ILLtNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    December 15,
    1983
    TO~TN
    OF ST. CHARLES,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 83—228
    KANE COUNTY BOARD AND
    rGTN
    SAt’JITARY
    DI~TRTCT.
    Respondent.
    CITY OF AURORA,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 83—229
    KANE COUNTY BOARD AND
    ELGIN SANITARY DISTRICT,
    Respondents.
    KANE COUNTY DEFENDERS,
    INC.,
    ROBERT MOORE,
    VIRGINIA
    )
    POLING, ROBERT SWISSLER,
    AND AUDREY PASHOLK,
    Petitioners,
    v.
    )
    PCB 83—230
    KANE COUNTY BOARD AND
    )
    ELGIN
    SANITARY
    DISTRICT,
    )
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.
    Anderson):
    These actions are third party appeals
    filed pursuant to P.A.
    82—682
    (SB 172).
    By separate filings, the Town of St. Charles on
    December 12,
    1983,
    the City of Aurora on December 13,
    1983, and
    the Kane County Defenders, Inc~, Robert Moore, Virginia Poling,
    Robert Swissler and Audrey Pasholk on December
    13, are each
    appealing the November
    8,
    1983 resolution of the Kane County
    Board
    (County) granting site location suitability approval to the
    Elgin Sanitary District
    (District).
    The District proposes to
    construct a new regional polluLion control
    facility for the
    breatmerit
    of
    sewage
    sludge
    at
    an abandoned quarry gravel pit
    located
    in
    Section
    3,
    Township
    40
    North,
    Range
    8
    East,
    Kane
    County.
    55-263
    —2--
    Each appeal
    of the County~sdecision was timely filed.
    As
    required by Section 40,1(b) of the Act,
    the Board finds that each
    matter should proceed to hearing, as each petition is
    a) not
    dtiplicitous or frivolous,
    h)
    indicates that the municipality
    participated
    in the County~spublic hearing, and c)
    indicates
    that the municipality
    is
    located adjacent to and would
    he
    affected by the facility.
    As each action involves the same County decision concerning
    the same facility,
    the Board on its own motion consolidates these
    cases
    for
    the
    purpose
    of
    hearing.
    SB
    172,
    as
    codified
    in
    Section
    40.1(a)
    of
    the
    Act,
    provides
    that
    the
    hearing
    before
    the
    Board
    is
    to
    “be
    based
    exclusively
    On
    the
    record
    before
    the
    county
    board.”
    The
    statute
    does
    not
    specify
    who
    is
    to
    file
    with
    the
    Board
    the
    record
    before
    the
    County or who
    is to certify to the completeness
    or correctness
    of
    the record,
    As
    the
    Kane
    County
    Board
    alone
    can
    verify
    and
    certify
    what
    exactly
    is
    the
    entire
    record
    before
    IL,
    in
    the
    interest
    of
    protecting the rights of all parties to this action, and
    in
    order
    to
    satisfy
    the
    intention
    of
    SB
    172,
    the
    Board
    believes
    that
    the
    county
    must
    be
    the
    party
    to
    prepare
    and
    file
    the
    record
    on
    appeal.
    The Board suggests that guidance in so doing can he had
    by reference to Section 105.102(a) (4)
    of the Board’s Procedural
    Rules and to Rules 321 through 324
    of the Illinois Supreme Court
    Rules.
    :En
    addition
    to
    the
    actual
    documents which comprise the
    record,
    the County Clerk shall also prepare a document entitled
    “Certificate of Record on Appeal” which shall
    list the documents
    comprising the record.
    Three copies of the certificate and three
    of
    the record shall
    be filed with the Board,
    and a copy of the
    certificate
    shall
    be served upon the petitioner.
    As these
    requirements have not previously been applied to the County of
    Kane,
    its Clerk is given
    21 days from the date of this Order to
    “prepare, bind and certify the record on appeal”
    (III,
    Supreme
    Court,
    Rule 324).
    Section 40.1(b) provides that the petition shall
    be heard
    “in accordance with the terms of” Section 40.1(a).
    Section
    40,1(a) provides that
    if
    there
    is
    no
    final action by
    the Board
    within
    90
    days, petitioner may
    deem
    the site location approved.
    The Board has construed identical
    “in accordance with the
    terms of” language contained in Section 40(b)
    of the Act
    concerning
    third—party
    appeals
    of
    the
    grant
    of hazardous waste
    landfill permits
    as giving the re~ondentwho had received the
    permit
    a)
    the right to a decision within
    90 days,
    and b)
    the
    right to waive
    (extend) the decision period
    (Alliance
    for a Safe
    ~
    PC B
    80 —184,
    October
    30,
    1980).
    The Board therefore construes Section 40.1(b)
    .~-~-‘-‘
    ~
    ~
    C~
    1,.
    ~
    ~
    ~
    i~.
    ~.
    ~
    1~
    ,
    V~J~L ti
    t.~
    t I ~
    L
    L~tI
    a
    L
    L Q
    L J. U
    r
    ~
    ‘~
    ~
    LI
    I
    JDL)
    a
    L U
    LL’
    ~
    L
    55-264
    —3--
    in
    90 days would allow respondent to deem the
    site. location
    approved.
    Pursuant to Section 105.104 of the Procedural Rules,
    it
    is each petitioner’s responsibility
    to pursue its action,
    to
    insist that
    a hearing on its petition is timely scheduled, and to
    insure that a transcript
    of the hearing is timely filed with the
    Board in order to allow the Board to review the record and to
    render its decision within
    90 days of the filing of the petition.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I,
    Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
    the
    ~
    day of
    ~
    1983 by a vote of
    ~
    f
    Christan
    L. Mof~t~ Clerk
    Illinois Pollutiofl Control Board
    55-265

    Back to top