm type noise wall likely would have precluded future south expansion, as planned,
even had the noise wall been located on the southern property line ofthe car wash.
16.
In light of new findings the complainants respectively request the Board to
reconsider the decision that it would
not be
reasonable or necessary to locate the noise
wall near the car wash.
The complainants contend that any additional
delay in
completing the noise barrier would, particularly with the long, peak business season at
the car wash approaching, be extremely detrimental to their quality oflife.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the complainants respectfully request that
extended stay be denied, and the Board order the respondent to construct, within 90 days,
the noise wall as previously ordered, but in a location north of the southern property line
as approved by the City of Mascoutah.
Any agreements between the respondent and the
City regarding cost sharing for the project can be~
decided during the permit and
construction process.
Res~uvel~~~i
‘7
Complainants
David McDonough
Jacquelyn McDonough
751
North Jefferson
Mascoutah, IL 62258
(618) 566-8065
PROOF OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on the _____day of
,
2004, a
copy ofthe foregoing pleading was served upon the following attorney(s) of record and
interested parties to the above cause by the method indicated below:
Stephen
R. Wigginton
3201
West Main Street
Belleville, IL 62226
Dorothy M. Gunn
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph Street, Ste.
11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
Carol Sudman
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
600 South Second Street, Suite 402
Springfield, IL 62704
U.S.
Mail
i
Personal Delivery
u
Facsimile
~
Overnight Courier