ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    January 21,
    1993
    YOLANDA PRICE,
    Complainant,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 92—119
    )
    (Enforcement)
    SOUTH SHORE VILLA
    )
    CONDOMINIUMS,
    AND
    QUALITY
    )
    MANAGEMENT SERVICE,
    INC.,
    )
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.
    C. Marlin):
    This matter is before the Board on a December 22, 1992,
    aotionto reconsider the Board’s
    November19,
    1992 decision in
    this
    matter.
    On January
    5, 1993, the respondents filed a
    response in opposition to complainant’s motion for
    reconsideration.
    Additionally,
    in their response, respondents
    ask that the Board to find that complainants motion for
    reconsideration does not stay the time for appeal as provided by
    35 111.
    Adin.
    Code 101.246(c).
    The Board will first address complainant’s motion for
    reconsideration.
    Complainant’s motion
    asks
    the Board to
    reconsider its November 19,
    1992, decision
    in this
    case finding
    that complainant’s claim is frivolous because
    it
    does not state a
    claim upon which relief can be granted.
    Complainant’s
    motion
    raises no new issues of fact or law.
    In fact, complainant’s
    motion specifically references the brief she filed on September
    25,
    1992.
    Therefore,
    the Board finds no reason for
    reconsideration.
    The motion for reconsideration is denied and
    the Board reaffirms its order of November 19,
    1992.
    Next the Board will address the respondents’ motion asking
    the Board to deny the complainant a stay of appeal time.
    35
    Iii..
    Mm.
    Code 101.246
    (C)
    states:
    A timely-filed motion for reconsideration or
    modification stays the effect of the final
    order until final disposition. of any motion.
    The time for appeal of the Board order runs
    anew after the Board rules upon the motion
    unless otherwise provided.
    (35
    I.i.
    Mm.
    Code 101.246
    (c).)
    Complainant
    may
    be required to exhaust all administrative
    remedies
    before
    appealing
    her case to the Appellate
    Court.
    Castenada
    v.
    Illinois
    Human
    Rights Commission,
    132
    Iii.
    2d
    304,
    OL38-O1~29
    2
    547 N.E.2d 437 (1989).
    Thus, the Board does not believe it would
    be equitable to deny a stay of appeal time to the complainant
    since, under the current law, she may be required to ask the
    Board to reconsider her case in order to exhaust all
    administrative remedies.
    A denial of the stay of appeal time
    when the complainant is forced under current law to make the
    motion for reconsideration, essentially denies the complainant
    her right to an appeal.
    It is because of this paradox that the
    Board denies the respondent’s motion.
    The time for complainant
    to file an appeal rurs from the date of today’s decision~
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Section 41 of th
    Environmental Protection Act
    (Ill.Rev.Stat.
    1991, .Ch 111 1/2, par. 1041) provides for appeal
    of final orders of the Board within 35 days.
    The rules of the
    Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
    (But
    see also 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246, Motions Ior Reconsideration,
    and Castenada v. Illinois Human Rights Commission
    (1989),
    132
    Ill. 2d 304, 547 N.E.2d 437.)
    I, Dorothy N.
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify t
    t .the above order was adopted on the
    •
    ~,—~--~-
    2ayof
    ,
    1993, b
    a vote of
    Dorothy N. ,~iinn, Clerk
    Illinois P~l1utionControl Board
    OI38-QL~3Q

    Back to top