ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    January
    7,
    1982
    ILLINOIS
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 81~97
    CEZAR~SINN,
    INC.,
    an Illinois corporation,
    )
    Respondent,
    GERHARDT BRAECKEL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
    THE COMPLAINANT.
    ELMORE, GOWEN
    & DeMICHAEL,
    P.C., ATTORNEYS AT LAW
    (MR. ELBERT F.
    ELMORE,
    OF
    COUNSEL), APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by N,E,Werner):
    This matter comes before
    the
    Board on the June
    10,
    1981 Complaint
    brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (‘~Agency”).
    Count
    I of the Complaint alleged that, on numerous occasions
    between July
    2,
    1979 and
    June 10,
    1981, the
    Respondent allowed the
    parking of trucks on
    its property to cause noise
    pollution
    in
    violation of Rule 102 of Chapter 8:
    Noise Regulations
    (“Chapter
    8”)
    and Section 24 of the
    Illinois Environmental Protection
    Act
    (“Act”).
    Count II alleged that,
    from July
    2,
    1979 until
    June 10, 1981
    (including,
    but not limited to, March 27,
    1980, September
    5,
    1980, and
    March
    5,
    1981), the
    Respondent allowed the emission
    of sound during
    daytime hours from a
    property—line~noise—source on its property
    (Class
    ~)
    to receiving Class
    A
    land which exceeded
    the allowable
    octave
    band sound pressure levels in violation of Rules 102
    and 202
    of Chapter
    8 and
    Section 24 of the Act.
    A hearing was held on
    October 20, 1981 at
    which a partially signed
    Statement of Stipulated Settlement
    (i.e.,
    signed only by counsel for
    the Respondent), which was
    substantially
    identical to the subsequently
    filed Stipulation, was
    incorporated into the
    hearing record,
    (R.
    2—3;
    R.
    14—16),
    Two members of the public testified at this hearing.
    The
    parties filed a properly signed Statement of Stipulated Settlement on
    October 30,
    1981.
    The Respondent, Cezar’s Inn,
    Inc.
    (“Cezar”),
    owns and operates a
    motel which is
    located at 5001 West 79th Street
    in the City of Burbank,
    45—39

    —2—
    Cook County,
    Illinois,
    On March
    27,
    1980,
    September 5,
    1980, and
    March
    5,
    1981, Agency employees conducted sound tests which
    indicated
    that noise
    levels violated allowable standards and could
    disturb
    persons utilizing adjacent residential property.
    (Stip.
    2—3).
    Noises have been produced by the operation and parking of
    trucks,
    tractors and trailers (including the starting and warming—up of
    engines, the running of refrigeration units, etc.) on the southeast
    side of the Respondent’s parking
    lot.
    (Stip.
    3),
    Customers
    of the
    motel, as well as non—customers and local residents, have utilized
    Cezar’s parking lot and frequently disturbed the sleep,
    relaxation,
    and enjoyment of life of the people
    in the two homes closest to the
    southeast side of the parking lot.
    (Stip,
    3
    ),
    Although the
    Respondent “instituted a policy of prohibiting unattended
    running of
    engines and running of refrigeration units while parked in the
    winter
    of 1979 and posted signs to that effect”, these measures were not
    totally effective in eliminating all noise problems.
    (Stip.
    4).
    At the hearing,
    Mr. Daniel Higgins and Mrs. Kathy Higgins
    testified pertaining
    to the disturbing noises from tractors, trailers,
    and trucks which parked along the side of their house in the
    Respondent’s parking
    lot.
    (R, 4—16~~Mr. Higgins indicated that
    now, since the trucks will be parking in a different area of
    the lot
    (away from the Higgins’ house), the “underlying problem has
    been
    alleviated”.
    (R.
    4).
    Mrs. Kathy Higgins expressed concern
    that
    sometimes the
    trucks may
    fail to park in the newly
    designated areas
    and worried that, when the snows came, the truck drivers
    might not
    see
    the
    markings.
    (R.
    8—9),
    However,
    in regard to the
    Stipulation
    itself,
    Mrs.
    Higgins testified that “I agree with everything
    if it’s
    going to stay the way
    it is”.
    (R,
    8).
    To alleviate any future noise problems, the proposed settlement
    agreement provides that the Respondent shall:
    (1) direct all trucks,
    tractors and trailers to face north and to park only in the spaces
    designated for truck parking
    (“an appropriate symbol such as
    a
    will be painted on the surface of the parking lot to identify the
    designated space”);
    (2) use “all reasonable means” to prevent “the
    running of truck or tractor engines while unattended or
    refrigeration
    units
    (reefers)
    on its property”;
    (3) post,
    near the present signs,
    an equal number of signs which shall read:
    “Trucks or Trailers
    Parked in This Area Will Be Towed At Owner~sExpense.
    Park Only
    in
    Designated Area,”;
    (4)
    post an appropriate sign at the motel’s
    reception desk to notify truckers who are motel guests regarding
    the
    parking lot rules and about the designated spaces;
    (5) inform
    truckers
    (who are not motel guests)
    about the parking lot rules and
    designated
    spaces,
    “or prohibit their parking on the property”;
    (6)
    take all
    necessary measures “to assure that the parking lot rules are
    complied
    with”
    (including, but not limited to, instructing all desk
    clerks to
    inform the truck drivers of the rules;
    informing all motel
    employees
    of these
    rules;
    “periodic checking of the parking lot to
    make sure the
    parking rules are followed” and “enforcement of the parking
    lot
    rules
    when
    informed of violations”),
    (Stip.
    5—6).
    45~4o

    —3
    In evaluating this enforcement
    action and
    proposed settlement
    agreement,
    the Board has taken into consideration all the facts and
    circumstances in light of the specific criteria delineated in
    Section 33(c) of the Act.
    The Board finds the settlement
    agreement
    acceptable under Procedural
    Rule 331 and Section
    33(c)
    of the Act.
    Accordingly, the Board
    finds that the
    Respondent, Cezar’s Inn,
    Inc.,
    has violated Rules
    102 and 202
    of Chapter
    8:
    Noise Regulations
    and
    Section 24 of the Illinois
    Environmental
    Protection Act.
    The Respondent
    will be ordered to follow the
    compliance program set
    forth in the
    settlement agreement and no
    penalty will be imposed in this case.
    This Opinion constitutes the
    Board’s findings
    of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
    1,
    The Respondent,
    Cezar’s Inn,
    Inc., has violated Rules
    102
    and 202 of Chapter
    8:
    Noise Regulations and Section 24 of the
    Illinois
    Environmental Protection Act,
    2.
    No monetary
    penalty shall be assessed against the
    Respondent.
    3.
    The Respondent shall
    comply with all the terms
    and conditions
    of the Statement of Stipulated
    Settlement filed on
    October 30,
    1981,
    which is incorporated by
    reference as
    if fully set
    forth herein,
    I, Christan
    L, Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control
    Board, her~pycertify
    t at the above Opinion and Order were
    adopted
    on the
    7
    ~ay of
    ~
    1982 by a vote of
    ‘V-c
    45~-41

    Back to top