ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    March
    8,
    1991
    SEXTON ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS,
    INC.
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 91-4
    )
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    )
    AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J. Anderson):
    On February 28,
    1991, the Board ordered Sexton Environmental
    Systems,
    Inc.
    (Sexton)
    to file by March
    7, 1991 its response to
    the February 25, 1991 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by the
    Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency).
    Sexton timely
    filed
    its Response and Affidavit
    in Opposition
    to Motion for
    Summary Judgment.
    After reviewing the pleadings, the Agency’s Motion for
    Summary Judgment
    is denied.
    This matter will go to hearing on
    March 11,
    1991.
    The Board grants Sexton’s request that the Board deny the
    Agency’s motion as untimely under the provisions of 35
    Ill. Adm.
    Code 101.245, which requires motions preliminary to hearing
    to be
    filed 21 days prior
    to hearing,
    unless otherwise allowed by the
    Board or hearing officer to prevent material prejudice.
    (Sexton
    Resp. March
    7,
    1991,
    P.
    1).
    The Agency’s motion was untimely
    filed and was not accompanied by a Motion to File Instanter.
    Of
    special note, we direct the Agency’s attention to the Board’s “Go
    to Hearing” order of January
    10,
    1991.
    In that Order the Board
    stated “Any such
    summary
    judgment
    motion should be
    expeditiously filed to ensure no unnecessary hearing notice
    expenses or hearing costs are incurred.”
    As noted,
    the Agency’s
    motion was not filed until February 25,
    1991, one and one—half
    months later, which is hardly expeditious.
    Also,
    the lateness of
    the filing resulted in unacceptably compressing the time
    to
    resolve this matter
    to this day, the Friday before the scheduled
    hearing on Monday;
    regardless of the outcome the Board risked
    incurring the very costs that we were trying
    to avoid.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    Bill Forcade dissented.
    120—03
    —2—
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,4ie,~bycertify that the above Order was adopted on
    the
    ~r~?
    day of
    ______________,
    1991, by a vote of
    5—I
    ~ution
    Control Board
    Illinois
    120—04

    Back to top