ILLINOIS

POlLUTiON

CONTROL

BOARD

June 10, 1982

VILLAGE OF HANOVER PARK,

)

Petitioner,

)

V.

)

PCB 82—69

The County Board of Du

Page1

the

Du Page County Forest Preserve

)

Commission, and B

& E Hauling,

Inc.

)

Respondents.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J. Anderson):

This

is the first third party appeal

filed pursuant to

SB 172, P.A.

82—682.

The

Village

of Hanover Park is appealing

the grant by the County Board of Du Page County of site location

approval for expansion of the existing ~a1lard Lake landfill

located in unincorporated Du Page County to applicants Du Page

County Forest Preserve Commission and E

& E Hauling,

Inc.

This

appeal of the County’s April 27,

1982 decision was timely filed

on the 35th day thereafter.

As required by Section 40.1(b) of

the Act,

the Board

finds that this matter should proceed to

hearing,

as the petition is

a)

not duplicitous or frivolous,

b)

recites that the Village participated in the February 11, 1982

public hearing, and

C)

recites that the Village is located

adjacent to and would

be affected by the facility expansion.

In

order to set this action on a proper course from its initiation,

the Board on its own motion will address three issues:

1) the

designation of the appropriate parties,

2)

the filing of the

record on appeal, and 3) the interpretation of the 90 day decision

deadline.

Section 40.1(b)

of the Act provides that

in these third party

appeals the “county board...and the applicant shall be named as

co—respondents”.

This is acknowledged in the first paragraph of

the petition which states that petitioner contests the “decision

of the respondent COUNTY BOARD OF

DU PAGE, approving the joint

application of the co-respondents,

Ni PAGE COUNTY FOREST PRESERVE

COMMISSION and B & E HAULING,

INC.’S

However,

in addition the

Village has brought into this action as respondents the 23

individuals who, collectively, comprise the Du Page County Board

as well as the Du Page County Forest Preserve Commission.

Section 40.1 empowers the Board to determine, considering

criteria enunciated in the statute, whether a county board’s

collective decision should be affirmed or reversed.

As the Act

---

gives

the

Board

no

~

~or

actions

taken

by

the

~ndi~i

~

~

~i’~

Fo~d,

these

individuals

have

~:ot:

I ~:cw

r.

•~r

thel

~

capacity

as

county

board

mentherc,

These ~nd: pith

~

:.

~

“applicants”

for

permission

to

expand

the

I ~niJ

~1.

~

~.

~

a~i~’

ication to

the

Illinois

Environment~I

?rec’~:

v

~.

a

pe~mih to

expand

and

modify

thic

perr~:

f~

1~

r

c1*~or~)~n

no

way

indicates

any

involvement

of

these

~l

in~

:idita

ic

the

epplication

as

individuals,

The

~

~o’~

~

~

~

~u

Paqe

County

is

named

as

the

owner

t

~±i~

Ian~

~

:

ed,

c~

E

&

~

Hauling,

Inc.

is

named

as

the

peoc

~~i:

~

:1

~in1:~vidual

as

opposed

to

official,

interes

~.

:‘

~

~

~c:ac~rts

in

this

land

is

evidenced

or

indiec!~cd :~n the

~

For

thece

rcc~

~

toed

~n

the

petition,

and

captioned

~s

~d

~

ir~

i~’~ts” in

this

action

are

dismissed~

T~+iL~f

c.

rv~

th~t the

Board

is

mindful

that

one

of

the

ke~rpthnl

:.

;

~rion

is

whether

these

individuals~

action~

~n

thet.

c

~a2acit1oo

as

county

board

members

and

forest

ni

‘~t~nvc

ct

Los.

~‘~vciscioners

involves

“an

illegal

and

irretr

‘~

:1

:

~..

ii’tc’~est,

and

whether

the

procedures

here.

:L~voi‘ed

~

r

~nta

‘

y

unfair”

(Pet,

at

p.

8—9)

These

I ~i.cc

ens

~

~inI

should

appropriately

be

raised

at

hearinc

lDttor

~‘I:it

cc

id~viduals

as

party

respondents

is

inapprop~I

~

Ft

~ floar~

thich

can

provide

relief

only

fro!r

thot

~ ~

mi

s

of

the

entities

referred

to

in

Section

40,L(hj,

SB

172,

as

codified

JT~

iecti~n

‘~~)

~i

~a

of

the

Act,

provides

that

the

hearing

before

the

~carh

to

~be

based

exclusively

on

the

record

before

the

county

boa~

The

statute

does

not

specify

who

is

to

file

with

tha

:.

‘~.

:ct

t;e

~ ~o’~d before

the

County,

or

who

is

to

certify

to

the

coo~1a’.

~

correctness

of

the

record.

As

the

Du

Page.

Couo~j

~1

Jcn~

~an

verify

and

certify

what

exactly

is

the

er’thre

re~or~be~ore it,

in

the

interest

of

protecting

the

rights

of

ill

p”~ia~’ ~o

this

aotIon~

and

in

order

to

satisfy

the

:Lntethio~

10

1

‘:.

~rd

hc~!

fives

that

Du

Page

County

must

to the o~c’

~ro

and

tile

the

record

on

appeal.

The

Doart

eur~cets

tc~t

~uId~

uce

in

so

doing

can

be

had

by

reference

to

Pet

~c

~

“1

ci:

toe

J3oara~

s

Procedural

Rules

and

to

Rules

321

throuth

In:

l1l~uois

Supreme

Court

Rules.

In

addition

to

the

actual

doeuntan~e

which

~ompnise

the

record,

the

County

Board

Cierh

ohell

air

~:

peeper s

a

docurtent

entitled

“Certificate

of

Record

on

Appe~lu ehfih

shall

list

the

documents

comprising

the

record,

~c

oc~Lcc :‘~h~ cartificate

and the

record shall be

filed

with

the

Ecafi,

etid

a

copy

of

the certifi-

cate shall

be served

upon

the

petitioner.

As

these

requirements

have

not

previously

been

stated,

the

County

Board

Clerk

is

given

21 days

from

the

date

of

trLa

Or1e~. to

“orepare,

bind

and

certify

the

record

on

appea1~ (li1~

Buprene

Court,

ilule

324)~.

---

Section

40,1(b) provides thar th

petition shall

be

heard

“in

accordance with the terms o~’Sectfin 40,1(a),

Section

40.1(a)

provides

that if thece is no fnal action by the

Board

within

90

days, petitioner may dee’n the site location approved.”

The Board has construed identical

Nm

accordance with the

terms

of” language contained in Section 40(b) of the Act con-

cerning third~partyappeals of the grant of hazardous waste

landfill permits as givina the resoondent who 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

~~ironmente~al,v,

Akro-i La~c~~i.

PCB 80-184,

Oct.

30,

1980).

The Board the’efore construes Section 40,1(b)

in like

manner, with the result that failure of the Board to

act

in

90

days

would

allow respondents to deem the site location

approved.

Pursuant to Procedural Rule 504,

it

is petitioner~s

responsibility to pursue this action to insist that

a hearing

on

its

petition is tin’ely

seled

id

end

a transcript of that 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

JQ1~

day

of

~

1982 by a

vote

of

j,~.

Christan L. Moffett,

erk

Illinois

Pollution

on

rol

Board