ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April 15, 1999
    TERRENCE G. GRAF, JOE GRAF,
    MARCELLA GRAF, LOUISE
    GROTHPIETZ, MARJORIE OLSZEOSKI,
    LEONARD OLSZEOSKI, MIKE
    CZEBOKOWSKI, LOIS CZEBOKOWSKI,
    MILDRED OWEN, KATHERINE
    WASHBURN, ROBERT WASHBURN,
    GEORGE ARULEAF, ANNA
    KOZARZEWSKI, and LUCY CATLOW,
    Complainants,
    v.
    VALIQUET, INC., EMERALD
    LANDSCAPING, and CPK
    LANDSCAPING,
    Respondents.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 99-125
    (Enforcement - Citizens, Noise)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by E.Z. Kezelis):
    This matter comes before the Board on the February 26, 1999 filing of a citizens’
    enforcement complaint (complaint) by Terrence G. Graf, Joe Graf, Marcella Graf, Louise
    Grothpietz, Marjorie Olszeoski, Leonard Olszeoski, Mike Czebokowski, Lois Czebokowski,
    Mildred Owen, Katherine Washburn, Robert Washburn, George Aruleaf, Anna Kozarzewski,
    and Lucy Catlow (complainants) against Valiquet, Inc., Emerald Landscaping, and CPK
    Landscaping (respondents).
    Section 103.124(a) of the Board’s procedural rules directs the Board to determine
    whether or not a citizen’s complaint is duplicitous or frivolous. Except as discussed below, the
    Board finds that the complaint is not duplicitous or frivolous.
    BACKGROUND
    Complainants are residents of a community in Des Plaines, Cook County, Illinois.
    They allege that Valiquet, Inc. is the landlord and Emerald Landscaping and CPK Landscaping
    are the tenants of a piece of property located near the complainants’ homes. Complainants
    allege that the property is zoned for residential purposes but is being used for a landscape
    business. The respondents have not yet responded to the complaint.
    2
    Complainants allege that the respondents have caused noise, air, and odor pollution, in
    violation of Sections 23 and 24 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS
    5/23, 24 (1996)) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 830.202, 830.203, 830.205, 830.504, and 900.102 of
    the Board’s regulations. Complaint at 2.
    Specifically, complainants allege that the noise generated from the respondents’
    landscaping business hinders the complainants’ use of their backyards, penetrates their homes,
    and causes their homes to vibrate. Complaint at 3. Furthermore, complainants allege that
    during the winter months, the noise from machinery operation occurs during the late night and
    early morning hours between 10:00 p.m. and 4:00 a.m. Complaint at 3. Complainants also
    allege that foliage has been destroyed and property values lowered as a result of respondents’
    business. Complaint at 3. Additionally, complainants allege that the odors from a petroleum
    cleaning solution sprayed on respondents’ trucks and from a compost pile are noticeable on
    their property and in their homes. Complaint at 3.
    Complainants request that the Board order respondents to discontinue all use of a
    “Bobcat” type of equipment, discontinue the piling of landscape refuse, discontinue the use of
    salt, and discontinue the late night and early morning operations,
    i.e
    ., between 10:00 p.m. and
    6:00 a.m. Complaint at 4. Complainants also request that the Board order respondents to
    plant foliage to conceal “piles” and replace trees allegedly killed as a result of the landscaping
    operations. Complaint at 4. Finally, complainants request that the Board order respondents to
    allow their truck engines to warm up in a parking lot away from the neighboring homes.
    Complaint at 4.
    DUPLICITIOUS/FRIVOLOUS DETERMINATION
    Section 103.124(a) of the Board’s procedural rules implements Section 31(b) of the
    Act. 415 ILCS 5/31(b) (1996). It provides:
    a) The Clerk shall assign a docket number to each complaint
    filed *** the Chairman shall place the matter on the agenda for
    Board determination whether the complaint is duplicitous or
    frivolous. If the Board rules that the complaint is duplicitous or
    frivolous, it shall enter an order setting forth its reasons for so
    ruling and shall notify the parties of its decision. If the Board
    rules that the complaint is not duplicitous or frivolous, this does
    not preclude the filing of motions regarding the insufficiency of
    the pleadings. 35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.124 (a).
    Duplicitous
    An action before the Board is duplicitous if the matter is identical or substantially
    similar to one brought in another forum. Brandle v. Ropp (June 13, 1985), PCB 85-68.
    3
    The Board has not identified any other cases, identical or substantially similar to this,
    pending in other forums. Therefore, based on the record before us, this matter is not
    duplicitous.
    Frivolous
    An action before the Board is frivolous if it requests relief which the Board cannot
    grant. Lake County Forest Preserve Dist. v. Ostro (July 30, 1992), PCB 92-80.
    In the present case, the complainants allege noise, air, and odor violations.
    Specifically, they allege that the three respondents are operating their businesses in violation of
    Sections 23 and 24 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/23, 24 (1996)) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 830.202,
    830.203, 830.205, 830.504, and 900.102 of the Board’s regulations. Complaint at 2. One of
    the respondents is allegedly the landlord/owner of the property at which these violations
    allegedly are occurring. The other two respondents allegedly own and operate landscaping
    businesses on the property. With two exceptions, the complainants allege facts which, if
    proved, could result in a finding of noise pollution and other violations of the Act and
    regulations as alleged in the complaint. If the complainants prove these violations, the Board
    has the authority to grant at least some of the relief requested by complainants. Therefore, the
    complaint, with the exception of two specific allegations, is not frivolous.
    The first exception to the frivolous determination is the alleged violation of 35 Ill.
    Adm. Code 830.504(e), (i). Subsections (e) and (i) of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 830.504 do not
    exist. Therefore, there can be no violation of this section as alleged. The second exception to
    the frivolous determination is the alleged violation of Section 23 of the Act. 415 ILCS 5/23
    (1996). Section 23 of the Act contains only legislative statements of purpose as opposed to
    prohibitions on activity. There can be no violation of Section 23. See Brunson v. MCI
    Worldcom, Inc. (January 7, 1999), PCB 99-71. Therefore, to the extent that the complaint
    alleges violations of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 830.504(e), (i) and Section 23 of the Act, those
    allegations are frivolous and are accordingly stricken from the complaint.
    PROCEDURAL MATTERS
    Two procedural matters must be addressed. First, the Board notes that the
    complainants have not yet filed a proof of service, indicating service of the complaint on the
    respondents. The complainants are directed to file proof of service with the Clerk of the
    Board within 14 days of the date of this order. The complainants are required to serve each of
    the individual respondents with the complaint pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.141 of the
    Board’s procedural rules.
    Second, Terrence Graf is identified in the complaint as “representing” the
    complainants. It does not appear, however, that Mr. Graf is an attorney. While the Board
    rules allow individual citizens to represent themselves before the Board, they do not allow
    non-attorneys to represent other individual citizens before the Board. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    101.107. Illinois law prohibits such an act as well. Section 1 of the Attorney Act prohibits
    persons from acting as an attorney without first having obtained a license to do so. 705 ILCS
    4
    205/1 (1996). Therefore, each of the individually named complainants will need to proceed
    either on their own behalf or through a properly licensed attorney who has entered an
    appearance in this case.
    CONCLUSION
    The Board finds that, pursuant to Section 103.124(a), the pollution allegations, with
    two previously noted exceptions, are neither duplicitous nor frivolous. The Board again notes
    that this finding does not preclude the filing of motions regarding the insufficiency of the
    pleadings.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Members R.C. Flemal, G. Tanner Girard, and Nicholas J. Melas
    dissented.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the 15th day of April 1999 by a vote of 4-3.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top