ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 7,
    1992
    STEPHEN A.
    SMITH, d/b/a ABC
    )
    SANITARY HAULING, JOHN APPL, d/b/a
    )
    APPL SANITARY SERVICE, LAWRENCE
    )
    W. BOLLER II, d/b/a AREA GARBAGE
    )
    SERVICE,
    CHARLES
    H. MILLER,
    d/b/a
    )
    C.H. MILLER SANITARY,
    CHRIS
    )
    JOHNSON, d/b/a CHRIS’S SERVICE CO.,
    )
    EDDIE L.
    COOK,
    •SR., d/b/a COOK’S
    )
    SANITARY HAULING,
    DON CORY,
    d/b/a
    )
    CORY SANITARY HAULING, RONALD E.
    )
    HAYDEN,
    d/b/a HAYDEN
    SANITARY
    SERVICE,
    )
    GORDON FICKLIN,
    d/b/a ILLINI SANITARY
    )
    SERVICE, CHRIS YAGER, d/b/a KLEAN-WAY
    )
    DISPOSAL, GEORGE McLAUGHLIN, d/b/a
    )
    McLAUGHLIN SANITARY,
    CHERYL MANUEL,
    )
    d/b/a ROLLAWAY WASTE, RONALD W. MANUEL,
    )
    PCB 92-55
    d/b/a RON MANUEL SANITARY, RUSSELL
    )
    (Landfill Siting
    SHAFFER, d/b/a SHAFFER SANITARY CO.,
    )
    Review)
    WILLIAM
    C. UDEN,
    d/b/a UDEN
    & SONS
    )
    SANITARY HAULING,
    and WILLIS SANITARY
    )
    HAULING,
    INC.,
    )
    )
    Petitioners,
    )
    v.
    )
    CITY OF CHAMPAIGN,
    ILLINOIS
    )
    INTERGOVERNMENTAL SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
    )
    ASSOCIATION,
    XL DISPOSAL CORPORATION,
    )
    J.N. JONES COMPANY, and
    )
    DUKE
    & ASSOCIATES,
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J. Theodore Meyer):
    This matter is before the Board on respondents
    Intergovernmental Solid Waste Disposal Association
    (ISWDA)
    and XL
    Disposal Corporation
    (collectively ISWDA) April
    23,
    1992 motion
    “to make more definite and certain the appeal”.
    On April 27,
    1992, petitioners Steven A.
    Smith, d/b/a ABC Sanitary Hauling, ~
    al.,
    (collectively, petitioners)
    filed their response in
    opposition to the motion.
    ISWDA asks that petitioners be required to specify the
    factual basis for the issues alleged in paragraph 25
    (a),
    (b),
    (c),
    (d),
    (f),
    (h),
    and
    (i)
    of petitioners’
    appeal.
    ISWDA
    contends that because petitioners have not specified any factual
    1 33—285
    2
    basis for those seven issues, ISWDA cannot adequately respond to
    the appeal and prepare for hearing.
    In opposing the motion,
    petitioners argue that ISWDA’s motion essentially requests that
    petitioners post-hearing brief be incorporated into the original
    appeal documents, and point out that the record on appeal has not
    yet been filed by respondent the City of Champaign.
    Petitioners
    contend that their appeal and petition for hearing is far more
    specific than would appear to be required,
    particularly when
    compared to the necessary elements of any notice of appeal
    in the
    courts.
    (Supreme Court Rule 303(c).)
    The motion to make more definite and certain is denied.
    As
    petitioners point out,
    the hearing on this petition
    is limited to
    the record created before the local decisionmaker,
    except for any
    matters relating to the fundamental fairness of the local
    proceeding.
    After reviewing the petition for hearing, the Board
    finds that the petition is sufficiently specific so that ISWDA
    may prepare for hearing.
    There
    is nothing in the Board’s rules
    which requires a petitioner to specify the factual bases for an
    appeal,
    as opposed to a requirement that’ the issues on appeal be
    identified.
    Therefore, the motion is denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    J. Marlin abstained.
    I,
    Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that the above order was adopted on the
    7~
    day of
    ____________________,
    1992,
    by a vote of
    ~
    Dorothy M.
    ~,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    133—286

    Back to top