ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 25,
1988
ANTHONY W.
KOCHANSKI,
Complainant,
V.
)
PCB 88—16
HINSDALE GOLF CLUB,
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
D. Dumelle):
On January 15,
1988, Anthony W.
Kochanski
filed
a complaint
against
the Hinsdale Golf Club (“Hinsdale”)
asserting that the
discharging of shotguns
at the facility violates
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 900.102
and 901.104* governing noise pollution.
In an order
dated January 21,
1988,
the Board noted that Section
25
of
the
Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”) places certain restrictions
on the Board’s ability to hear noise violation proceedings
involving certain sporting activities.
The Board quoted the
pertinent language
as follows:
No Board standards
for monitoring noise or
regulations
prescribing limitations on noise emissions shall apply
to any organized amateur or professional sporting
activity except as otherwise provided
in this
Section.
Baseball, football
or soccer sporting events
played during nighttime hours,
by professional
athletes,
in
a city with more than 1,000,000
inhabitants,
in a stadium at which
such nighttime
events were not played prior
to July
1,
1982,
shall
be
subject to nighttime noise emission regulations
promulgated by the Illinois Pollution Control Board.
The Board
then required the parties to
file written
documents discussing whether
the complained
of activity
is an
“organized amateur or professional sporting activity.”
The statutory definition
of “organized amateur
or
professional sporting activity”
is contained
in Section
3.25
of
the Act:
*
The Board notes
that the published Noise regulations include
amendments through May 1,
1984.
On January 22,
1987,
the Board
adopted
a final order amending Section 900.103 and 901.104
(IN
THE MATTER OF:
General Motors Corp.
Proposed Amendments
to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 900.103 and 901.104,
R83—7).
All filings shall
be
consistent with this Order and the published Noise
regulations.
86—407
—2—
“ORGANIZED AMATEUR OR PROFESSIONAL SPORTING ACTIVITY”
means an activity or event carried out at
a facility
by persons who engaged
in that activity as
a business
or
for education,
charity or entertainment
for the
general public,
including all necessary actions
and
activities associated with such
an activity.
This
definition
includes,
but
is not limited
to, skeet,
trap or shooting sports clubs
in existence prior
to
January
1,
1975,
organized motor sports,
and sporting
events organized or controlled by school districts,
units
of local
government, state agencies,
colleges,
universities
or professional sports clubs offering
exhibitions
to the public.
On February
1,
1988, Respondent
filed
a Motion
to Dismiss
and Affidavit
In Support Thereof, alleging
that the skeet
shooting activity
is organized within the meaning of the statute
because
it has been carried
on since
1943,
is administered
by a
six person committee and
is supported
by three of Respondent’s
employees.
On
February
2,
1988,
Complainant filed his response
to the ~Board’s Order
of January 21,
1988, arguing that the skeet
shooting
is not performed
as an “organized amateur
or
professional
sporting activity” because
it
is
a privilege
available only
to members of Hinsdale,
and not
to the general
public.
Complainant further asserts
that
the complained of
activity
is not conducted by
a bona fide skeet, trap or
shooting
sport club as
a business or for education,
charity or
entertainment for the general public,
but
is private recreation
which does not fall within the definition of organized
amateur or
professional sporting activity.
To this assertion,
Respondent
argues that the statutory exemption
is
not limited
to public
activities
or dependent upon any perception
of Respondent’s
primary activity.
On February
4,
1988 the Board heard arguments from the
parties regarding
their filings
of February 1,
1988 and February
2,
1988 and issued
a written order
requesting
the parties
to
file
a verified statement of facts,
describing
what degree of
involvement the general public has with
the activity
in
controversy, and whether
such activity offers exhibitions
to
the
public.
The Board
found
that
the additional
factual information
was necessary to determine
if the complained of activity meets
the statutory definition of “organized amateur
or professional
sporting activity”.
On February 17,
1988,
Respondent
filed
a Memorandum
in
Response
to Illinois Pollution Control Board
Inquiries
(“Memorandum”)
in which
it states that Hinsdale
is a private club
whose members are drawn from that portion of the general public
who chose to apply
for membership and pay the initiation
fee.
Respondent
further asserts
that
it
is
a skeet shooting club and
because
the statutory definition includes such clubs, Respondent
is not subject
to the Board’s regulations and that this action
should be dismissed.
On February 18, 1988, Complainant filed his
86—408
response to the February
4
Board Order
stating
that he and
Respondent have agreed that,
(1) Hinsdale Golf Club
is
a private
club offering skeet shooting as a privilege to
its members,
and
that
(2) Hinsdale Golf Club does not offer participation by, or
exhibitions for the general public.
No mention of this agreement
was made
in Respondent’s Memorandum.
The Board
finds
that
the skeet shooting activity
in question
does not fall within
the statutory definition
of
organized
amateur
or professional sporting activity.
The activity
is not
“carried out at
a facility by persons
as a business or for
education, charity or entertainment
for the general public.”
Although
the public may be able
to apply for membership
to the
club,
the shooting activities are carried out privately among
members of
the Hinsdale Golf Club.
Nor does the Board find that
the activity
falls within
the “skeet,
trap,
or
shooting sports
clubs in existence prior
to January
1,
1975”
exception.
Because
the Board
finds that the complained
of activity does
not fall within the statutory definition
of organized amateur
or
professional
sporting activity,
the Hinsdale Golf Club
is not
exempted
from Board regulation under Section
25
of the Act.
The
Board therefore denies
the motion to dismiss and will direct its
Hearing Officer
to confer with the parties
for the purposes of
scheduling
a hearing
on the complaint
in this matter.
As
a final matter,
the Board would like
to note
the
Appellate Court case of
Ferndale Heights Utilities Company
v.
Illinois Pollution Control Board and Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
44
Ill.
App.
3d 962,
358 N.E.
2d 1224
(First
District,
1976).
The Board notes
the Ferndale case
as the
judicial standards provided therein may be applicable
to this
proceeding.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Members
R.C.
Flemal and J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
Board Member
J.
Marlin concurred.
I, Dorothy
M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby cert~fythat
the above Order was adopted
on the
~‘4~
day
of
________________,
1988,
by a vote of
~
Dorothy
M.
unn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
86—409