ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 22, 1974
    DONALD F. CONAWAY,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 74—282
    EDWARD PATTON,
    Jr.,,
    Respondent.
    Mr.
    Donald F. Conaway, attorney for Clinton County.
    Mr. Edward Patton, Jr., appeared without counsel.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE
    BOARD
    (by Dr. Odell)
    On July
    20,
    1974,
    the State’s Attorney for Clinton
    County filed a Complaint with the Pollution Control Board
    (Board)
    and alleged that the Respondent had, since July,
    1973, caused or allowed the open dumping of garbage in
    violation of Section 21(a)
    of the Environmental Protection
    Act
    (Act)
    and carried on refuse collection without
    a permit
    in violation of Section 21(e)
    of the Act.
    The Respondent
    lives with his mother at 1015 Beecham Street, Centralia,
    Illinois.
    He owns Lots
    9,
    10, and 11 of Second Pullen
    Heights Subdivision;
    his mother owns Lots 24,
    25,
    26,
    27,
    and 28, Block
    1, Pullen Heights, across the street from his
    property.
    All eight lots ‘allegedly were involved in the
    violations.
    A hearing was held at the Clinton County Courthouse in
    Carlyle, Illinois on September 23,
    1974.
    The ten photographs
    entered into evidence
    (Compi.
    Ex.
    1 to 10), the testimony of
    two area witnesses, and admissions by the Respondent establish
    that Sections 21(a)
    and
    (e)
    of the Act have been violated
    during the time period specified in the Complaint.
    Garbage is
    observed in Compl.
    Ex.
    1;
    a witness testified to observing
    garbage on the premises near the home owned by the mother
    (R.
    32,
    49,
    50).
    iRespondent admitted collecting boxes and
    sacks of empty beer cans
    (R.
    52-54).
    Compl. Ex.
    3,
    4,
    5, and 7
    show the extent of the refuse collection activity around the
    house.
    Respondent admitted accumulating the refuse
    (R.
    52) and
    not having
    a permit to do so
    (R.
    51-52).
    Respondent admitted that on three occasions
    in the last
    three years
    local courts have found him guilty of maintaining
    a public nuisance because of his dumping activities on the
    eight lots
    (R.
    55,
    56).
    It appears that in 1972 Mr. Patton,
    pursuant to court order, paid $700.00 to have the properties
    cleaned up
    (B.
    56).
    14—501
    —2—
    Respondent offered little evidence in the way of
    mitigation.
    He stated that he has cleaned up some of the
    refuse and would continue to do so
    (R.
    49).
    We are aware that
    a continuum exists from the private
    habits of individuals,
    in which neighbors have no legitimate
    interest,
    to the operation of an extensive disposal facility
    bearing
    a high degree of accountability to local citizens.
    The Board abstains,
    if possible,
    from exercising its jurisdiction
    over personal disagreements between neighbors.
    In this case,
    we
    believe
    that; area residents have sufficient interest to warrant
    Board action.
    Eight different lots are under the Respondent~s
    control, the dumping has been of long duration, and significant.
    amounts of refuse have been deposited on the properties.
    While the Board realizes the economic limitations
    ci
    Respondent~sposition,
    it seems clear that neighbors need not
    tolerate the manner in which Respondent makes use of the lots
    owned by himself and his mother.
    A program of compliance carried
    out with supervision from the Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    is the best method of protecting the interests of area
    residents.
    Follow-up after compliance has been achieved will be
    necessary.
    We urge the Agency to carry out periodic inspections
    at the facility so that the interests of area residents will be
    protected.
    Since the remedy sought,
    as expressed in the Com-
    plaint and at the hearing, focused on the need for clean—up and
    continued good housekeeping practices, the Board will not assess
    any penalty in this case.
    This constitutes the findings of
    fact and conclusions of
    law of the Board.
    ORDER
    IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:
    1.
    Respondent shall clean up the refuse and garbage from
    the eight lots and cease and desist from violating Section 21
    of the Act by April
    1,
    1975.
    2,
    Respondent shall post a performance bond with the
    Agency in the amount of $1,000 in
    a form acceptable
    to the
    Agency by February 1,
    1975.
    The bond shall be mailed to the
    State of Illinois, Fiscal Services Division, Environmental
    Protection Agency,
    2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois
    62706.
    On or about April
    1,
    1975,
    the Agency shall inspect the
    eight subject lots located on Beecham Street to see whether the
    clean up has been carried out,
    If the Agency finds that the
    Board~sOrder has not been implemented, the Agency shall arrançe
    to immediately have the affected areas cleaned up with payment
    to be made out of Respondent~sperformance bond.
    The remainder
    of the bond shall then be returned to Mr. Patton.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Mr. Dumelle dissented.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of ~he Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that
    he above Opinion and Order was adopted
    on the ..~Aday of
    ___________
    1974,
    by a vote of
    .~3
    to
    I
    14
    —502
    ~

    Back to top