ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January 13, 1983
    WILL COUNTY PRODUCE COMPANY and
    )
    S & T COMPANY,
    Petitioners,
    v.
    )
    PCB 82—129
    t1~LINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    )
    AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    CONCURRING OPINION (by J.D. Dumelle):
    My reason for concurring is because I feel the 18 months
    granted in this case by the Board is too short. I would
    have
    opted for a longer period, even up to the 5—year statutory
    maximum.
    This is a de minimus violation of the Noise Rules. The
    Opinion on p. 2 quotes the only complainer as not wishing to
    force Will County Produce Co. to spend “a lot o~moneys.
    How often is a patio outside a beauty parlor used for hair
    treatment and facials in the Illinois climate? This is not a
    residential patio used by a family with guests. Given the hot
    and muggy Illinois climate in summer the beauty shop patio is
    probably little used.
    With a longer period of time for the variance to run some
    of the refrigeration units might well wear out and be replaced
    by quieter units. But with the short 18 month period here granted
    that option will probably not be possible.
    iJ cob D. Dumelle, Chairman
    /
    I, Christan L. Moffett, 1 k of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby cjertif at the. above Concurring Olinion
    was filed on the
    day of________________
    ,
    1983.
    :~
    / ~
    Christan L. MoffettI clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    5 1-23

    Back to top