ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
29, 1988
CITY OF FARMINGTON,
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 85—203
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D.
Dumelle):
This matter comes before
the Board upon
a September 9,
1988
Motion For Leave To File Agency Brief
Instanter.
This action was initially
a request
for an extension
of an
earlier granted variance
(PCB 84—166), which allowed sanitary
sewer overflows during installation of bypasses.
The request was
docketed as PCB 85—203.
In approximately June of 1987 Petitioner
and Respondent came
to an agreement concerning
a compliance plan.
This agreement led
to a favorable Agency Recommendation filed with the Board on July
6,
1987.
However, on December
16,
1987 the Agency filed
a Second
Amended agency Recommendation withdrawing its approval, claiming
that Petitioner had reneged on
its promise
to adhere
to the
agreed upon compliance schedule.
Subsequently, Petitioner
filed
a new Petition For Variance
and on March
21,
1988 Respondent filed
its formal Agency
Recommendation,
urging the Board
to deny the requested variance
because,
inter alia,
“...
their alternative compliance plan would
not absolutely guarantee elimination of basement floodings...”
The matter went
to hearing on July 28,
1988,
and the Hearing
Officer ordered briefs
to be submitted simultaneously no later
than two weeks after
the Board’s receipt of record of hearing
transcripts.
On September
9,
1988,
Respondent motioned for leave
to file
its brief,
instanter,
noting that Petitioner had
(also)
failed
to
file its brief within the time prescribed
by the Hearing
Officer.
Respondent indicated that
its motion and brief were
submitted
to the Hearing Officer
(rather than opposing counsel)
because
a copy of the Respondent’s brief was attached to the
motion.
Respondent requested
that the Hearing Officer hold the
93—625
—2—
motion and brief until such time as Petitioner
filed
its brief so
as
to avoid giving Petitioner
an advantage prior
to submitting
Petitioner’s brief;
the Hearing Officer order setting
simultaneous brief deadlines obviously was
intended
to prevent
this.
Because Petitioner
never
responded
to Respondent’s Motion
For Leave To File, Instanter,
an attorney for the Board
telephoned counsel for Petitioner.
Petitioner’s counsel
indicated surprise that he was not served with
a copy of
Respondent’s motion and also was surprised tolearn
that hearing
transcripts were available and had been available
for
approximately one month.
Counsel for Petitioner was informed
that a Response
to respondent’s motion should be filed post haste
and that Respondent’s brief
(overdue at that time)
should be
submitted as
soon as possible.
Since that date Petitioner has failed
to respond to the
Motion For Leave To File,
Instanter and has not filed
its hearing
brief.
Respondent’s Motion For Leave To File,
Instanter,
is
granted.
Petitioner
is hereby ordered
to submit Petitioner’s
brief
no later
than December
9, 1988.
If Petitioner’s brief
is
not submitted by December
9,
1988 this Board will review and
consider appropriate sanctions
(pursuant to
35
Ill. Adm.
Code
107),
including dismissal of this action with prejudice.
IT IS
SO
ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of
the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that
t~e
above Order was adopted on
the
______________
day
of
~
1988 by
a vote
of
7-0
.
Dorothy M. ,i9~unn, Clerk
Illinois Pc~llutionControl Board
93—626