ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 23,
1989
A.R.F.
LANDFILL CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 89—15
COUNTY OF LAKE,
)
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.D.
Durnelle):
This matter comes before
the Board upon
a March
7,
1989
motion for leave
to appear
as amicus curiae filed by the Prairie
Holdings Company Corporation and fifteen
individuals residing
in
Lake County (“Residents”).
A.R.F.
Landfill Corporation
(“A.R.F.”)
filed
a response
to the motion on March 15,
1989.
For
the reasons
set forth herein,
the Board grants Prairie Holdings’
motion
to file an amicus brief.
Prairie Holdings Corporation
(“Prairie1t)
is an Illinois
corporation formed by some of the individual
Residents.
Prairie
owns approximately 670 acres of real estate
(commonly known as
the “Heartland Triangle”)
located less than one—third of a mile
from
the proposed regional pollution control
facility.
As
individual owners and through Prairie,
the Residents have been
working with the Lake County Board
to preserve the rural
character
and open space of
Lake
County.
Prairie purchased
the
Heartland Triangle
to make
sure the property
is developed
in
a
manner compatible
with the rural character
of the surrounding
area.
The Residents participated
in
the hearing
on the
application before the Lake County Board.
They state
that,
as
nearby landowners,
they can provide
a perspective
on the proposed
facility not necessarily addressed by the parties which would aid
the Board
in rendering its decision.
Thus,
Prairie Holdings
requests leave
to appear as an amicus curiae and
to
file
a brief
amicus curiae
in this case.
A.R.F.
opposes Prairie Holdings’
motion.
A.R.F.
cites
McHenry County Landfill,
Inc.
v.
Pollution Control Board,
154
Ill.
App.
3d
89,
506 N.E.2d 372
(2d Dist. 1982),
and Waste
Management
of Illinois
v.
County of Lake, PCB 87—75
(July 16, and
December
7,
1987)
for
the proposition that
a third party is not
permitted
to appear
as an
amicus curiae
in
a local
siting
appeal.
A.R.F.
argues further
that Prairie Holdings has no
special
interest and
is being adequately represented by Lake
County.
Finally, A.R.F.
argues that Prairie
Holdings has had its
opportunity to present its arguments and,
therefore, should not
be given
a “second bite at the apple.”
97—203
—2—
Consistent with the decision
in Waste Management,
cited
above, wherein
the Board
stated:
It
is
the general
practice of the courts that
the granting
or denial
of a motion
for
leave
to
file a brief
as amicus
curiae
lies wholly
within
the
discretion
of
the
court.
Generally,
the
motion
will
be
granted
where
the
movant
establishes
the
necessity
or
advisability
of
aiding
the
court
in
consideration
of
the
case
in
which
it
is
presented.
The Board
sees
no reason
to differ
in this approach.
Waste Management,
p.
2,
the Board will grant Prairie
Holdings’
motion.
Prairie Holdings
may
file
an amicus brief at
a time determined by the hearing
officer.
However, the Board notes that acceptance of the amicus
brief
in no way bestows any of
the rights and privileges
of party
status upon Prairie Holdings.
See Waste Management
v.
Pollution
Control
Board,
PCB 87—75,
Board Orders July
16,
October
15, and
December
17,
1987.
IT
IS SO ORDERED
I,
Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, here~ycertify that the above Order was adopted
on
the c~’?á’~dayof
_____________________,
1989,
by
a vote
of
7—C
.
Illmo
Control
Board
97—204