ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 6,
    1994
    DOROTHY
    FURLAN
    and
    )
    MICHAEL FURLAN,
    )
    )
    Complainants,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 93—15
    (Enforcement)
    UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
    )
    SCHOOL OF MEDICINE,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by E.
    Dunham):
    This matter comes before the Board on a September 12,
    1994
    letter filed by complainants which the Board construes as a
    motion for reconsideration.
    On September 19,
    1994,
    the
    respondent filed its response to the motion for reconsideration.
    On September 1,
    1994,
    the Board granted the respondent’s
    motion
    for
    summary
    judgment.
    The
    Board
    granted
    summary
    judgment
    based on a noise report submitted by the respondent showing that
    the sound measurements did not exceed the Board’s numerical noise
    limitations in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 901.102.
    Complainants argue that the nuisance count was not addressed
    by the motion for summary judgment and that the noise report
    states that the “noise is audible and will easily penetrate a
    home of normal construction.”
    The complainants request that the
    Board consider this matter on the nuisance allegation.
    In its response, respondent contends that complainants fail
    to provide a reason why a response to the motion for summary
    judgment was not filed.
    In addition, respondent maintains that
    the complainants fail to introduce any new evidence for the Board
    to reconsider its order and merely reiterates the information
    presented in the motion for summary judgment.
    The Board reconsiders its order of September 1,
    1994, which
    granted summary judgment in favor of respondent.
    Complainants
    have presented no objection to the noise report submitted by
    respondent.
    The noise report submitted by respondent clearly
    indicates that there is no violation of the numerical noise
    standard.
    Therefore, the Board finds that stut~maryjudgment for
    respondent on the issue of violation of the Board’s numerical
    regulations was appropriate.
    In considering the nuisance allegations, the Board noted
    that the motion for summary judgment did not directly address
    this allegation but granted summary judgment because the
    2
    complainants had not filed a response to the motion.
    The Board
    reverses its finding of summary judgment on the issue relating to
    the nuisance violation.
    The Board directs the parties to proceed
    to hearing on the allegations in the complaint relating to a
    violation of the Board’s nuisance provisions.
    The hearing officer is ordered to set this matter for
    hearing.
    The hearing shall pertain to the allegations of a
    nuisance violation.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, do hereby certif~t~t the above order was adopted on the
    ~-
    day of
    ,
    1994,
    by a vote of
    ,
    Clerk
    •lution Control Board

    Back to top