ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September 27, 1990
    INDUSTRIAL FUELS
    & RESOURCES/
    ILLINOIS,
    INC.,
    Petitioner,
    V.
    )
    PCB 90-53
    (Landfill Siting Review)
    CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
    )
    OF HARVEY,
    Respondent.
    SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION
    (by J.
    Theodore Meyer):
    This
    supplemental
    opinion
    will
    explain
    my
    votes
    in
    this
    matter.
    I dissented from the majority order upholding the City of
    Harvey’s (Harvey) decision denying site location approval for a
    new
    regional pollution control facility.
    As set forth below,
    I believe
    that Harvey’s determination was against the manifest weight of the
    evidence.
    However,
    I
    concurred
    in the majority
    opinion
    in
    this
    matter.
    My concurrence was based upon two considerations.
    First,
    I concurred
    in the opinion because
    I
    agree with the
    majority’s
    conclusion
    that
    it
    is
    the applicant
    who defines
    the
    intended
    service
    area,
    not the
    local
    decision-making
    body.
    I
    believe that units
    of
    local
    government should have some control
    over what types
    of facilities are located
    in their jurisdiction.
    However,
    to
    allow
    local
    decision-making
    bodies
    to
    redefine
    the
    intended service area would,
    in effect,
    require the applicant to
    read the minds of the local decisioninakers,
    so that the applicant
    could
    anticipate
    what
    service
    area
    is
    acceptable
    to
    those
    decisionmakers.
    It must be remembered that the applicant bears the
    burden
    of
    showing
    that
    the
    proposed
    facility
    is
    necessary
    to
    accommodate the waste needs of the area
    it is intended to serve.
    (IlI.Rev.Stat.
    1989,
    ch.
    111 1/2, par.
    1039.2(a) (1).)
    It would be
    almost
    impossible
    for
    an
    applicant
    to
    properly
    prepare
    his
    application and supporting witnesses if the intended service area
    is
    a “moving target”.
    Second,
    I concurred so as to raise the question of whether
    a
    majority of the Board must vote in support of the opinion for that
    opinion
    to be sufficient
    to support the Board’s decision.
    This
    Board has had at least one experience in a siting case where there
    was
    no majority
    in
    support
    of the opinion
    as
    it
    related
    to one
    criterion,
    although
    a majority believed that the local decision-
    making body’s decision on that criterion should be upheld.
    Members
    of the Board then issued supplemental opinions on that criterion.
    (Metropolitan Waste Systems,
    Inc.
    v.
    City
    of Marseilles,
    PCB 89-
    115—131
    2
    121,
    December
    6,
    1989.)
    There
    is
    a
    difference
    of opinion
    as
    to
    whether there must be at least four Board members voting in support
    of an opinion,
    or whether it is sufficient that at least four Board
    members vote
    in
    support
    of the outcome
    of
    the case,
    and explain
    their reasons in concurrences or supplemental opinions.
    I ask the
    appellate court to address this
    issue.
    As
    I stated above,
    I dissented from the majority’s order in
    this case because
    I believe that Harvey’s decision denying site
    approval
    was
    against the manifest weight
    of the
    evidence.
    The
    majority notes that only the testimony presented by Industrial was
    sworn; neither the statements of Harvey’s retained consultant nor
    t
    e stateme
    s made by several members
    of the public were sworn.
    ~r~e majori-~
    concludes
    that
    those
    unsworn
    statements
    “may
    be
    admitted
    a
    aublic
    comments,
    and
    not
    as
    testimony,
    and
    their
    probative~
    ght
    is
    there~yreduced~-accordingly.”
    ~(Majority
    opinion at
    Therefore,
    the only testimony
    in the record is in
    support of
    dustrial’s application.
    I do not see how the majority
    can
    uphold
    iIarvey’s
    determination
    after
    stating
    (correctly,
    I
    believe)
    t
    t
    the
    only
    statements
    against
    the
    application
    are
    public comi~:nts, with reduced probative weight.
    Additionally,
    I
    object to allowing Harvey to rely on the concerns of its retained
    consultant,
    when
    some
    of
    those
    concerns
    were
    answered
    by
    Industrial’s
    supplemental
    information,
    and when
    the
    consultant
    ultimately
    recommended
    approval
    of
    the
    application,
    with
    conditions.
    I
    do not believe that a
    local decision-making
    body
    must always accept the conclusions of its expert,
    but I do object
    to the way that Harvey and the majority used bits and pieces of the
    consultant’s report to support Harvey’s
    decision,
    while ignoring
    the consultant’s conclusion.
    In sum,
    I do not believe that there
    is sufficient evidence in this record to support Harvey’s decision.
    For these reasons,
    I dissented
    from the majority order,
    but
    concurred
    in the majority opinion.
    J. /~heodore!~yer
    Boa’~dMember
    I,
    Dorothy N.
    Gunn,
    Clerk
    of
    the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above Supplemental Opinion was filed
    on the
    day of
    _________________,
    1990.
    Dorothy
    M. Gunn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    1l5~l32

    Back to top