ilLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 2,
    1985
    SPI\D()NI,
    FRANKIEWICZ
    & ZULLO,
    Complainants,
    )
    PCB 84—167
    BOLl
    ~)STi~E,; GREEK ORTHODOX
    CHURCFU
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J, Marlin):
    rhjs matter comes before the Board upon
    the November ~l, 1984
    fi1:~ngof
    a complaint by Don and Carol Spadoni, Bob and Beth
    Frankiewicz, and Don and Diane
    Zullo (complainants) against the
    Holy Apostles Greek Orthodox Church (respondent).
    Respondent
    filed an answer on December 19, 1984 denying the complainants’
    allegations while neither admitting nor denying the content of
    the documents submitted with the complaint.
    A hearing was held
    in Westchester,
    Illinois on March 18,
    1985.
    The complaint alleges that respondent violated the noise
    regulations located
    at
    35 til. Adm.
    Code 900.102
    (old rule 102),
    901,102(a)
    (old rule
    202), and 901.102(b)
    (old rule 203).
    Section
    900.102 provides that
    “(nb
    person shall cause or allow
    the emission of sound
    beyond the
    b~oundariesof his property,...,
    so
    as
    to
    cause noise pollution
    in Illinois, or so as
    to violate
    any
    provision
    of
    this Chapter.”
    Sections 901.102(a)
    and
    (b)
    contain octave
    band sound pressure levels
    which shall
    not be
    exceeded.
    Respondent
    is located at
    2501
    S. Wolf Road
    in Westchester.
    Complainants
    Zullo, Spadoni,
    and
    Frankiewicz reside at
    2524,
    2528~, and 2532
    S.
    Wellington
    in Westchester, respectively,
    directly
    east of the
    respondent’s property,,
    The respondent has
    five
    air
    conditioning
    units
    that are located
    -just
    west
    of
    the
    property lines
    of
    complainants and which complainants allege
    are
    the source of excessive noise.
    Although other documents have
    been filed
    with the complaint,
    the
    parties and the
    Illinois
    Environmental Protection Agency
    (IEPA)
    have filed
    a joint settlement agreement entitled
    ~sti.pu1ation
    for settlement”
    (agreement).
    Although not
    a party,
    the IEPA assented to the agreement,
    The
    signatories request that
    the
    Board
    approve
    the
    agreement.
    The
    a.qreE~er~
    provides
    that
    the
    respondent
    will
    move
    the
    existing
    ~r
    coi~iitioners
    from
    the
    east
    to
    the
    west
    side
    of
    its
    64-09

    2
    building
    or will remove
    the existing units and install new units
    on the south of the building.
    Either option will place
    the
    units
    at least 75
    feet from the complainants’ property lines
    behind
    the south side of the
    respondent’s building.
    Residences
    to
    the
    south
    of
    the
    proposed unit relocation will be separated by
    275
    feet
    and residences to the west by
    150
    feet.
    The total cost
    of respondent’s proposed actions would be
    in the range of thirty
    to fifty thousand dollars.
    The agreement also contains
    a
    timetable which the Board
    need not address and
    a denial
    by the
    respondent that
    it has “caused or committed” noise pollution.
    Th~
    Boay~
    hereby rejects the settlement agreement based on
    it~~or~iusion
    that it lacks statutory authority to accept
    ~ett1ements
    imposing
    compliance
    conditions
    without
    a
    Board
    finding
    of violation.
    IEPA v. Chemetco, Inc.,
    PCB 83—2, February
    20,
    1985,
    interlocutory
    appeal, No.
    5—85—143
    (5th District);
    People of the State of Illinois and IEPA
    ~.
    Archer Daniels
    Midland Corporation, PCB 83—226,
    March
    22,
    1985,
    interlocutory
    ~
    No, 3—85—0222 (3rd District),
    In order
    to bring this proceeding
    to
    a áonclusion
    the
    parties may file an amended settlement agreement containing
    sufficient
    admissions of violation for~theBoard
    to order
    implementation of the agreed modifications and schedule.
    Alternatively,
    the parties
    may wish to draft
    a private settlement
    agreement between themselves
    and when
    the controversy has been
    resolved,
    to seek
    a joint dismissal of the action before the
    Board,
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Member J.D. Dumelle dissented.
    Dorothy
    M.
    Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    hereby
    certify
    that
    the
    above
    Order
    was
    adopted
    on
    _____________
    day of
    __________________,
    1985 by
    a vote
    -
    -
    ~.
    ~
    ~.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    64-10

    Back to top