ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 18, 1996
    GILBERT & LENDA MARSHALL,
    Complainants,
    v.
    DANNY LINGENFELTER,
    INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PRESIDENT OF
    CENTRAL ILLINOIS DIRT RIDERS
    ASSOCIATION,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 96-179
    (Enforcement - Air/Noise)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by E. Dunham):
    This matter comes before the Board on a “Motion for Reconsideration” filed on June
    28, 1996 by complainants, Gilbert & Lenda Marshall. The complainants request that the
    Board reconsider its order of June 6, 1996 dismissing this matter. The Board found the
    complained of activities represented an “organized amateur or professional sporting activity”
    and therefore were exempted by Section 25 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415
    ILCS 5/25 (1994)) from the Board’s noise regulations.
    In support of their motion, the complainants report that the case pending against
    respondent in Fulton County Circuit Court has been settled by agreed order on May 29, 1996.
    Pursuant to the order, respondent cannot conduct any racing activities on his property without
    first obtaining a conditional use permit. Respondent does not have such a permit and has
    indicated to complainants that he does not plan to seek a permit. Complainants also allege that
    the Board erred in finding that the repair activities were ancillary to the racing and therefore
    also exempted from the noise regulations. Complainants argue that the repair shop pre-dates
    the racetrack. Complainants request leave to amend or replead their complaint to address dust
    and air pollution aspects of the complaint.
    In ruling on a motion for reconsideration the Board is to consider, but is not limited to,
    error in the decision and facts in the record which may have been overlooked. (35 Ill. Adm.
    Code 101.246(d).) In Citizens Against Regional Landfill v. County of Board of Whiteside
    PCB 93-156, (March 11, 1993), 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 hearing, changes in the law or errors in the court's previous application
    of the existing law. (Korogluyan v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. 213 Ill.App.3d 622, 572
    N.E.2d 1154, 1158, (1st Dist. 1992).)"
    2
    The Board hereby grants the motion for reconsideration as the settlement of the pending
    court case represents newly discovered evidence. After reviewing the filings in this matter the
    Board finds no compelling reason to modify its order of June 6, 1996. The Board finds its
    order is supported by the complaint and the briefs filed by the parties on the issue of whether
    the activities alleged in the complaint represent an “organized amateur or professional sporting
    activity”. The Board finds that based on the facts as alleged in the complaint it did not err in
    finding that the activities at the repair shop were ancillary to the racing activities.
    Amending the complaint to address dust and air pollution violations should be
    addressed by the filing of a new complaint properly alleging any such violations.
    Complainants are not prohibited from filing a new complaint in this matter correcting these or
    any deficiencies in the complaint as originally filed.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the _____ day of ___________, 1996, by a vote of
    ______________.
    ___________________________________
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top