ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 16,
    1995
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 94—288
    (Enforcement
    —
    Air)
    GRAYSLAKE GELATIN COMPANY, an
    )
    Illinois corporation; BLIDCO,
    INC.,)
    an Illinois corporation; ACME
    )
    CONSTRUCTION CO.,
    INC.,
    an Illinois)
    corporation; and DIVERSIFIED
    )
    ABATEMENT CONTRACTORS INC.,
    an
    )
    Illinois corporation,
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by E.
    Dunham):
    This matter comes before the Board on a “Motion for Summary
    Judgment” filed by Grayslake Gelatin Company
    (Grayslake)
    on
    February 8,
    1995.
    Grayslake seeks summary judgment on Counts IV
    and V on the basis that Grayslake did not own the property where
    the alleged offense took place at the time alleged in the
    complaint.
    Grayslake included a copy of the deed conveying the
    property and an affidavit from its president in support of its
    motion for summary judgment.
    Complainant filed a “Request to
    Defer Consideration of Respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment”
    on February 16,
    1995.
    Grayslake filed a response to the motion
    to defer consideration on February 17,
    1995.
    Complainant requests that the Board delay consideration of
    the motion for summary judgment to allow the complainant to
    investigate the factual allegations in the motion for summary
    judgment.
    Complainant requests that the Board delay
    consideration until after discovery has been taken.
    Respondent Grayslake states that by failing to deny the
    facts contained in respondent’s affidavit,
    the facts must be
    considered admitted.
    Complainant states that, without further
    discovery,
    the affidavit of respondent cannot be admitted or
    denied.
    The Board finds that
    a material fact regarding the location
    of the alleged violation relative to the property line remains in
    dispute.
    The Board finds that the affidavit and deed provided by
    respondent are not dispositive on the issue of the relationship
    of the lot line to the place of the alleged violation.
    Therefore, the motion for summary judgment
    is denied.
    Having
    2
    denied the motion for summary judgment, the complainant’s motion
    for an extension of time to file a reply is moot.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on
    ~
    day of
    ______________,
    1995,
    by a vote of
    _______
    ~
    /L
    Dorothy M. 4nn,
    Clexfk
    Illinois Pô~JLutionControl Board

    Back to top