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