ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December
    2,
    1982
    UNITY VENTURES,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 80—175
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    and COUNTY OF
    DU PAGE,
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by
    I.
    Goodman):
    On October
    5,
    1982 the Board ordered Unity Ventures
    (Unity)
    to respond to long outstanding discovery requests no later than
    October
    12,
    1982 and that any additional discovery was to be
    completed within forty-five days of that Order.
    On November 12,
    1982 subsequent to pleadings filed by both parties,
    the Board
    issued an Order resolving
    which
    responses to the Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency’s
    (Agency) discovery requests
    were required from Unity.
    The Board further ordered that Unity’s
    responses be provided no later than November 19,
    1982, the above
    mentioned forty—fifth day.
    If Unity failed
    to comply,
    that Order
    stated that sanctions would be imposed.
    On November
    24,
    1982
    the Agency moved that sanctions be imposed,
    Unity having failed
    to comply with the November
    12, 1982
    Board Order.
    An affidavit
    attesting to the same was filed on December
    1,
    1982.
    On December
    1,
    1982 Unity filed
    a combined Motion for
    Reconsideration of the Board’s November 12,
    1982 Order and a
    Response in Opposition to the Agency’s Motion
    for Sanction.
    Unity reiterated therein that the discovery motions are more
    properly before the Board’s hearing officer.
    This
    is not a new
    argument and was adequately addressed by the Board in its
    November 12th Order.
    Unity further argues that insufficient
    time was allowed for compliance with the Board’s Order.
    Although
    possibly persuasive,
    three factors counteract that argument:
    Unity’s requests for additional time came after twelve days had
    elapsed from the date compliance was required and then only
    after the Motion for Sanctions had been
    filed; Unity requests
    two months to comply due
    to the holidays; and the attached adden-
    dum which lists numerous pleadings,
    time extensions and Board
    orders which were intended to lead finally to
    a decision on the
    variance petition.
    The Board can only interpret Unity’s actions
    as
    intentionally dilatorious,
    50-41
    2
    Pursuant to Section 37 of the Environmental Protection Act
    (Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.
    1982,
    ch.
    111½, §1037)
    (Act) the Agency has
    a
    duty to investigate variance petitions
    arid
    make a recommendation
    as
    to the disposition of the petition
    to the Board.
    Pursuant
    to Section 35 of the Act
    (Ill.
    Rev. Stat.
    1982,
    ch.
    111½, §1035)
    variance can only be granted upon an adequate showing of
    arbitrary or unreasonable hardship should Petitioner have to
    comply
    with
    Board regulations or Order.
    The Agency’s
    discovery
    requests inquire about this issue, so that
    it can make an informed
    recommendation to the Board and representation of its position at
    hearing.
    Unity’s continued refusal
    to respond to the Agency’s
    discovery requests and Board Orders interferes with the Agency’s
    ability to fulfill its statutory duty.
    Unity’s right to petition
    for variance cannot take precedence over the statutory obligation
    of the Agency.
    The Agency’s Motion is granted.
    The following sanctions are imposed pursuant to 35 111. Mm.
    Code 107.101(c):
    a)
    No issues involving ownership of the property as
    alleged in the petition may be raised by Unity at hearing.
    Unity
    shall be barred from making any claim as to the ownership of the
    property and all reference to ownership of the property shall be
    stricken from Unity’s Petition for Variance.
    b)
    No issues involving expenditure of funds for land
    development costs,
    land improvements costs,
    interest and real
    estate taxes
    for Hobson Green Units
    One, Two or Three may be
    raised by Unity at the Hearing.
    Unity shall he barred from makiij
    any claim concerning any expenditure of funds
    for such items and
    all references to such expenditures shall
    he stricken from Unity’s
    Petition for Variance.
    c)
    No issues involving the past or present holder of
    the
    permit which is the subject of this petition may be raised by
    Unity at the hearing.
    Unity shall
    be barred from making any
    claim as to the ownership of that permit and all references
    to
    such permit shall be stricken from Unity’s Petition for Variance.
    d)
    No issues concerning Unity’s plans
    for development of
    the property may be raised by Unity at
    the hearing.
    Unity shall
    be barred from making any claim concerning the presence of any
    plans for development and all
    references to such plans
    for
    development shall be stricken from Unity’s Petition for Variance.
    It is noted that on November 18,
    1982,
    prior to filing
    the
    Motion for Sanctions,
    the Agency
    filed a Motion
    to Modify the
    Board’s November 12,
    1982 Order in this matter.
    The pleadin~j
    filed on December
    1,
    1982 by Unity included
    a Response to this
    motion.
    With today’s ruling, both are mooted.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    50-42
    ADDENDUM
    Date
    Pleadinq
    06/03/82
    06/04/82
    06/09/82
    06/10/82
    06/11/82
    06/16/82
    06/17/82
    06/25/82*
    06/28/82
    07/01/82
    07/21/82*
    07/22/82*
    07/22/82
    08/09/82
    08/10/82*
    08/10/82
    08/10/82*
    08/20/82
    08/25/82*
    08/31/82
    09/02/82
    09/13/82
    09/16/82*
    09/17/82*
    09/21/82
    09/21/82
    09/23/82
    10/05/82
    Remand Mandate
    Motion for Order
    Addendum to Motion for Order
    Board Order to Set Hearing
    Interrogatories,
    First Set
    Request to Produce Documents
    Request for Admissions
    Request for Admissions of
    Genuineness of Documents
    Motion for Additional Time
    Response
    to Motion for Additional Time
    Responses due to Requests filed 06/11/82
    Additional time granted by hearing officer.
    Agency’ s Recommendation
    Board Order
    (Denying 06/04/82 Motion
    for Order)
    Responses due to Requests filed 06/11/82
    Additional time granted by hearing officer
    pursuant to Petitioner’s Oral Motion at
    pre—hearing conference.
    Request for Witness List
    Hearing Officer Order Setting Hearing
    Responses due
    to Requests filed 06/11/82
    Response to Request for Admissions and
    Genuineness of Documents
    Additional Time to Respond to Remaining
    Requests granted by hearing officer
    Leave to File and Motion to Strike
    Request for Additional Time to Respond
    until 08/31/82——granted by hearing
    officer until 09/17/82
    Response to Motion
    to Strike
    Board Order denying Motion to Strike
    Affidavit accompanying Response to Request
    for Admissions
    filed 08/10/82
    (as ordered
    by Board Order of 09/02/82)
    Motion for Additional Time to Respond
    Responses due
    Response in Opposition of Additional Time
    Motion for Reconsideration of 09/02/82
    Board Order
    Response
    in Opposition to Motion for
    Reconsideration
    Board Order reaffirming 09/02/82 denial
    of Motion to Strike; Order responses
    by 10/12/82 and hearing
    to be set
    Respondent
    Respondent
    Respondent
    Respondent
    Respondent
    Respondent
    Petitioner
    Respo
    rìd~
    n t
    Respondent
    Petitioner
    Respondent
    Petitioner
    Petitioner-
    Respondent
    Respondent
    Petjtioner
    50-43
    PleadinQ
    Date
    Part
    V
    10/12/82
    10/12/82
    10/12/82
    10/18/82
    10/18/82
    10/18/82
    10/22/82
    11/03/82
    11/03/82
    11/12/82
    11/18/82
    11/19/82
    11/24/82
    12
    / 1/82
    12/2/82
    Motion to Strike Interrogatories
    Motion
    to Strike Production of Documents
    Response to Request for Witness List
    Response
    to
    Motions
    to
    Strike
    Motion to Complete Discovery and
    Motion
    for
    Sanctions
    Motion
    to
    Set
    Hearing
    Date
    Motion
    to
    Compel
    Responses
    Motion for Leave to File
    Responses in Opposition to Motion
    to Compel Discovery
    Board Order ordering Responses by 11/19/82
    Motion to Modify
    Board’s due date
    Motion for Sanctions
    Motion for Reconsideration,
    Response
    to Motion for Reconsideration and
    in Opposition to Motion for Sanctions
    Board Order imposing Sanctions
    Petitioner
    Petitioner
    Petitioner
    Respondent
    Resporiden
    t
    Respondent
    Respondent
    Petitioner
    Petitio
    ~ier
    Respondent
    Respondent
    Petitioner
    *See
    September
    Additional
    Time
    21,
    1982 Motion in Opposition
    to Request
    for
    50-44
    I, Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Boa~d,hereby certify that the above Order was adopted
    on the
    ~“
    day ~
    ,
    1982 by a vote of
    ~/.
    ‘1I~!~~
    Christan L. Moff~tt,Clerk
    Illinois Pollution ~ControlBoard
    50-45

    Back to top