ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 16,
    1995
    CITY OF WHEATON,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 94-18
    )
    (UST Fund)
    OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS STATE
    )
    FIRE MARSHAL,
    )
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (C.A. Manning):
    This matter is before the Board pursuant to a motion for
    reconsideration filed on January 4,
    1995 by the City of Wheaton
    (City).
    The motion requests that we reconsider our opinion and
    order of December
    1,
    1994 wherein we granted summary judgment in
    favor of the Office of the Illinois State Fire Marshal
    (OSFM)
    and
    dismissed this case.
    On January 17,
    1995,
    the OSFM filed a
    response requesting that the motion be denied.
    For the following
    reasons, we hereby deny the motion for reconsideration.
    The City’s motion does not meet the standard which guides
    our review of motions for reconsideration.
    The Board’s
    procedural rule on motions for reconsideration directs that we
    consider factors including but not limited to “error in the
    decision and facts
    in the record which are overlooked.”
    (35 Ill.
    Adm.
    Code 101.246(d).)
    Our own precedent also provides a
    standard upon which we decide motions for reconsideration.
    In
    Citizens Against Regional Landfill v. The County Board of
    Whiteside County we held,
    “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.”
    (Citizens Against Regional
    Landfill v. The County Board of Whiteside County
    (March 11,
    1993)
    PCB 93-156, citing Korogluyan
    v. Chicago Title
    & Trust Co.
    (1st
    Dist.
    1992),
    213 Ill. App.3d
    622,
    572 N.E.2d 1154,
    1158; ~
    also,
    Leonard Carmichael v. Browning—Ferris et
    al.
    (December 16,
    1993)
    PCB 93—114.)
    Each argument of the motion for reconsideration
    is rooted in
    an argument articulated
    in the City’s briefs opposing summary
    judgment in this case.
    Even though the City does raise “error”
    with our application of the law, arguing that the OSFM had no
    authority to enter an administrative order “deregistering” an
    underground storage tank, this argument is not new, but is
    instead repetitive of the City’s responsive filings which have
    been duly considered by this Board.
    2
    Accordingly, the City’s motion for reconsideration is hereby
    denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    J.Y1 abstained.
    I,
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    ~—
    Board, hereb
    certify that the above order was adopted on the
    day of
    _________________
    ,
    1995, by a vote of
    ‘~
    ~c.
    Dorothy M./Øunn, Clerk
    Illinois ~ól1ution Control Board

    Back to top