ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 16, 1996

MR. &MRS. DON WILLIAMS, MR. &

)

MRS.

THOMAS MORRIS

 & MR. & MRS.

)

PETER BIZIOS,

)

PCB

96-186

Complainants,

)

(Enforcement

Noise)

v.

)

SCHAUMBURG

PARK

DISTRICT,

)

Respondent.

)

ORDER OF THE

BOARD

(by E.

Dunham):

On March 21,

1996,

the Board directed the parties in this

proceeding to

file briefs with

the Board addressing whether the complained of activity

is an

“organized amateur or

professional sporting activity”

and whether the complaint alleges

violations of the Act which

fall within the Board’s purview.

The complainants filed their brief on April

18,

1996

and filed

additional information on April

25,

1996.

The Schaumburg Park District

(Park District) filed

its

brief on

May 2,

1996.

On May 10,

1996,

complainants filed a motion for leave to

file a

response brief and

its response brief.

The Board grants

complainants’ motion for leave

to file

a response brief.

The Park District argues that the basketball games that

take place at the park are an

“organized amateur or professional sporting

activity”

and are therefore exempt from the

Board’s noise regulations.

The Park District

maintains that the basketball games are sporting

events organized or controlled by a unit of local government as specified in the definition of

“organized amateur or professional sporting activity”

in Section 3.25

of the Act.

The Park

District states

that

restricts the hours of play and the behavior permitted on the

basketball

court.

These rules and

regulations are enforced by park rangers

who are employed by the Park

District.

The Park District reports that members of the public

do watch games played

at the

park.

The Park District

maintains that it is a unit of local government.

Complainants

maintain that the activities at Odlum

Park do not

represent an

“organized

amateur or professional

sporting activity”

and therefore

falls within the Board’s purview.

Complainants contend that the facility has never hosted any

organized activity nor has any

organized

team play or practice taken place on

the court.

The

complainants observe

that there

are no

coaches at the facility and

no supervision

the Park District.

The complainants

further maintain that

the activity on

the court is not conducted for business, education,

charity,

or entertainment of the general public.

Complainants

report that the basketball court has been

used as early as 5:30

a.m.

and

as late as

1:30 a.m.

Complainants contend that the Park

District’s employment of 2 park ‘rangers for six months of the year who are responsible for

patrolling fifty-seven facilities

does not

mean that the Park District controls or organizes the

activities on

the

court.

In addition,

complainants contend that the Park District’s regulations

on the

use of the facility are general

rules regarding prohibited behavior on all Park District

property and

not indicate control of the activities

the court.

DISCUSSION

Section

of the

Act provides that

“no

person shall emit beyond

the boundaries of his

property any noise that unreasonably interferes

with the enjoyment of life or with any lawful

business or activity”.

Accordingly, the Board’s rules

define noise pollution

as “the emission of

sound

that unreasonably interferes with

the enjoyment of life or lawful business or activity”

and prohibit the emission ofsuch noise pollution beyond the boundaries of one’s property.

(35

Ill. Adm.

Code 900.101

and 900.102.)

Section

of the Act

places restrictions

on the

Board’s ability to hear noise violation

proceedings involving certain sporting activities:

No Board standards for monitoring noise or regulations prescribing limitations

noise emissions shall apply to

any organized amateur or professional sporting

activity except as otherwise provided for in this Section.

415 ILCS 5/25 (1994).

In addition,

the Board

notes that Section

3.25

of the Act defines

“Organized Amateur

or Professional Sporting Activity”

as:

activity or event carried

out

at a facility by persons who engaged in

that

activity as a business or for education,

charity or entertainment for the general

public,

including all necessary actions and activities

associated with such an

activity.

This definition includes, but is not

limited to,

skeet, trap or shooting

sports

clubs in existence prior to January

1975,

organized motor sports, and

sporting

events organized

or controlled by school districts,

units of local

government,

state agencies,

colleges,

universities or professional sports clubs

offering exhibitions to

the public.

(emphasis added)

415

ILCS

5/3.25

(1994).

The Board must ascertain whether the

activities alleged in the complaint

filed on

February

13,

1996 constitute an

“organized amateur or professional sporting activity”

and are

therefore exempt from the Board’s noise regulations.

The Board has reviewed and given

consideration to all of the arguments presented by the parties.

The definition of “organized

amateur or professional sporting

activity”

Section

3.25

includes “sporting events organized

or controlled by

...

 units of local government” as part of the definition. The basketball games

at the park are controlled by the Park District which

is a unit of local government.

The Park

District has established rules for play and

controls the

use of the facility.

While the

rules may

3

apply to

all activities at Park District facilities they provide the Park District with control over

the activities at its facilities including

 the basketball court.

In addition to finding that the

activities satisfy the specific portion of the definition of

“organized

amateur or professional sporting activity”

the Board finds that the activities

also

satisfy the more general provisions of the definition.

The activities at the facility are carried

out for the entertainment of those participating in the activity whether spectator or participant.

is not relevant that there be spectators to

the activity but rather that members of the general

public be allowed to

participate in

the activity either as a participant or spectator.

The Board finds that the

complained of activities

do represent an

“organized amateur or

professional sporting

activity”

as defined by the Act.

Therefore,

the

Board does not

have

jurisdiction to hear

this matter.

(See Hinsdale Golf Club v.

Kochanski

(2d Dist.

1990),

197 Ill.

App.3d 634,

555

 N. E. 2d

and Shephard v.

Northbrook Sports Club

(2d Dist.

1995),

272

Ill. App.3d 764, 651 N.E. 2d 555.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the

record, the Board finds that the

respondent’s activities as alleged in the

complaint constitute an “organized

amateur or professional sporting

 activity”.

 Pursuant to

Section

25 of the Act,

the Board’s noise standards and regulations do

not apply to

these

activities.

Therefore, the Board does not havejurisdiction to hear the

complaint as filed

alleging violations of the noise standards.

The

complaint in this matter is hereby dismissed

and the docket closed.

IT IS

ORDERED.

Chairman

C.A.

Manning,

and Members M.

McFawn and J. Theodore Meyer

concurred.

Section

of the Environmental Protection Act

(415 ILCS

5/41

(1994) provides for the

appeal of final Board orders within

days of the date of service of this order.

The

Rules of

the Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.

(See also

Ill. Adm.

Code

101.246

“Motions for Reconsideration.”)

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of th~JJ.linois

Pollution Control Board,

hereby certify that

the above order was

adopted on the

/‘~‘~day

1996,

by a vote of

7—E2

Dorothy M.

G,tIØn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollutth’n Control

Board