ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September
~,
1977
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
PCB 76-311
ED WILLING,
d/b/a LONE PINE
GUN CLUB,
)
Respondent.
MR.
PATRICK
J.
CHESLEY
and
MR. RUSSELL YGGERT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT;
MR.
ANTHONY
B.
CAMERON,
ATTORNEY,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This
matter is
before the
Board
upon
a
Complaint
filed
December
6,
1976 by the Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency
(Agency)
against
Ed Willing
d/h/a
the Lone Pine
Gun
Club
(Willing)
alleging violation
of Rules
102
and 206 of the
Pollution Control
Board’s Rules
and Regulations, Chapter
8:
Noise Regulations
(Regulations).
Hearing was held in this
matter on March
29 and
30,
1977,
and considerable
public comment has been
received by the
Board.
Willing
owns and operates a
gun club known as the Lone Pine
Gun Club located on St. Anthony Road, Quincy,
Adams County,
Illinois.
Willing purchased
the property and developed the
gun club in early
1976,
subsequent
t.u
the
forced
sale of
a previously owned gun club
under condemnation proceedings conducted by the City
of
Quincy
under its power
of
eminent
domain,
Quincy required the original
property for
expansion
of
its sanitary sewage treatment facilities
(R.464).
The
Agency
alleges
that,
since the gun club commenced
operation on April 14,
1976, Willing has been in
violation
of
Rule
102
of
the
Board~sNoise Regulations in that the discharge
of
fire-
arms at the Lone
Pine
Gun
Club
unreasonably interferes
with
the
~
c(
—2—
enjoyment of life or with any lawful business activity.
In
addition, the Agency alleges that Willing is
in violation of Rule
206 of the Noise Regulations
in that the emission of impulsive
sound from his gun club exceeded the allowable dB(A)
sound levels
specified in the Regulations.
With respect to the allegation of violation of Rule 206,
at
the March 29,
1977 hearing Willing’s attorney stated,
“The Complaint
says there has been a violation of the impulsive noise standards of
the Pollution Control Board.
Well there has.
We know that now.”
(R.24).
In addition to the foregoing admission by Willing of vio-
lation of Rule 206, the evidence presented at the hearing included
a Stipulation of Fact by both parties which verified the existence
of the violation of Rule 206
(R.307-309).
The Board therefore finds
Willing in violation of Rule 206 of the Board’s Noise Regulations.
Twenty-one citizens testified at the hearing indicating that
the noise from the
gun
club caused them to forego use of their
yards,
and caused embarrassment before friends, loss of sleep,
irritation,
etc.
In addition a priest from a nearby church indi-
cated the noise interfered with the normal conduct of church
services, including the conduct of the church school.
Willing
made no serious effort to contradict these citizen witnesses but
rather produced testimony as to other sources of noise
in the area
including the construction of a nearby highway,
an automobile
racing facility, and the tolling of bells by the nearby church.
During the hearing Willing made an offer of proof concerning
the Agency record in the conduct of investigation of other
gun
clubs.
The Hearing Officer herein rejected this evidence and the
Board hereby affirms the Hearing Officer’s decision.
The Board
finds that investigations made by the Agency are too dependent upon
diverse facts to be considered relevant in another case, notwith-
standing the fact that the same type of pollution has precipitated
the investigation.
Willing alleges that he had no knowledge of the violations
found herein.
To underscore this allegation, Willing’s cross
examination of the impacted witnesses and the Agency technical
people indeed indicated that no one had complained directly to
Willing concerning the interference that the gun club caused and
that at no time did the Agency specifically inform Mr. Willing
that he was in violation of the impulse noise rule, Rule 206.
On
the other hand,
the Agency sent Willing copies of their noise
surveys and indicated that there may be a violation of the Board’s
Regulations.
In addition Willing offered unrebutted evidence con-
cerning his present financial condition which appears to be tight.
—3—
Considering Section 33(c)
of the Act,
there
is
no
question
that the health,
general welfare and physical property
of the
residents surrounding Willing’s gun club were interfered
with to
a significant degree.
The social and economic value
of the
gun
club was underscored by testimcny at the hearings with respect
to
the use of ~thefacilities by people in the general area
and the
apparent good faith efforts by Willing to voluntarily
provide
the
use of his facilities and his expertise in the training
of
young
people in the correct use of firearms
(R.438-458).
However,
it
is
apparent that,
notwithstanding the social and economic
value of
this source,
it is unquestionably unsuitable to the area in which
it is located and cannot invoke the princ~leof priority location
in this case,
Certainly the relocation of the facility is a
technically practical and economically reasonable solution to the
elimination of ~thepol.ution
source.
Considering the
testimony of
the twenty~oneimpacted individuals and the general
lack
of
rebuttal
by Willing,
the Board finds Willing in violation of Rule
102 of the
Board’s Rules and Regulations,
Chapter
8,
in that the noise
caused
by the discharge of firearms at Willing~sLone Pine Gun Club
unreasonably interfered with normal conversation,
use of radio,
television and record players, sleep,
relaxation,
the use of nearby
residen~ialproperty for social activities and the
operation of a
nearby church.
The Board has received considerable public comment
concerning
the gun club with respect to its social value and the manner
in
which Willing has conducted its operation.
It is
perhaps signifi-
cant that the comments in favor of the gun club
were
made
by people
who utilize its services, but were not within the
range of its
impact.
It appears obvious to the Board that the
resolution of
this problem entails the relocation of the Lone Pine
Gun
Club.
to an
area where its emissions will not significantly
impact the citizens
of the State of Illinois.
On the other hand, Willing’s apparent
good faith in the operation of the gun club, the
question as to
whether he was aware of the adverse impact of his
operation, and
his financial position all call for mitigation with
regard to a
possible
penalty and the time frame in which Willing is
ordered to
cease and desist.
The Board will therefore assess a
penalty of
$250.00 and will order Willing to cease and desist
his violations
of the Board’s Regulations no later than October
31, 1977.
In
addition the Board shall restrict the hours of
operation of the
gun club.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of facts
and conclusions
of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDEP.
It
is
the
Order
of the Po1lutic~C~u.ro~.~o~.xuth~t~
1.
Ed
Willing
d/b/a
Lone
Pine
Gun
Club
~
in
.lation of Rules
102 and 206 of
Chapter
8
Pollution of
the Board’s Regulations.
2.
For the violations found in
(1)
above Willing
is assessed a penalty of $250.00.
Penalty payment
by certified check or money order
payable
to
the
State of Illinois shall
be made within
35.
days
of
the date of this Order
to:
Fiscal Services Division
Illinois EnvironmeriLal Protection
Agency
2200
Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois
627Co
3.
Willing shall cease
and desist violation
of the
Board’s Regulations
at the Lone Pine Gun Club no
later than October 31, 1977.
4.
Until such time as Willing shall
cease and desist,
the operation of the Lone Pine Gun Club
shall
be
restricted as follows:
Saturdays
12:30
P.M.
-
5~30P.M.
Sundays
1:00
P.M.
-
5:30
P.M.
School Days
5:00 P.M~
9:00
P.M.
School
Vacation
10:00
A.M.
9:00
P.M.
Days
Fridays
Closed
I, Christan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the
Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify t e
a
ove
Opinion
and
Order we~eadopted on
the
/‘~
day of
1977 by a
vote
of
S.~’O
~id~Moffelerk
Illinois
Pollutio..
ontrol Board
y
~26-428~