ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January 6, 2000
    COLONY OF LONGMEADOW HOA,
    Complainant,
    v.
    DOMINICK’S,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 00-92
    (Enforcement - Noise, Citizens)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by M. McFawn):
    On December 1, 1999, complainant filed a formal complaint alleging that respondent has
    violated several statutes and regulations concerning noise pollution. This case is before the Board today
    pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.124. Under Section 103.124, each enforcement case filed by
    citizens is placed on the Board’s agenda for a determination of whether the case is frivolous or
    duplicitous.
    An action before the Board is frivolous if it requests relief which the Board could not grant.
    Lake County Forest Preserve District v. Ostro (July 30, 1992), PCB 92-80. The complaint alleges
    violations of Sections 23 and 24 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act), 415 ILCS 5/23, 24
    (1998), and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.102 and 901.102. Section 23 of the Act sets forth the General
    Assembly’s findings and the purpose of Title VI of the Act, concerning noise pollution. There can be no
    violation of Section 23. Thus, to the extent the complaint seeks relief for an alleged violation of Section
    23, that claim is frivolous. Section 24 of the Act and Sections 900.102 and 901.102 of the
    Administrative Code, however, contain prohibitions of various activities. Section 24 provides:
    No person shall emit beyond the boundaries of his property any noise that unreasonably
    interferes with the enjoyment of life or with any lawful business or activity, so as to
    violate any regulation or standard adopted by the Board under this Act.
    Section 900.102 prohibits emitting noise beyond the boundaries of property so as to cause noise
    pollution,
    i.e.
    , noise that unreasonably interferes with enjoyment of life or any lawful business or activity.
    See 35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.101. Section 901.102 prohibits emitting sound above specific decibel
    levels at different times of the day. These provisions could be violated by respondent’s activities, as
    alleged in the complaint. We therefore conclude that these claims are not frivolous.
    An action before the Board is duplicitous if the matter is identical or substantially similar to one
    brought in this or another forum. Walsh v. Kolpas (September 23, 1999), PCB 00-35, slip op. at 2.
    Paragraph 10 of the complaint, which was certified by Stephen M. Lardner, states that no other action
    2
    is known to complainant. Comp. at 4. Respondent has not brought any other action to our attention.
    We cannot, therefore, find that this action is duplicitous.
    One other issue must be addressed before the Board accepts this case for hearing. This
    complaint was filed on complainant’s behalf by Stephen M. Lardner, the director of the Colony of
    Longmeadow HOA. As far as we have been able to determine, Lardner is not an attorney. Although
    the Board’s current procedural rules would allow the complainant to be represented by a non-attorney
    (see 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.107(a)(3)), the Board has held that these rules violate the provisions of the
    Attorney Act (705 ILCS 205 (1998)). See
    In re
     
    Petition of Recycle Technologies, Inc. (July 10,
    1997), AS 97-9. In that case, the Board concluded that a non-attorney could not represent a
    corporation in an adjusted standard proceeding without violating both the Attorney Act and the
    Corporation Practice of Law Prohibition Act (705 ILCS 220 (1998)). The Board has also held that a
    non-attorney could not represent a not-for-profit corporation in a landfill siting appeal pursuant to
    Section 40.1(b) of the Act (415 ILCS 5/40.1(b) (1998)). Sierra Club v. Bensman (October 2, 1997),
    PCB 98-43. The Board believes that the rationale employed to find that a non-attorney was prohibited
    from representing a corporation in an adjusted standard proceeding or in a landfill siting appeal applies
    equally to the situation presented in this matter. The Board notes that to allow this matter to go forward
    with complainant represented by a non-attorney could result in any action by the Board being rendered
    void. Janiczek v. Dover Mgmt. Co., 134 Ill. App. 3d 543, 481 N.E.2d 25 (1st Dist. 1985).
    Accordingly, complainant must be represented by an attorney. Alternatively, the members of
    the Colony of Longmeadow HOA could bring this action as individuals (who may represent
    themselves), rather than as an association. The Board grants complainant 30 days in which to file an
    amended complaint, either through an attorney or by the members as individuals. If no amended
    complaint is filed within this time period, this case will be dismissed and the docket closed.
    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 6th day of January 2000 by a vote of 6-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top