ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 24, 1974

DOROTHY A. ARNOLD and

FAYE

B. TAENZER,

Complainants,

v.

)

PCB 74—355

HERBERT GORDON,

Respondent.

ORDER

(by Mr. Henss):

Respondent has filed a Motion to Strike the Complaint.

The Board has carefully reviewed all of the pleadings and finds

that the Motion to Strike is without merit.

We have consistently

held that the home rule powers of the various municipalities

do not preclude the enforcement of our State Environmental Control

Laws.

This issue is now pending before the Illinois Supreme

Court and depending upon the ruling of the Supreme Court may be

raised again in this

case.

This civil action which is brought by citizens under

state regulation,

is not barred by the fact that the City of

Chicago had previously charged Respondent with violation of a

city ordinance.

The pleadings indicate that Respondent is in possession

of the premises in question and is probably the owner.

He is

a proper party Respondent.

Many of the matters contained in the motion and other

pleadings are factual in nature and may be appropriate evidence

in the case.

We do not by this Order rule on the relevance or

the admissibility of such evidence nor do we prejudge the merits.

It is simply our finding that this action is not precluded

because the parties happen to live in Chicago or by the prior

action in Chicago Municipal Court.

The Complaint is sufficient

14—305

---

—2—

under the Noise Regulation and must be scheduled for hearing.

Motion to Dismiss is denied.

This matter will be scheduled

for hearing on its merits.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control ~Q,~ard,do he

b

certify that the above Order was adopted

this

~4

day of

_____________,

1974 by a vote of

_____

to ~

14—306