0
    -P
    .~art__
    t
    -
    __
    •4~
    a
    ~
    I
    t
    gEe
    1
    tt
    4.
    a.
    9’ a
    ntenhr
    do t r a ree’e
    B
    I’
    10
    38
    47
    $
    r
    ia e’r’r’i
    1
    P
    I
    Li
    El
    Nt
    PROE
    -
    en e ‘°dvra p
    ot.re .s
    0
    ejul
    dot’ ~
    B
    r
    r
    y
    2
    no
    eo
    C’
    P11’
    0
    t
    3
    rtec4
    F
    ‘
    1(91
    f~
    tel
    C
    o’ta
    e
    -
    e
    g
    0
    e
    ce~
    ‘8
    4
    e
    e
    r
    a
    u
    C
    -
    V
    0
    t
    0,
    p
    c.n
    ur
    1’
    t
    ~J
    tar
    rgs te
    e
    a’
    Ut
    01k
    r
    C.
    et
    * 1
    we
    d
    $d
    0
    r
    -‘Fl,
    equ
    a
    t
    C
    ...
    t
    are ot
    t~.rg
    dentor
    •
    e
    nd
    -
    Sc
    I
    s
    -
    ssue
    0
    ‘~
    i
    na
    t°
    e
    u
    Seoercr
    ea
    a- w°
    a
    1
    o $
    ,~
    r
    ark. er S
    $9 Ott
    e
    S -
    PtVoe f
    ai
    irt Se*ano
    —
    8
    Pe ~
    fi
    r”
    -
    a e c
    eouC$t
    o~a r r
    aareeten o,or cptn°
    & 9~ a eg gta tepatns
    t’ieappr,n-
    +t o
    for
    air -
    a’ior
    ‘
    (artr
    C
    1r4 for °dasurt~Noerbe
    aeactv( eigjedi detenrini
    heato’co¼eovenr~sinow’c isaaiVbl
    StetVs fac lities 1 ~ra te C4t.
    Ii lnos and hear ng’ have bee suspende u t ‘ tt s subje t can bt
    fully explored
    The last hearing was held oi fiby
    , 1974
    13—567
    Procedural Rule 311 prohibits continuances beyond forty~five
    days unless granted by order of the Board. The Board has not
    received a request for continuance relating to the Thuspension
    of hearing~ pending negotiations. The July lBr lg74 order required
    Petitioner to file the available transcripts. These were filed
    on August 6, 1974. Meaningful review of this partial proceeding
    was greatly hindered by the inability of the Board to review the
    transcripts with the necessary aid of the Exhibits filed at the
    hearings. Petitioner has not carried his burden to establish an
    arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.
    The Board has decided not to grant Petitioner another interim
    extension. if such request were granted, Petitioner would have
    been granted variance extensions to within sixty days of one year
    from the date Petitioner filed the original variance extension
    petition without presenting the Board with a complete and adequate
    record upon which to evaluate the request. Three previous interim
    variance extensions were granted to Petitioner in order to allow
    Petitioner to present a complete record. This leniency by the Board
    has been abused in this case. If the Board would have again granted
    Petitioner~s request for an interim variance, the Roard would have
    abrogated its responsibility of reviewing the facts to determine if
    a variance, a shield from prosecution, was warranted. Such action
    would not have provided protection to the Citizens of Illinois.
    Since Petitioner~s request is dismissed without prejudice,
    Petitioner is free to file another variance request and incorporate
    the partial record generated in this proceeding.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Board.
    ORDER
    The Pollution Control Board denies Petitioner~smotion for
    an interim variance and dismisses Petitioner~s variance petition
    without prejudice.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Mr.
    Marder
    dissents.
    I, Chnistan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illtnois Pollution Control
    Board~ certify that
    day
    ~
    the
    of
    abov Opinion and Order
    ,
    1974
    was adopted
    by a vote of
    on this
    13—566

    Back to top