ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October
    25,
    1990
    GOOSE LAKE ASSOCIATION,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 90—170
    (Enforcement)
    ROBERT
    J. DRAKE,
    SR., FIRST
    NATIONAL BANK OF JOLIET AS
    )
    TRUSTEE, TRUST NO.
    370
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.C. Marlin):
    This matter comes before the Board on a Complaint filed by
    Goose Lake Association
    (“Goose Lake”) on August
    30,
    1990.
    Respondents Robert
    J.
    Drake and First Bank
    of Joliet as Trustee
    of Trust No.
    370
    (“Drake”)
    filed their Motion
    to Dismiss the
    complaint on August 31,
    1990 by reason of
    it being duplicitous
    and frivolous as provided
    in
    Ill. Rev.
    Stat.
    1989,
    ch.
    1ll~,
    par.
    1031(b).
    Goose Lake filed a Response to Defendant’s
    (sic)
    Motion
    to Dismiss on September
    14,
    1990 and a Supplemental Response on
    September 21, 1990.
    Drake’s Motion to Dismiss
    is premised upon three contentions
    namely,
    that he has no ownership interest
    in the real estate
    which is the subject
    of
    this suit to expand development
    of
    a
    tract
    of land in Grundy County,
    Illinois (Botomika subdivision);
    secondly,
    that this controversy
    is the subject of
    a
    lawsuit
    pending in Grundy County Circuit Court; and, third that
    the Board
    lacks authority to grant injunctive relief.
    The Respondents
    attached a copy of the Grundy County suit and the affidavit of
    Robert
    3.
    Drake as support
    for their motion.
    Goose Lake’s Response states that any prior lawsuit between
    the parties will be dismissed.
    Their Supplemental Response
    attaches the order
    of dismissal of the Grundy County Circuit
    Court.
    The Board therefore finds the present suit not
    “duplicitous”.
    As
    to Drake’s second grounds for dismissal,
    Goose Lake’s
    Response states that on information and belief,
    Drake is the
    “head of the family” and “controls the power of direction for the
    Land Trust and has been the principal developer
    of all other
    residential phases
    in this property”.
    Drake’s Motion to Dismiss
    and affidavit contain sworn allegations
    that Robert Drake
    is
    115—465
    —2—
    neither the owner nor developer of the Botomika subdivision.
    Because these factual allegations have been contested,
    the Board
    believes
    the issue of Drake’s status as a respondent are best
    resolved after
    they are further aired at hearing.
    Therefore,
    the
    Board will rule upon the Motion
    to Dismiss Mr.
    Drake as
    a
    Repondent when it decides the case.
    Finally,
    the Board notes that the Complainant requests
    injunctive relief as a remedy.
    Drake submits that injunctive
    relief is beyond the Board’s authority to grant.
    While this
    is
    true,
    if a violation of the Act or
    of the Board’s rules and
    regulations
    is proven as alleged,
    the Board may issue an order to
    cease and desist from further violations.
    Ill. Rev.
    Stat.
    1989,
    ch. 1ll~,par.
    1033(a).
    The Board therefore construes the
    request for
    injunctive relief as
    a request
    for a cease and desist
    order.
    The Board finds
    the complaint is not “duplicitous” or
    frivolous,
    and thus the motion to dismiss on these grounds
    is
    denied.
    The Board hereby accepts the matter
    for hearing.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, he~,ebycertify that the above and Order was adopted on,
    the
    c~--~dayof
    _______________
    ,
    1990,
    by a vote of
    7—a.
    ~
    /~
    ~‘~‘
    Dorothy M. G~n, Clerk
    Illinois PoLLution Control Board
    115—466

    Back to top