ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 16, 1995
    COMMUNITY LANDFILL CORPORATION,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 95-137
    )
    (Variance-Land)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    )
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (G. T. Girard):
    On October 19, 1995 Community Landfill Corporation (CLC)
    filed a motion to reconsider the Board's September 21, 1995
    opinion and order in this matter. On November 2, 1995, the Board
    received a response from the Illinois Environmental Protection
    Agency (Agency). CLC, in its motion, argues that "based on newly
    discovered evidence the Board should reverse its September 21,
    1995 Opinion and Order". (Mot. at 1.) The "newly discovered
    evidence" which CLC is asking the Board to consider is
    information obtained from the Agency through a Freedom of
    Information Act request. The "evidence" relates to two other
    facilities that have been granted variance relief by the Board
    from the same regulations at issue in CLC's instant petition.
    In a variance proceeding the petitioner must present
    adequate proof that immediate compliance with the Board
    regulations at issue would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable
    hardship. (415 ILCS 5/35(a).) The Board's decision of September
    21, 1995, found that CLC had failed to establish that a hardship
    existed which would warrant variance relief. Further, the Board
    found that any hardship which may exist was self-imposed. The
    petitioner was given the opportunity in its petition, at hearing,
    and in its briefs to submit information to the Board to
    demonstrate that a hardship existed which warranted variance
    relief. The "newly discovered evidence" which CLC is now
    presenting to the Board for the first time was available to CLC
    during the pendency of CLC's variance petition.
      
    In ruling upon a motion for reconsideration the Board is to
    consider, but is not limited to, error in the previous decision
    and facts in the record which may have been 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, we stated that "[t]he 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
    2
    1154.) The Board finds that the information which CLC now
    submits in its motion to reconsider was "available" at the time
    of the hearing upon request. CLC is responsible for
    demonstrating a hardship exists and nothing in the motion to
    reconsider convinces the Board that an "error in the decision"
    was made. Further, the Board finds that the motion to reconsider
    does not point to any "facts in the record which are overlooked",
    or any other reason to conclude that the Board's decision was in
    error. Therefore, the motion to reconsider is denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Member J. Theodore Meyer dissents.
    Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS
    5/41 (1994)) provides for the appeal of final Board orders within
    35 days of the date of service of this order. The Rule of the
    Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements. (
    See
    also
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246, Motions for Reconsideration.)
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, do hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    day of , 1995, by a vote of .
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top