ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Nay
5,
1994
ANNE
SHEPPARD, JANES VERIEIN,
)
JEROLD LECKNAN,
)
Complainants,
PCB 94—2
v.
)
(Citizens Enforcement)
)
NORTHBROOK SPORTS CLUB
AND
)
VILLAGE OF HAINESVILLE,
)
Respondents.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by G.
T. Girard):
On January 20,
1994,
in responding to a motion for extension
of time filed by respondents, the Board asked the parties in this
proceeding to address two specific issues prior to the Board
accepting this case.
The issues to be addressed were whether the
tlcomplajned of activity is an ‘organized amateur or professional
sporting activity’ and whether the claim alleges violations of
the Environmental Protection Act
(Act) which fall within the
Board’s purview”.
(1/20/94 at 2.)
On January 26 and January 28,
1994, Northbrook Sports Club
(NSC) filed a motion to dismiss as
frivolous the complaint and response to the Board’s order,
respectively.
On April
4,
1994 complainants filed its response
to the Board’s order and the NSC motion to dismiss.
On April
18,
1994, NSC filed a motion for leave to file a reply to
complainants’ response.
On May 2,
1994,
complainants filed a
motion for leave to file a reply in support of complainants’
response to the Board’s order.
The motion to file a reply filed
by NSC is hereby granted.
The motion to file a reply in support
of complainants’ response is denied.
In addition to these
filings, the Village of Hainsville filed a motion to dismiss on
January 27,
1994.
LEGAL
FRANEWORK
Section
25
of
the
Act
provides,
in
part:
The
Board
shall,
by
regulations
under
this
Section,
categorize the types and sources of noise emissions
that unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life,
or with any lawful business, or activity, and shall
prescribe for each such category the maximum
permissible limits on such noise emissions.
No Board standards for monitoring noise or regulations
prescribing limitations on noise emissions shall apply
to any organized amateur or professional sporting
activity except as otherwise provided in this Section.
2
Section 3.25 of the Act defines “Organized Amateur or
Professional Sporting Activity” as:
“ORGANIZED
AMATEUR
OR PROFESSIONAL SPORTING ACTIVITY”
means an activity or event carried out at a facility by
persons who engaged in that activity as a business or
for education, charity or entertainment for the general
public including all necessary actions and activities
associated with such an activity.
This definition
includes, but is not limited to,
skeet, trap or
shooting sports clubs in existence prior to January
1,
1975, organized motor sports, and sporting events
organized or controlled by school districts, units of
local government, state agencies, colleges,
universities or professional sports clubs offering
exhibitions to the public.
In Kochaneki et al v. Hinsdale Golf Club et al (197
Ill.App.3d 634, 555 N.E.2d 31(2nd Dist.
1990)) the court stated
that:
Because the skeet—shooting activity at issue here
clearly falls within
the first—listed exemption
(of
the statute,
it is thereby excluded from the
regulatory purview of the Board. Consequently, the
Board had no authority to hear the matter.
(Kochanski
at 3.)
Thus,
according to the plain language of the statute, if the
complained of activity is an organized amateur or professional
sporting event, the Board’s regulations do not apply.
Further,
a
skeet, trap or shooting sports club, even a private club,
is
exempt from the Board’s standards.
ISSUES
AND
FINDINGS
The complainants set forth several arguments in their
response on the issue of the whether NSC is a skeet shooting
club.
Those extensive arguments will not be repeated here;
however after careful review, the Board does not find the
arguments convincing.
The NSC was founded in 1944 and has
continuously been involved in skeet and trap shooting.
The
property includes a clubhouse and regularly scheduled shooting
activities.
The Board finds nothing in the record which would
lead it to determine that the NSC is not a skeet or trap shooting
club.
Therefore,
the NSC is not subject to the Board’s
standards.
The complainants argue that even if the Board’s regulations
do not apply, the activity could still be in violation of the
Act.
The Board is not persuaded by this argument.
A plain
3
reading of the statute indicates that these types of activities
are exempt.
Further, the Act does not set forth a violation for
noise pollution absent Board standards.
Section 24 of the Act
specifically prohibits the emission of noise beyond the
boundaries of property 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 24 of the Act.)
The Board finds that the NSC is an “organized amateur or
professional sporting activity” and is therefore exempt from the
Board’s noise standards.
Because the NSC is exempt this case is
not properly before the Board and is hereby dismissed.1
The
Board directs that this docket be closed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy N.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on 1the
~
day of
__________________,
1994, by a vote of
~‘
~
~L.
Dorothy N. G~n, Clerk
Illinois Po(~,Aition Control Board
Because the Board today dismisses this proceeding
in its
entirety,
we will
not
address
the
issue
raised
by
respondent
Village of Hainesville.
The Village had argued in its motion to
dismiss that it was not a proper party to this proceeding.