ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 20, 1990

INDUSTRIAL FUELS & RESOURCES/

)

ILLINOIS, INC.,

PETITIONER,

v.

)

PCB 90—53

)

(Landfill Siting Review)

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF HARVEY,

Respondents.

)

DISSENTING OPINION (by

3.

Theodore Meyer):

I dissent from the majority’s order denying Industrial’s

motion for reconsideration. I would have allowed reconsideration

for the following reasons.

First, as indicated in my written explanation of vote, I

only concurred with the Opinion to the extent that it concluded

that “it is the applicant who defines the intended service area,

NOT the local decision making body” and with that part of the

conclusion which reversed Harvey with respect to its finding

regarding Criterion (vi). I did NOT concur with the balance of

the Opinion regarding Criteria (i), (ii), (v) and (vii). For

this reason the actual vote on the Opinion was 4—3 against its

adoption insofar as these four Criteria are concerned, not 4—3

for its adoption as indicated in the Opinion.

Therefore, Industrial’s contention that the Board’s

September 27 opinion does not satisfy the requirements of Waste

Management of Illinois, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (2d Dist.

1988), 175 Ill. App.3d 1023, 530 N.E.2d 682, 125 Ill.Dec. 524,

merely reinforces my concern, articulated in my September 27

supplemental statement, that the courts provide guidance on the

question of whether a majority of the Board must vote in support

of the opinion (as opposed to the underlying decision, set forth

in the order) for that opinion to be sufficient to support the

Board’s decision.

There is a difference of opinion as to whether there must

must be at least four Board members voting in support of an

opinion, or, as is the case in the courts, whether it is

sufficient that at least four Board members vote in support of

the outcome of the case, and explain their reasons in

concurrences or supplemental opinions. Because landfill siting

appeals, in particular, are often complicated and involve a

number of separate disputed issues, a requirement that four Board

Members absolutely agree (i.e. straight “aye” votes, rather than

117—79

---

—2—

concurrences)

with

all aspects of an opinion could create a

procedural nightmare. I again ask the courts to address this

problen.

Second, I continue to believe that Harvey’s decision denying

site approval was against the manifest of the evidence, and that

therefore that decision should have been reversed.

For these reasons, I dissent.

~

Theodore Meyer

Board Member

I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify tha the above Dissenting Opinion was filed

on the //ZZ~ day of

_________________

1991.

~

Dorothy M. 9i,~nn,

~.

Clerk

/L~

Illinois poailution Control Board

117—80