ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    June 4,
    1992
    KENNETH F. METIVIER
    )
    AND
    CYNTHIA METIVIER,
    )
    )
    Complainant,
    )
    V.
    )
    PCB 92—74
    (Enforcement)
    )
    DOUGLAS KENYON d/b/a DOUGLAS
    )
    KENYON,
    INC.
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE
    BOARD
    (by J. Anderson):
    On May 12, 1992, Kenneth and Cynthia Netivier (Metivier) filed
    a
    complaint
    against Douglas
    Kenyon,
    doing
    business
    as
    Douglas
    Kenyon, Inc.,
    (Kenyon).
    Kenyon operates an art gallery located in
    Chicago, Cook County.
    The complaint
    alleges
    violation of the
    noise nuisance provisions contained in Sections
    23 and 24 of the
    Act and 35
    Ill.
    Adm. Code 900.102.
    On May 18,
    1992, Kenyon filed a motion to dismiss the action
    on the grounds that it
    is “unfounded and frivolous”.
    In support
    thereof,
    Kenyon
    states that inspectors
    of the City
    of Chicago’s
    Department of Zoning and Environmental Department had investigated
    numerous noise complaints made by the Metiviers,
    and that Kenyon
    had
    hired
    a
    structural
    engineer
    “to
    perform
    testing
    which
    substantiates the fact that no. excessive noise
    is being generated
    by our operation”.
    Kenyon also submitted a copy of a certification
    of conformance with the Municipal Code of Chicago.
    On June
    1,
    1992, Metivier filed a response in opposition to
    the
    motion.
    The
    response
    asserts
    that
    the
    complaint
    is
    not
    duplicitous because “no similar case is pending in another court or
    in another action before the Board”, and that the complaint is not
    frivolous because “the requested relief
    a
    cease and desist order
    and payment of a fine) is within the Board’s authority to grant”.
    Kenyon’s motion to dismiss is denied.
    As Metivier correctly
    argues, the complaint is not duplicitous or frivolous within the
    meaning of Section 31(b)
    of the Act.
    In so
    finding,
    the Board
    makes no ruling on the merits of the case
    (that
    is whether noise
    pollution has
    occurred);
    the Board
    finds only that this case
    is
    properly
    before
    it
    pursuant
    to
    Section
    31(b).
    The
    matter
    is
    accepted for hearing, at which the parties may present their cases.
    A Hearing Officer will be assigned who will contact the parties to
    schedule a hearing date.
    134—87
    2
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Dorothy N.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Bo rd, hereby c
    ify that the above order was adopted on the
    —
    day of
    -
    &_-,c-e~~-
    ,
    1992 by a vote of
    ~7-c7
    ~
    ~
    Dorothy N. G~’n,Clerk
    Illinois Po~JutionControl Board
    134—88

    Back to top