ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 21, 1982

It~TU~MATTER OF:

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF

)

R76—14

RULES 101,

205,

206 AND 209

)

OF THE NOISE REGULATIONS

)

DISSENTING OPINION

(by J.D. Dumelle):

My reason for dissenting in this proceeding is the Board’s

rejection of the protection of new residential uses from existing

forging noise.

Other Board Rules on noise protect new uses of

a

residential nature from excessive noise.

This rule change enacted

today does not give that same protection.

I would have not adoptc~

Rule 206(e).

The variance mechanism would then have functioned

I:.o

examine closely the noise

levels and economics of noise abatement

for any existing forging shop.

What the Board has done with passage of Rule 206(e)

is

to

say “the forging shops wore there first and will forever prevail

.“

In some cases, the adjacent vacant land might have been owned

by the titleholder for years preceding the forge shop’s establish-

ment.

Now those homeowners have little recourse except expen-

sive noise nuisance suits.

The “noise unlimited” zone set up by Rule 206(o)

is a one

mile radius from the existing forging operation.

That zone is

about 2000 acres.

There appear to he 34 noncomplying forge

shops.

Thus Rule 206(o) excrn~ts (34)(2000) or 68,000 acres from

residential

proteCtlon.

I!o~:

many landowners were hurt by this

action?

How

many

plans for future development are now dead?

What growth has been stifled?

I do not believe the answers to

those questions arc in the record.

Without those answers, Rule

206(e) should not have been enacted.

That 106 sq.

ml. should

have been protected in the same manner as other Board Rules on

noise protect all

lands in Illinois for re~identialdevelopment.

‘~‘~Jacob

D. Dumelle

Chairman

I, christan L. P~offett,Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby cq~tifythat the above Dissenting Opinion

was filed on the ~

day of

~

1~)82.

~

Christan L. Moffett, Cle~k~

Illinois Pollution Controi Board

47-451