1. PUBLIC COMMENTVILLAGE OF CARY’S OBJECTION TO
      2. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
RE
CE
~V ED
BEFORE THE
CLERK’S OFFICE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
JUt
1
1
2003
LOWE TRANSFER, INC. and
)
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS
MARSHALL LOWE,
)
Pollution
Control
Board
Co-Petitioners,
)
~—p
V.
)
PCBNo.03-221
)
(Pollution Control Board
COUNTY BOARD OF MCHENRY
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF
FILING
TO:
See Attached Certificate of Service
Please take notice that on July
11, 2003, we filed with the Illinois Pollution Control
Board an original and nine copies ofthis Notice ofFiling and Public Comment Village of Cary’s
Objection To Petitioners’
Motion to Remove Record From Board Offices, copies ofwhich are
attached and hereby served upon you.
Dated: July 11, 2003
VILLAGE OF CARY
By:__________
One
fits
ttomeys
Percy L. Angelo, Esq.
Patricia F. Sharkey, Esq.
Kevin
G. Desharnais, Esq.
MAYER, BROWN, ROWE & MAW LLP
190
S. LaSalle Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
(312) 782-0600
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRINTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA~K~
OFFICE
LOWE TRANSFER, INC. and
)
JUL Ii
2003
MARSHALL LOWE,
)
)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Co-Petitioners,
)
Pollution
Control Board
)
PCBO3-221
vs.
)
(Pollution Control Board
)
Siting Appeal)
COUNTY BOARD OF MCHENRY
)
COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
)
)
Respondent.
)
PUBLIC COMMENT
VILLAGE
OF CARY’S OBJECTION TO
PETITIONERS’
MOTION TO REMOVE
RECORD
FROM BOARD OFFICES
The Village of Cary (“Village”) is a
public body representing the citizens ofthe Cary.
The proposed Transfer Station site is located directly adjacent to the Village ofCary and in close
proximity to the homes ofmany Cary residents. On behalfofthe residents ofthe Village ofCary,
and by and through the lawyers employed by the Village to represent it in this proceeding, the
Village hereby enters its objection to the Petitioners’ Motion to Remove the Record in this
proceeding from the Board’s offices.
The Village’s objection is based on the
following:
1.
Although the Village has been denied intervention in this proceeding, it remains
the representative ofthe majority ofresidents who will be most
affectedby the siting ofthe
proposed transfer station and has a right to file public comments in this proceeding.
2.
As a representative ofthe affected public
that actively participated in the
underlyingproceeding in opposition to the proposed siting and that will actively participate in
this appeal, the Village has a duty to bring to the Board’s attention the public’s concern that the
record
in this case be kept available to the Board and to the members ofthe public for review.
This Document is Filed on Recycled Paper
3.
Board rules require the filing ofan original and nine copies ofthe record in
siting
appeals.
(35
III. Admin. Code
107.304(c)) However, the Hearing Officer’s July 8, 2003 Order
granted McHenry County’s motion to
file a reduced number ofcopies ofthe record in this case.
As a result, the Board received only an original and two copies of certain portions ofthe record
and only
a single copyofother portions ofthe record. Specifically, the Board has only the
originals of22 over-sized exhibits and two video tapes. Ifthese items are removed from
the
Board’s offices, both the Board and the public will be completely deprived of theirright to
consult these exhibits. This will hamstring the Board Members in their review,
and will
handicap the Respondent and the public, including the Village and its residents. Removal of
copies ofother portions ofthe record
—
even if more than one copy was provided
--
will also
limit access to these materials.
4.
Petitioner is effectively
requesting that it
alone
have access to
important pieces of
the record and that access to other portions ofthe record be limited.
But Petitioner is not the only
party or interested person in this proceeding nor is it the only one that will be filing a briefor
preparing for hearing. The Respondent, McHenry County, the Village, and the neighboring
landowners and residents are all likely to need access to the record to prepare forhearing and to
file briefs and comments.
5.
It was the Petitioner’s duty to pay the costs forthe preparing and certifying the
record
(35
III. Admin.
Code 107.306).
Therefore, when the County filed a reduced numberof
copies with the Board,
the Petitioner saved copying costs. After receiving this benefit, Petitioner
should not be allowed to
deprive the Board and other participants full review ofthe record by
removing from the Board offices
one ofthe few copies
—
and, for some portions ofthe record,
This Document is Filed on Recycled Paper
the
only
copy
—
filed. Petitioner is a business entity and has the resources to make its own copies
just as other participants in this proceeding will have to do.
WHEREFORE, Cary objects to the Petitioner’s Motion and urges the Board to deny it.
Respectfully Submitted,
The Village of Cary
Dated: July
11, 2003
By ______________________
0
e ~f its Attorney
Percy L. Angelo
Patricia F. Sharkey
Kevin G. Desharnais
Mayer,
Brown, Rowe & Maw
190 S. LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60603-3441
(312) 782-0600
This Document is Filed
on Recycled Paper
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Patricia F. Sharkey, an attorney, hereby certifies that a copy ofthe foregoing Notice of
Filing and Public Comment Village ofCary’s Objection To Petitioners’ Motion to Remove
Record From Board Offices was served on the persons listed below by
depositing same in the
U.S. Mail at or before 5:00 p.m. on this 11th day ofJuly, 2003.
David
W. McArdle
Charles F. Heisten
Zukowski, Rogers, Flood
& McArdle
Hinshaw and Culbertson
50 Virginia Street
100 Park Avenue, P.O. Box
1389
Crystal Lake, IL
60014
Rockford, IL
61105-1389
Patri
ia
..
S
arkey
Patricia F.
Sharkey
Attorney for Village ofCary
Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP
190 South LaS alle Street
Chicago, Illinois
60603
312-782-0600
THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRINTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER

Back to top