ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 25,
    1976
    JOHN SEXTON CONTRACTORS CO.,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v
    )
    PCB 75—478
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    INTERIM OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Zeitlin):
    The Board here considers a Motion to Dismiss,
    filed
    February 20, 1976 by Intervenor,
    People of the State of Illinois,
    and a Motion for Summary Judgement,
    filed by Petitioner John Sexton
    Contractors Co.
    (Sexton) on March
    4,
    1976.
    The People’s
    Motion asks that the matter be dismissed and
    remanded to Respondent Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency),
    “with instructions for it to obtain and evaluate the requisite
    site suitability information.”
    Sexton’s Motion, among other things,
    asks that a previous directive issued by the Agency requiring that
    Sexton submit certain data pertaining to
    “siting and zoning factors”
    be declared void,
    along with specific standard and special conditions
    contained
    in a solid waste development permit issued
    to Sexton by
    the Agency.
    As regards those portions of Sexton’s “Complaint”
    seeking
    reversal of those standard and special conditions
    in the development
    permit,
    we agree that those conditions have already been adjudged
    invalid by the Illinois Supreme Court.
    The hearing to be held in
    this matter need not consider those conditions.
    In all other respects,
    however,
    the Notion to Dismiss and the
    Motion for Summary Judgement are denied.
    As pointed out in the Attorney General’s Response to Notion
    for Summary Judgement,
    there are indeed issues of fact remaining
    to be determined
    here.
    Among other things,
    facts should be elicited
    to allow a determination of the reasonableness of any actions by
    Sexton in commencing development of the site,
    the extent of those
    actions, and of whether Sexton reasonably relied on the previously
    issued Development Permit when commencing
    such development.
    20—401
    —2--
    In addition to those factual issues,
    to be decided on the
    record generated at hearing, there also remain several issues of
    law for determination by the Board.
    These issues should be
    thoroughly briefed by the parties,
    following the hearing,
    and
    include:
    1.
    The effect of Carlson
    v. Village
    of Worth,
    No.
    47334
    (Ill.
    S.
    Ct., Sept.
    26,
    1975), on other~
    existing development and operating permits, both as
    to
    (a)
    the individual conditions discussed in that
    case, without specific adjudication by any court or
    administrative body, and
    (b) the validity in their
    entirety of such other permits containing the conditions
    at issue in Carlson.
    2.
    The authority of the Agency to modify or
    withdraw permits containing the stricken conditions,
    with or without admission by the Agency that it had
    failed to consider relevant land use or zoning issues
    when granting such permits.
    3.
    The authority or power of an individual
    to rely on such permits following the Supreme Court’s
    Carison decision.
    4.
    The authority or power of an individual
    to
    act on the assumption that the Supreme Court’s
    Carison decision would or must apply to similar
    ~T~Tons
    in a different permit.
    5.
    The application of reliance or estoppel
    theories to this Board’s decisions
    in circumstances
    such as those here.
    6.
    The effect on otherwise valid permits
    of
    the Agency’s failure to perform mandatory duties
    in
    connection with the issue of those permits.
    7.
    The effect of community or individual
    rights which may be prejudiced by such a failure of
    the Agency,
    vis—a--vis the presence or absence of any
    reasonable reliance by
    a permit holder,
    or any other
    theory which might serve to validate such a permit
    or actions taken under it.
    20— 402
    —3—
    8.
    In light of the above issues,
    any Others
    which the parties feel are applicable under the facts
    in this case.
    This matter has previously been set for hearing, which decision
    is not altered.
    Except as noted above,
    Motions for Dismissal and
    Summary Judgement are denied.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board,
    hereby cqrtify the abo e Interim Opinion and Ordei~
    were adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    _________,
    1976, by a vote of
    ~.S.0
    C ristan L. Mof
    ,
    Clerk
    Illinois Polluti ~Contro1
    Board
    20—403

    Back to top