ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    February 6,
    1992
    RONALD E. TEX and SUSAN D.
    TEX.,
    )
    )
    Petitioners,
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 90—182
    (Enforcement)
    S.
    SCOTT COGGESHALL and
    )
    COGGESHALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
    )
    Res~pondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by M. Nardulli):
    This matter is before the Board on the motion of respondents
    Chester
    Bross,
    Mike
    Bross,
    Jeff
    Bross
    and
    Chester
    Bross
    Construction Company (Bross) to dismiss filed January 27,
    1992.
    On
    February
    3,
    1992,
    respondents
    S.
    Scott Coggeshall and Coggeshall
    Construction Company (Coggeshall) filed their response objecting to
    the motion to dismiss.
    On
    June
    6,
    1991,
    the hearing
    officer granted Coggeshall’s
    motion to add Bross
    as respondents
    in this enforcement action on
    the
    basis
    that
    Bross
    entered
    into
    “Management
    and
    Option
    to
    Purchase”
    agreement with
    Coggeshall
    to
    manage
    and
    operate
    the
    asphalt plant which
    is the subject of the
    instant, action.
    This
    agreement became effective September 14,
    1989 and expired January
    7,
    1992.
    Bross seeks dismissal on the basis that it no longer has
    any control over the property and,
    therefore,
    cannot
    cease
    and
    desist from any alleged violations nor can they take any action to
    bring the plant into compliance.
    Coggeshall responds that the complaint was filed June 9,
    1990
    and that Bross was in control of the subject property during the
    period
    of
    alleged
    violation.
    Coggeshall
    also states
    that,
    at
    hearing,
    complainant
    advised
    the
    hearing
    officer
    that
    it
    was
    seeking all relief allowed under the Environmental Protection Act
    (Ill.
    Rev.
    Stat.
    1989,
    ch.
    111
    1/2,
    par.
    1042).
    Therefore,
    Coggeshall contends that the motion to dismiss should be denied
    because Bross’ activity on the property
    may have caused or allowed
    noise and/or air pollution as alleged in the complaint.
    Simply
    because
    Bross
    is
    no
    longer
    in
    possession
    of
    •the
    property does not mean that they did not commit a violation during
    the time period
    alleged
    in the complaint.
    While
    Bross
    may no
    longer be able to cease and desist from any future violations and
    may not be able to take actions to achieve compliance does not mean
    that Bross may not be subject to a penalty.
    The Board notes that
    it
    may
    impose
    a
    penalty
    even
    where
    complainant
    has
    failed
    to
    request such relief.
    The Board denies Bross’ motion to dismiss.
    130—3
    5
    2
    IT IS SO ORDERED
    I,
    Dorothy M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    B9ard, hereby c~
    that the above order was adopted on the
    ~Q
    day of
    1992 by a vote of
    ~..—c1
    ~‘DorothyM.
    Gup~i,
    Clerk’
    Illinois
    P0 ~‘1/ition
    Control
    Board
    130—36

    Back to top