ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
7~ugust 7, 1981
MIDWEST BAPTIST CONFERENCE,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 81—55
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
CONCURRING OPINION (by 3. Anderson and I. Goodman):
Although, as was stated in the majority Opinion, it appears
that everyone’s due process rights have been protected in this
case, there recently has been a disturbing trend of objectors to
variance petitions who use their objection to the variance and its
resultant requirement of a hearing as a bargaining chip to further
the objectors personal needs and goals. Needless to say, that is
not the purpose of the Board’s rule. In the future the Board
should not grant cancellation of a hearing based upon agreement
between the petitioner and the objector, regardless of the
appearance of lack of prejudice to any person. The alternative
appears to be the wrongful use of Board procedure by an objector
to achieve his purposes outside the scope of Board determination
of the merits of the variance petition.
If a true problem exists and a legitimate objection is
presented, a hearing must be held in order to enable hearing
participants to have their say, whether or not they were formal
objectors. Then the Board can evaluate all sides of the issue.
The practice of cancelling a hearing pursuant to agreement between
the objector and the petitioner circumvents the Board’s review of
the issues and may result in a grant of variance that is beneficial
to the objector and the petitioner but not to the environment.
~: ~
~L.____
___
,~‘;
Joan G. Anderson
èi~ber
~7
Goodman
B~ar~Member
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify th~itthe above Concurring Opinion
was filed on the
_____
day of ~
_____,
1981.
_________
).)
~
Chris~anL. 4offet4~C1erk
Illinois Pollution’-C&ntrol Boari
43—14s