ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

7, 1985

JANET HOESMAN AND

BYRON HOESMAN,

Petitioners,

v.

)

PCB 84—162

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF URBANA,

ILLINOIS AND

)

THE CITY OF URBANA,

ILLINOIS

)

Respondents.

MR. MERVIN BElL APPEARBD

ON

BEHALF OF PETITIONERS.

MR.

KENNETH BETH APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

J

•

D. Dumelle):

This matter

is before the Board on an appeal filed pursuant

to Section 40.1(b)

of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

by

Janet and Byron Hoesman (Petitioners).

The Petition contests the

determination of the Urbana City Council

(Council) granting site

location suitability approval to a new regional pollution control

facility pursuant to Section 39.2 of the Act.

On March 7, 1985, at

its regularly scheduled Board Meeting,

the Board met

to take final action on this appeal.

The Board by

8tatute

is composed of seven members and an affirmative vote of

four members

is required

in order

for the Board

to take any

action.

(See Section 5(a)

of the Act.)

Two motions were

offered.

The first motion moved

the Board

to reverse the

determination of

the Council.

That motion failed to carry by a

vote of 2—3, with

5 members of the Board present.*

A second

motion moved the Board to uphold the determination of the

Council.

That motion failed to garner

the

votes of

a statutory

majority of the Board

(4),

and,

therefore,

also failed by a vote

of

3—2.

Therefore,

the Board is unable to take final action on

this appeal.

Pursuant to Section 40.1

(a)

and

(b)

of the Act,

if there

is

no final action by the Board within 120 days from the date the

petition is filed,

the respondent

(in a Section 40.1(b)

appeal)

may deem the site location approved.

Respondents,

by letter,

provided a limited waiver of their right

to

a decision within 120

days and extended the decision period through March

7, 1985.

*Mr.

Nega was absent because he

is recuperating from an

illness.

The seventh Board Member seat

is currently vacant.

63-169

---

—2—

Due to the failure of separate motions

to gain the necessary

four votes

to affirm or reverse the Councilts action, and the

termination of the statutory decision period,

it

is the Board’s

opinion that the Respondent may deem the site location

in

question approved by operation of

law.

(See Section 40.1(a)

and

(b),

Also see Cement Mf~.Co.

v. Pollution Control Board

(1980),

84

Ill. App.

3d 43~4,405 N.E. 2d 512);

Illinois Power Company

v.

Illinois Pollution Control Board

(1983),

112 Iii. App.

3d 457,

445

N.E.

2d

820.)

IT IS SO ORDEREDO

I, Dorothy M. Gu~.’~Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby certify ~at

the above Order was adopted on

the

7~

-

day

~f

_______________,

1985, by a vote

of

___________________

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

63-170