ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April 3, 1997
    SENATOR WILLIAM SHAW, RONNIE
    LEWIS and JUDITH EVANS,
    Petitioners,
    v.
    BOARD of TRUSTEES of the VILLAGE of
    DOLTON, MAYOR DONALD HART and
    LAND AND LAKES COMPANY,
    Respondents.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 97-68
    (Pollution Control Facility
    Siting Appeal)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Yi):
    This matter is before the Illinois Pollution Control Board (Board) pursuant to a
    motion for reconsideration filed by Senator William Shaw, Ronnie Lewis, and Judith
    Evans (petitioners) on February 28, 1997.
    1
    This matter was originally before the Board
    on an appeal filed by petitioners pursuant to paragraph (b) of Section 40.1 of the
    Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/40.1(b) (1994)) on October 8, 1996.
    Petitioners sought appeal of the September 3, 1996 decision of the Village of Dolton,
    Illinois (Village) which granted local siting approval to Land and Lakes Company
    (Land and Lakes) for an expansion of its pollution control facility located in the
    Village. Petitioners
    requested the Board to reverse the Village's decision on the grounds that the
    decision of the Village was against the manifest weight of the evidence concerning the challenged criteria
    of Section 39.2 of the Act. (415 ILCS 5/39.2 (1994).) For the reasons set forth in the Board's January
    23, 1997 opinion and order, the Board found that the Village's decision was not against the manifest
    weight of the evidence concerning the challenged criteria and affirmed the Village’s decision.
    Petitioners argue in their motion for reconsideration that several procedural
    decisions of the Board prejudiced them. First, petitioners assert that the Board's decision
    to allow Land and Lakes to file an additional response brief prejudiced them. (Mot. at 1.)
    Next, petitioners assert that the Board's decision to allow Land and Lakes to file a
    response brief without allowing Petitioners to file a reply caused prejudice. (Mot. at 1-2.)
    Finally, petitioners claim that the Board overlooked evidence in support of their request
    for a continuance in the matter which caused the Board's decision to be erroneous and
    prejudicial. (Mot. at 1-2.)
    1
    Petitioners' motion for reconsideration will be referenced to as "Mot. at ".
    2
    On March 11, 1997 Land and Lakes filed a response to petitioners' motion for
    reconsideration.
    2
    Land and Lakes asserts that petitioners fail to set forth any cognizable
    reasons for reconsideration and argues that the motion should be denied. (Resp. at 1.) In
    response to petitioners' arguments that the Board's decisions to allow Land and Lakes to
    file a reply prejudiced them, Land and Lakes argues that petitioners waived such argument
    by failing to file a response to Land and Lakes motion for leave to file citing to 35 Ill.
    Adm. Code 101.241(b). (Resp. at 2.) Land and Lakes also re-argues the issue of whether
    petitioners can raise new arguments at hearing. (Resp. at 2-3.) Land and Lakes concludes
    that petitioners have not presented any arguments in support of the motion for
    reconsideration and have waived any arguments concerning the Board's decision to allow
    Land and Lakes to file a reply brief. (Resp. at 3.)
    In ruling upon a motion for reconsideration, the Board is to consider factors
    including, but not limited to, errors in the previous decision and facts in the record which
    are overlooked. (35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246(d).) In Citizens Against Regional Landfill v.
    The County Board of Whiteside County, (March 11, 1993), PCB 93-156, the Board
    stated that "the intended purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to bring to the court's
    attention newly-discovered evidence which was not available at the time of the hearing,
    changes in the law, or errors in the court's previous application of the existing law."
    (Korogluyan v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., (1st Dist. 1992), 213 Ill. App.3d 622, 572
    N.E.2d 1154.)
    As to affirmance of the hearing officer's decision to deny petitioners' motion for
    continuance the Board finds that petitioners have not presented the Board with any new
    evidence, a change in the law, or any other reason to conclude that the Board's decision
    was in error.
    As to petitioners' arguments concerning the Board's decision to allow Land and
    Lakes to file a reply brief, to raise arguments in a motion for reconsideration for the first
    time when such arguments could have been raised prior to the Board's original decision is
    improper. In Illinois the general rule is that failure to raise an issue results in a waiver of
    that issue. (See 735 ILCS 5/3-110.) Moreover, as noted by Land and Lakes in its
    response by failing to file a response to the motion petitioners are deemed to have waived
    objection to Land and Lakes' motion pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.241(b). Finally,
    the Board finds that petitioners have failed to present the Board with any new evidence, a
    change in the law, or any other reason to conclude that the Board's decision was in error
    to allow Land and Lakes leave to file a reply.
    In summary the Board denies petitioners' motion for reconsideration.
    IT IS SO ORDERD.
    2
    Land and Lakes response to petitioners' motion for reconsideration will be referred to
    as "Resp. at ".
    3
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/41) provides for
    the appeal of final Board orders within 35 days of the date of service of this order.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby
    certify that the above order was adopted on the _____ day of ____________, 1997 by a
    vote of _______.
    ___________________________________
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top