ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

7,

1980

IN THE MATTER OF:

PROPOSED

AMENDMENT

)

R76~14,

OF THE NOISE

)

R76~19

REGULATIONS,

RULES

101,

205,

206

AND 209

Dissenting Statement

(by Mr.

Dumelle):

My

reason

for

dissenting

on

the

proposed

rule

amendments

issued

today

for

public

comment

lies

in

the

provisions

of the proposed new Rule 206(d),

The

proposal

would

freeze

land use classifications

in

effect

as

of

the

effective

date

of

the

new

rule,

The

proposal

also establishes

a

1000

ft.

zone within which such

a freeze shall take effect,

Consider the following

scenario.

A person

owns vacant

land within

1000

ft.

of

an

existing

or

new impact

forging

operation.

It may have

no •zoning classification because of

lack

of

local

zoning or be

in

a Class

C

zone.

That person

decides to build

a residence

(Class A) upon his or her land.

The

new Rule

206(d),

as

proposed, would give

no protection

to

this

property

at

all

to

any

degree.

If

the

forging

industry

cannot

economically

and

reasonably

control

its

noise

output

to

levels

which

can

be

lived with by

nearby

residences then

it

should buy

up this close~inproperty and

create

its

own

buffer

zone,

Space

is

a

great

insulator.

The argument

of

priority

of

location

is

often raised,

But

in

the

example

discussed

above

ownership may pre~date

the

date

of

establishment

of

the

forging

operation.

And

even

if

it

does

not,

the forging industry obviously did not

at

any

time

purchase

“noise

easement”

rights

over

~this

adjacent property.

Thus

the

situation

can

become

one

of

deprivation

of

environmental

protection to a property owner of the free and

full

use of his or her land,

Proposed

Rule

206(d)

sets

a precedent which could haunt

the Board.

Is

the Board to

create “zones of no protection”

against

nearby property owners

from

the odors

of

rendering

plants? Or from

other

types of noise other than forging such

as

factory

noise?

Besides

noise and odors,

this precedent

37—375

---

—~—

could

be

extended

to

create

“no

protection

zones”

Because the precedent

is

a disturbing one it ought not

to

be

enacted.

The

problems

it

tries

to

address

can

be

better

solved by carefully examined variance proceedings on

I respectfully dissent on the Pr

I, Christan L. Moffett,

Clerk

of

the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board,

do

hereby

certify that

the

Statement was submitted this ~

day of~

Christan

L.

~ett,

Clerk

Order.