ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 27,
1982
MRS.
LUCILLE WATHEN,
Complainant,
PCB 81—185
MR. HAROLD
HOGAN,
Respondent.
OPINION AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J,D. Dumelle):
This matter comes before
the
Board upon the November 18,
1981
filing of a citizen’s complaint by Lucille Wathen alleging that
Harold Hogan’s central home air—conditioning unit located at 2442
Robincrest Lane in Glenview,
Cook County emits sound beyond the
boundaries of her property
in
violation
of
Rule 102 of Chapter
8:
Noise Pollution.
Mrs. Wathen alleged that the noise disturbs
sleep and causes irritability, illness, anger and stress to her
family.
Hearing was
held
on February 23,
1982,
The Wathen and Hogan residences have ad-joining back yards and
the Hogan’s air-conditioning unit
is
behind
their house
(R.
4
and
Comp.
Ex.
8),
The unit was installed
in
1977 and caused immediate
complaints by the Wathens
(R.
36).
In 1978 the Hogans erected a
“sound barrier”
(R.
37 and
Resp,
Ex.
2) consisting of wooden
shutters approximately the same height as the air conditioner
placed in an
“L”
configuration on
the
two sides of the unit which
do not face the Hogan’s house
(R.
43
and Resp.
Ex.
2).
This
partially solved the problem (R~
37
and Resp.
Ex.
1).
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
conducted noise tests on
July 12,
1979, and July 8,
1981 at
various sites on the Wathen’s
property.
All tests were conducted
during the day.
The results
showed that
some frequencies exceeded
the daytime limits for emissions to Class A land and most exceeded
the nighttime limits
(Cornp.
Exs,
3
and 7).
While
those Rule
202
limitations do not apply to sound emitted from residential property
since such emissions are excepted from
Rule
202 by Rule 208(a),
the
tests do provide some evidence that the emissions in this case are
unreasonable.
Mrs. Wathen testified that the emissions unreasonably
interfered with her enjoyment of her property, made her irritable
and disturbed her sleep
(R.
4-5),
her
daughter, Grace; and her
47-149
—2--
husband suffer from similar problems with the noise
(R.
5,
32,
33
and Comp.
Ex.
1).
The Wathen~swere,
in
fact, disturbed enough
by the noise to offer to pay the costs
for the materials needed
to construct a solid plywood barrier
(R.
48—9),
The only evidence rebutting this testimony is Mrs. hogan’s
assertion that the noise does not disturb her even though the air
conditioner is directly under her bedroom window and that the
noise may be coming from other air conditioners in the area
(R.
42—43).
However,
she
is protected from the noise by double
windows
(R.
45) and the Agency’s test results clearly identify
the noise source as the Hogan’s air conditioner.
The Board stated in the adopting Opinion of the Noise
Regulations
(R. 72—2,
8
PCB
703,
25;
July 31,
1973)
that “although
our jurisdiction would cover disputes
between
residential
neighbors, we feel that
local
authorities may be better suited in
terms of providing an immediate solution to the problem.t’
However,
the case is before the Board,
the Board has jurisdiction, and
it
is the Board’s duty to decide it.
The weight of the evidence is
that there has been
an
unreasonable interference and that Rule
102
has been violated,
The
Board
finds
that unreasonable interference
has been proven based on the standards
in Section
33(c) of the Act.
First,
sleeping habits were disturbed and customary
uses
of private
property were interrupted.
Second, although the pollution source
has value, its worth is diminished because of its interference
with the normal activities of
others.
Third, although the source
is suitably located,
emissions
began
after
the Wathens were
Living
in their home.
Fourth, technically practical and economically
reasonable means do exist to limit the noise emissions.
Based on
all these facts, the Board concludes that unreasonable interference
under Rule 102 of Chapter
8 has been established.
In determining an appropriate
remedy, the Board notes the
neighborhood nature of the difficulties and the fact that the
harm caused is not severe,
Mr. Hogan must make reasonable efforts
to reduce the emissions.
There is testimony that this can be
accomplished by,
for example, installing
a solid plywood barrier
or baffle a
few feet from the unit of a height at least one foot
higher than the unit to
deflect
the
emissions back towards his
own property.
Other procedures calculated to achieve the same
result could also be carried out.
The Board further notes that if
a new barrier
is installed,
it should extend to the house walls and some sort
of sound
insulation material may be necessary on the inside of the barrier.
Since
Mr.
Hearn, an Agency employee, indicated that there may
be some difficulties in structuring a barrier
in this case
(R.
27-31),
Mr.
Hogan should attempt to obtain some expert advice on
barrier construction,
if that
is how he intends to comply.
This constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Board.
47-1!~fl
—3—
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Mr. Hogan is
in violation of Rule 102 of Chapter
8:
Noise Pollution.
2.
Mr.
Hogan shall cease and desist violating Rule 102
of Chapter
8 within
60 days of the date of this Order.
3.
Mr.
Hogan
shall carry out appropriate methods to
limit the noise emissions from his property.
Such procedures
shall
be completed within 60 days of the adoption of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby cert)fy that the above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the
~7~”-
day of
7~-
,
1982,
by a vote of
~ç—~~)
.
Christan
L. Mo~fett,C1~rk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
47-151