ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 21,
    1994
    MICHAEL
    TURLEK,
    LILLIAN
    )
    SMEJKAL
    and
    JOHN
    LATHROP,
    )
    )
    Petitioners,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 94—19
    )
    (Land Siting Review)
    VILLAGE OF SUMMIT and
    )
    WEST SUBURBAN RECYCLING
    )
    AND
    ENERGY CENTER,
    INC.,
    )
    Respondents.
    KAY
    KULAGA
    AND ALICE
    ZEMAN,
    )
    )
    Petitioners,
    V.
    )
    PCB 94—21
    (Land Siting Review)
    VILLAGE OF SUMMIT and
    WEST SUBURBAN RECYCLING
    )
    AND ENERGY CENTER,
    INC.,
    Respondents.
    CITIZENS FOR A BETTER
    )
    ENVIRONMENT, PATRICIA J.
    )
    BARTLEMAN, NANCI KATZ
    and MICHELLE SCHNITS,
    )
    Petitioners,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 94—22
    )
    (Land Siting Review)
    VILLAGE OF SUMMIT and
    )
    (Consolidated)
    WEST SUBURBAN RECYCLING
    )
    AND ENERGY CENTER,
    INC.,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by M. McFawn):
    This matter
    is before the Board on two motions to
    reconsider:
    a June
    7,
    1994 motion filed by petitioners Michael
    Turlek,
    Lillian Sxnejkal, and John Lathrop
    (Turlek), and a June 9,
    1994 motion filed by petitioners Citizens for a Better
    Environment, Patricia J.
    Bartleman, Nanci Katz, and Michelle
    Schmnits
    (CBE).
    Respondent West Suburban Recycling and Energy
    2
    Center,
    Inc.
    (WSREC)
    filed a response to both motions on June 20,
    1994.
    Both motions ask the Board to reconsider its Nay 5,
    1994
    decision upholding the Village of Summit’s (Village) grant of
    siting approval to WSREC for a waste-to-energy facility.
    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.
    Admu.
    Code
    101.246(d).)
    In Citizens Against Regional Landfill
    v. County of
    Board of Wbiteside (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 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 1154,
    1158.)”
    Neither motion for reconsideration presents the Board with
    new evidence,
    a change in the law,
    or any other reason to
    conclude that the Board’s May 5,
    1994 decision was in error.
    Accordingly, both motions for reconsideration are hereby denied.
    IT
    IS
    SO
    ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk
    of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certi~that the above order was adopted on the
    ~/4~Y
    day of
    _______________
    1994, by a vote of
    ________
    ~
    Dorothy M.4unn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pb-~1lutionControl Board

    Back to top