ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    8,
    1993
    ST.
    CLAIR
    COUNTY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 93-51
    )
    (Landfill Siting Review)
    VILLAGE OF SAUGET,
    )
    VILLAGE OF SAUGET PRESIDENT
    )
    and BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
    and G.J.
    )
    LEASING COMPANY,
    INC.,
    a
    )
    corporation d/b/a CAHOKIA
    )
    MARINE SERVICE,
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE
    BOARD
    (by J.
    Theodore Meyer):
    This case is before the Board on two matters.
    On March 24,
    1993,
    respondent G.J. Leasing Company,
    Inc.,
    d/b/a Cahokia Marine
    Service
    (G.J. Leasing)
    filed a motion to dismiss petitioner St.
    Clair County’s
    (County)
    petition for review.
    On April
    1,
    1993,
    the County filed its response in opposition to the motion to
    dismiss, and a motion for leave to amend its petition for review.
    Additionally,
    on March 29,
    1993, the Board received a letter from
    the village attorney for respondent the Village of Sauget
    (Sauget).
    We have construed this letter as a motion for
    extension of time to file the record.
    We will first address Sauget’s motion for extension of time
    to file the record.
    Sauget states that it knew nothing about the
    Board’s March 11,
    1993 order,
    setting this case for hearing and
    ordering Sauget to file its record within 21 days, until March
    26,
    1993.
    Sauget states that it found out about the Board order
    accidentally, from counsel for Sauget’s co—respondent.
    Sauget
    then states that it reads the order to require that the record
    must be filed within 21 days,
    “which would be May sic
    1,
    1993.”
    Sauget contends that is impossible, because the village attorney
    must be in Chicago on March
    sic
    29 and 30, and because the
    record must be reproduced by a professional copier, which may
    take some time.
    Sauget states that it might be able to file the
    record by “Monday, the 10th of May sic”,
    and that the hearing
    in this case is set for May 11.
    Initially,
    the Board notes that we sent the March 11 order
    to Ms. Betty Long Wilson, Clerk of the Village of Sauget, and
    that the return receipt indicates that the order was delivered on
    March 15,
    1993.
    As to the substance of the letter, we are
    confused by the conflicting dates.
    However, we construe the
    letter as a motion for an extension of time to file the record.
    0114!
    -O
    135
    2
    Pursuant to the March 11 order, the record was due on April
    1,
    1993.
    We will extend Sauget’s time to file the record until
    April
    19,
    1993.
    We note that the hearing in this case is
    scheduled for May 7,
    1993.
    As noted above,
    G.J. Leasing filed a motion to dismiss the
    petition for review.
    G.J. Leasing points to Section 40.1(b)
    of
    the Environmental Protection Act
    (Act), which provides that a
    third party may appeal a local decision granting site approval if
    that third party “participated in the public hearing conducted by
    the
    ...
    governing body of the municipality.”
    (415 ILCS 5/40.1(b)
    (1992).)1
    G.
    J. Leasing argues that the County’s petition for
    review is deficient in two respects:
    first, that the petition
    fails to allege that it participated in the local hearing,
    and
    second,
    even if the petition is amended, the transcript of the
    hearing shows that no one represented the County at that local
    hearing.
    G.
    J. Leasing notes that Frank Boyne,
    a member of the
    County Board, was present at hearing, but argues that Mr. Boyne
    appeared in his individual capacity and not for the County Board.
    The County filed a response in opposition to the motion to
    dismiss, and asks for leave to amend its petition.
    The County
    contends that it is apparent from the local hearing transcript
    that the County was present at that hearing and did participate
    through Mr.
    Boyne.
    The County maintains that in light of these
    facts, and in light of the Board’s prevailing practice regarding
    the amending of pleadings, the only proper remedy for the
    County’s failure to explicitly allege participation is not
    dismissal but leave to amend the petition.
    The Board grants the County’s motion for leave to amend its
    petition for review.
    An amended petition shall be filed within
    7
    days of this order.2
    Thus, we are left with one issue:
    whether
    Mr. Boyne’s participation in the hearing held by Sauget is
    sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the County
    participated in the local hearing.
    After reviewing the arguments of the parties and the
    exhibits submitted in support of those arguments, the Board finds
    that Mr. Boyne did appear on behalf of the County.
    At that local
    hearing, Mr.
    Boyrie stated:
    The Act was formerly codified at I1l.Rev.Stat.
    1991,
    ch.
    111½, par.
    1001 et seq.
    2
    Unlike our practice in most other decision deadline
    cases, the’filing of this amended petition will not restart the
    time for decision.
    That
    is because it is the applicant for site
    approval who controls the 120-day decision deadline, not the
    County.
    01141-0136
    3
    I’m only speaking as
    a member of the Board, not for the
    County Board there.
    I have a letter and
    I want to
    submit
    it to you,
    and I have a letter from John
    Baricevic their County Board Chairman.
    (Motion to dismiss, Appendix A, at 48
    (emphasis added).)
    The County contends that Mr. Boyne’s statement that he was not
    speaking for the County Board was an attempt to communicate that
    the County Board itself had not yet taken a position on the
    application for siting approval.
    We find that although Mr.
    Boyne’s statement is somewhat ambiguous, he was appearing in his
    capacity as a County Board member.
    (Motion to dismiss, Appendix
    A, at 48-49.)
    Mr.
    Boyne submitted a letter from the County Board
    Chairman,
    as well as making a statement on his own behalf.
    Because Mr. Boyne appeared in his capacity as a County Board
    member, the County did participate at hearing, and has satisfied
    Section 40.1(b).3
    G.J. Leasing’s motion to dismiss is denied.
    This case will proceed to hearing.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    hereby cert~4ythat the above order was adopted on the
    2~—
    day of
    (-~i~*
    ~
    ,
    1993, by a vote of
    ~
    1~~
    ~
    ~
    ~
    -~
    Dorothy M. ,$~nn,Clerk
    Illinois Polilution Control Board
    The Board notes that in Land
    & Lakes Co.
    v. Village of
    Romeoville (February 7,
    1991),
    118 PCB 281, PCB 91-7, we allowed
    a state’s attorney to intervene on behalf of a county,
    although
    intervention is not ordinarily allowed in regional pollution
    control facility siting reviews.
    (JlL~l-O
    137

    Back to top