RE CE
~
V
ED
CL~R~
(i~’~(E
65448-POH
____
_____
0L~T)~
OZI03
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOA~g~~~rd
Petitioner,
No.
PCB
03-1
34
V.
(Pollution Control Facility Siting Appeal)
COUNTY BOARD OF KANKAKEE COUNTY,
Consolidated With PCB
03-125,
03-133,
ILLINOIS, and
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
03-135)
ILLINOIS, INC.,
Respondent.
NOTICEQF FILING
TO:
Sec A~.tachcd
Service List
PLEASE. TAKE NOTICE that
on October
10, 2003, we filed with the Illinois Poflution
Control
Board, the attached Petitioner Michael Watson’s
Motion
for Leave to File Reply
to
K~nkakeeCounty’s and \\‘MII’s Responses toWatso.n’s Motion to
Reconsider
AND an
Additi~inal.~ppcarance~
copies of which arc
attached hereto and served
upon you.
Dated: Octoh~r10, 2003
Respectfully Submitted,
PETITIONER,
MICHAEL WATSON
—.-.--‘
/~I
._—
/
)
(J(.—~
~j
,~1L—~
By:
____
________
One of his Attorneys
Jeunit~r
J.
Sackett Poh!enz. Illinois
Attorney No. 6225990
David
E.
Neumeister,
Illinois Attorney No. 6207454
QJJERREY
&
HARROW, LTD.
175
W. Jackson, Suite
1600
Chicago, Illinois
60604
(312) 540-7000
Attorneys
for
Michael Watson
Prinr&’c/ on R~cyckd
Paper
Via U.
S. Mail
Patricia O’Dell
1242
Arrowhead Drive
Bourhonnais,
IL
60914
Interested Party
Via
U.S. Mail
George Mueller
George Mueller,
P.C.
501
State
Street
Ottawa,
IL 61350
Fax: (815)
433-4913
Represcr~ngPetitioner in PCI) 03-133
Via
U.
S.
i’~Jai!
Leland Milk
6903
S.
Route 45-52
Chebanse,
1L
60922-5153
Interested Party
Via
U.S. Mail
Charles
Helston
Richard Porter
Hinshaw & Culbertson
100
Park
Avenue
P.O.
Box 1389
Rockford,
Illinois
61105-1389
Fax: (815) 490-4901
Represcnting Kanka kee County Board
Via Hand Delivery (Original and
9
copies
(10
total))
Illinois
Pollution Control Board
Clerk’s Office
James
R.
Thompson Center.
Ste.
11-500
100W.
Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Via
U.S. Mail
Kenneth A. Leshen
One Dearborn Square
Suite 550
Kankakee,
IL 60901
Fax:
(815) 933-3397
Representing Petitioner
in
Via
U.S. Mail
Keith
Runyon
1165
Plum
Creek Drive
Bourbonnaise,
IL 60914
Fax: (815) 937-9164
Petitioner
in PCB
03-135
Via
U.S. Mail
L. Patrick
Power
956
North
Fifth
Avenue
Kankakee,
IL 60901
Fax:
(815)
937-0056
Representing
Petitioner
in PCI) 03-125
Via
U.S. Mail
Elizabeth
S. Harvey,
Esq.
Swanson,
Martin
&
Bell
One
IBM
Plaza, Suite
2900
330
North
Wabash
Chicago,
IL
60611
Fax:
(312) 321-0990
Representing Kankakee County
Board
Via
U.S. Mail
Bradley P. Halloran
Illinois Pollution Control
BOard
James
R.
Thompson Center, Ste.
11-500
100
W. Randolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Hearing
Officer
~4~A
~-
Ronnie Faith
PROOF
OF SERVICE
1,
Ronnie
Faith,
a
non-attorney,
on
oath
stze
that
1
served
the
foregoing
Notice
of Filing,
along
wiTh
copies of document(s)
set forth
in
this Notice,
on
r~e
following parties
and persons at their respective addresses
and/or
fax
numbers,
as
stated
below,
this
10th
day
cf October
2003,
by
or
before
the
hour
of 4:30
p.m.
in
the
manners stated be low:
Via
U.S. Mail
Donald Moran
Pedersen
& Houpt
161
North Clark
Street
Suite 3100
Chicago,
~L
60.501-3242
Fax:
(3~2
261-1149
Attorney ~or
Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.
PCB
03-125
Printed on Recycled Paper
RECE~VED
CLERK’S
OFFICE
OCT
102003
65448-FOil
________
_______________________
_______
__________
___
_____—
———
_____—
STATE1~F1tUNOIS
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
Pollution
Control Board
MICI-IAEL WATSON,
-__________
____________________________
Petitioner,
No.
PCB 03-134
VS.
(Pollution Control
Facility Siting
Appeal)
COUNTY BOARD
OF KANKAKEE COUNTY,
Consolidated
With PCB 03-125, 03-133,
ILLINOIS, and
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF
03-135,
03-144)
ILLINOIS, INC.,
Respondent.
ADDITIONAL
APPEARANCE
~I’heundersigned,
as
attorney,
enters
his
Additional
Appearance of the
Petitioner
Michael
Watson:
DAVID
E. NEUMEISTER
QUERREY & 1-LARROW, LTD.
David
E.
Neumeister
Name
David
E.
Neumeister, Attorney
No. 6207454
Attorney for
Petitioner Michael
Watson
Address
175
W.
Jackson, Suite
1600
City’
Chicago, Illinois
60604
Telephone
(312) 540-7000
Document
8
1 7910
Printed on
Recycled Paper
OCT
G5448-POH
STAFEüp iLLINOIS
BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
80ft~jjitjo~~
C~ontrO/BOQd
MICHAEL WATSON,
Petitioner,
No.
PCB 03-134
V.
(Pollution Control Facility Siting
COUNTY
i~OARD
OF
KANKAKEE
COUNTY,
Appeal)
ILLINOIS, and
WASTE
MANAGEMENT
OF
ILLINOIS,
INC.,
Consolidated With
PCB 03-125, 03-
Respondent.
133, 63-135)
PETITIONER
MICHAEL WATSON’S
MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY TO
KANKAKEE COUNTY’S AND WMII’S RESPONSES
TO
WATSON’S
MOTION TO RECONSIDER
NOW. COMES
Petitioner
Michael
Watson,
by
and
through. his
attorneys at
Querrey
&
Harrow,
Ltd. and
moves
the
Illinois Pollution
COntrol
Board
for leave
to
file
a
Reply
Brief.
In
support
otthjs
Motion. Petitioner Watson
states
as
fbllows:
:t.
‘The
Couny
of
Kankakee
file
a
Response
to
Watson’s
Motion
to
Reconsider,
concerning that portion of Watson’s Motion related
to
certification of the record and that portion
related to
lack of pre-filing notice
with
respect to
Mr.
Keller.
With respect
to that portion ofthe
County’s
Response concerning
the taxing of costs of certification of the
record
on Watson,
the
County makes misstatements or misleading statements,
which Petitioner Watson addresses in the
attached Reply brief.
For example,
the County misstates
the
law on motions for reconsideration
as
recognized
by
the
illinois~
Pollution
Control
Board
(IPCB)
and
misstates
the
“evidence”
contained in
pages
64-67 ofMs. Keller’s testimony,at the local hearing.
2.
Additionally, with
respect
to
Waste Management of Illinois,
Inc.’s and
the
County’s
Response
to
that
portion of
Waston’s
Motion
to
Reconsider concerning
the
IPCB’s
error
in
determining that a
certified mailing
is
completed when mailed pursuant to
Section
39.2(b)
(i.e.,
that
there
was
pre-fi~lingnotice of Mr.
Keller), there
is
likewise
misstatements
which
Watson
Printed
on Recycled Paper
addresses
in the attached Reply
Brief.
For example,
the
County
incorrectly alleges that
Watson
misquotes Avdich v. K.einert,
69 Ill.2d
1, 270 N.E.2d 504 (1977).
3.
Thus,
Watson
is
potentially
prejudiced if not
given
an
opportunity
to
address
these
misstatements
or
misleading
statements,
as
addressed
in
the
attached
Reply
Brief,
and
seeks
iea.~’efrom the !PCB to be allowed to file the attached Reply Brief,
instanter.
WI-1EREFORE,
Petitioner
Watson
respectfully
requests
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board grant this Motion
and allow Watson to file the attached Reply Brief,
instanter.
Dated: October
10, 2003
Respectfully Submitted,
PETIF~T~HAE3V~T__-
One of his Attorneys
Jenniler J. Sackett Pohleriz, Illinois Attorney No.6225990
David
E.
Neumeister, Illinois Attorney No.
6207454
QUERREY &
HARROW, LTD.
115
W.
Jackson, Suite
1600
Chicago, Illinois
60604
(312)540-7000
Attorneys for Michael
Watson
Document
Th
863355
2
Printed on Recycled Paper
65448-POH
BEFORE
THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
MICHAEL WATSON,
-~
Petitioner,
No.
PCB 03-134
VS.
(Pollution Control Facility Siting
COUNTY BOARD
OF KANKAKEE
COUNTY,-
Appeal)
ILL~O(S,
and
WASTE
MANAGEMENT OF
ILLINOIS, INC.,
Consolidated
With PCB 03-125, 03-
Respondent.
133, 03-135)
PETITIONER MICHAEL
WATSON’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS
MOTION TO
RECONSIDER
PORTIONS OF THE
POLLUTION CONTROL BOAR RULING
OF AUGUST 7, 2003
I.
INTRODUCTION
As
an
initial
matter,
the
County of Kankakee
appears
to
argue
that
there are
only
three
cireums~aaces,as prescribed
by
IPCB
Rule
101.904(b),
in
which the
IPCB
may
grant
a
motion
for
reconsideration:
new
evidence,
fraud,
and
void
order.
The
County
is
incorrect about
its
application of Rule
101.904(b)
and
fails
to
consider
Rule
101.902.
Rule
101.902
spec~/lca11y
addresses motions
for reconsideration and,
in so
doing,
states that:
“In
ruling
upon
a
motion
for
reconsideration, the Board will
consider factors
including
new evidence, or a change
in
the
law,
to
conclude
that the
Board’s- decision was
in
error.”
Watson’s
Motion
to
Reconsider presents
“new
evidence” with respect
to
that
portion of it-concerning the
IPCB’s -ruling
on the
County’s
motion
to
compel
Watson
to
pay
a
share of the costs of certifying the record
on
appeal,
as
that
motion
was filed by the
County
so
as not
to
allow
sufficient
time
fbr a response from
Watson.
Additionally,
Watson’s
Motion
to
Reconsider
vets-
forth
errors
in
the
IPCB’s
application
of
existing
law
with
respect to
both
the
costs
issue --as
well as pre-fihing notice
as- it pertained
to
Robert Keller.
-
Printed on RecyledPaper
While
Rule
101.902
does
not
specify-errors
in
applicatio-n
of
the
law
as
a
basis
-for
granting a
motion
for
reconsider,
it
does
not limit
the
IPCB
to
only
two
of the
traditionally
considered three possible
factors
for a motion
to
reconsider.
See, (Universal Scrap Metals,
Inc.
v.
11
Scindn,an and Sons,
Inc..
786
N.E.2d
574 (I~Dist.
2003)((1)
newly
discovered evidence;
(2) changes
in
the
law;
and
(3)
errors in
the
Court’s prior application of existing
law).
Further,
not
dnly
does it evade
common
sense
that the IPCB
would
not,
by
its
own rules,
allow itself to
reconsider and
vacate
its
own
decisions, when it
has
made an
error in the application of the
law,
it.
by
the
very case
cited by
the County
is
simply not
the
law.
In fact, the IPCB
has
previously
recognized
the three traditional elements,
one of which
is
necessary for maintaining a motion
to
recoustder:
-
in
ruling
upon
a
motion
for
reconsideration,
the
Board
is
to
consider factors including,
but not limited
to, errors
in the previctus
decision
and
facts
in
the
record
which
are
overlooked.
(35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
101.246(d).)
In
Citizens
Against
Regional
Landfill
v.
The
County
Board
of Whiteside County,
(March
11,
1 993),
PCB
93-156, the Board stated that
“the intended
purpose of a motion for
reconsideration is to
bring to the court’s
attention newly-discovered
evidence
which
was
not
available
at
the
time
of
the
hearing,
changes
in the
law,
or errors
in
the
court’s
previous application of
the
existing
law.”
Sha3v,
ci
al.
v.
Board of Trustees of Village
of
Dolton,
et
al.,
PCB
97-68,
p.
3-4
(April
3,
1997),
citing,
Korogluyan
v.
Chicago
Title
&
Trust Co.,
(1st
Dist.
1992), 213
Ill.
App.3d 622,
572 N.E.2d
1154.)
Thus,
Watson’s
Motion
to
Reconsider
is
properly brought,
pursuant
to
the
IPCB
Rules
and
Illinois case law and should stand.
2
Printed on Recycled Paper
A.
The
IPCB
Decision
Requiring
Watson
to
Pay
a
Share
of
the
Costs
-of
Certifying the Record on Appeal
was
in
Error and
the County of Kankakee’s
The
County
claims
that
the
portion
of Watson’s
Motion
to
Reconsider related
to
the
payment of a
share of the costs of certifying the
record on appeal
should be denied, because:
(1)
the County
claims
that Watson knew as early as March
6,
2003
that the
IPCB
was
ordering him
to pa~costs
and
did
not
provide
a
reason
why he
could
not
respond
to
the
County’s
July
30,
2003,
-motion;
anci
(2), the County
contends
that
Watson’s
status
as an
officer
in
a corporation
which
does
business
in
the
waste
management
field
should
supercede
his
status
as
a
County
citizen,
taxpayer
and
beneficial
landowner
surrounding
the
site
which
is
the
subject
of
the
expansion.
Both these claims by the County must fail, and Watson’s Motion should be granted.
First,
as respects the
County’s claim
that Watson knew as early as March
6, 2003
that he
was
ordered
by
the
IPCB
to
pay
a
share
of the
costs,
there
is
not
only
no
evidence
of such
know1ed;~e,hut,
additionally,
the
IPCB’s
Order excepts “citizens”
and
“citizen’s groups”
froin
such
payment,
by
its
specific
reference
to
IPCB
Rule
107.306,
which
provides
that
such
reimbursement of costs
is
recjuired,
unless
the
petitioner is
a “citizen or citizen’s group.”
Thus,
as a citizen of Kankakee
County,
Mr.
Watson is and should be
found by the IPCB
to be
exempt
from
such costs,
notwithstan-ding
whatever business
in
which he
is
involved
or of which
he
is
a
shareholder or even officer.
Further, the
County’s- claim of“knowledge”
should ring
false, when
the County,
through one
of its
attorneys, on April-29,
2003, subsequent to the
IPCB’s
March
6~
Order, sent a
letter requesting costs from
Watson, to which
\Vatson responded on May
5th~
(See,
copies
of
County’s
April
29th
and
Watson’s
May
5th
letters
attached
as
Exhibits
A
and- B,
respectively).
3
Printed on Recycled Paper
Rather than address the issue
presented with Watson in response to his attorney’s May
5th
letter, or file a motion
with the IPCB at that time,
which would have allowed sufficient time
for
Watson
to
respond within the
fourteen-day
response period
pursuant to
IPCB Rule
10
1.500(d),
the
County
waited
until
shortly
before
the
1PCB
deadline
to
file
its
Motion,
knowing
from
Watson’s
attorney’s
July 28,
2003,
letter
that,
due
to
his
attorney’s work schedule
his
counsel
need
to
utilize
the
full fourteen-day response
time
for any
County
motion.
(See,
copies
of the
County’s
July
24th
and
Watson’s
July
28th
letters attached as-Exhibits
C
and
D,
respectively).
-Interestingly, on August
1,2003,
Waste
Management of Illinois,
Inc.
(WMIJ) filed a waiver of
statutory deadline,
which
then allowed a full
fourteen-day response time
to the County’s
motion
against Watson,
except
that the
IPCB
ruled
on August
7th
which was the deadline
in effect prior
to
WMII’s
August
1~waiver.
Thus,
not
only
had
Watson’s
attorney
infonried
the
County’s
atLomcy;~of the necessity
to utilize the
full
fourteen-day response time prior to the County filing
its
Motion,
hut
subsequent
-to
that,
WMII
tiled
a
waiver,
reasonably leading
a
party to
believe
that-
the
fourteen-days
under
IPCB
Rule
101.500
would
apply,
since
the
exception
to
this
allowance
for
a
response
brief,
i.e.,
“deadline
driven proceedings
where
no
waiver
has
been
filed.
.“,
did not apply.
(IPCB
Rule
10l.500(d))(emphasis added).
-Thus, not
only should
Watson
not
have
to justify not
being able
to
file a
response
in
less
than fourteen days, as contended
by
the
County,
-as
the
fourteen
day
provision
was -reasonably
interpreted
to
be
in
effect
given
WMII”s August
1St
waiver,
but
Watson
had previously informed the County of one of the work
conflicts
ot’his attorney that would necessitate the use of the full fourteen clays.
-
-
Second.
the
County’s
claim that Watson’s status
as
an
officer in
a corporation
that does
business
iii
the
waste management field should supercede his status as a County citizen, taxpayer
and
beneficial
landowner surrounding the -site which is the subject ofthe expansion, has no basis
4
Printed on Recycled Paper
in
the law
and
does
not
support
the
IPCB’s
August
71h
decision.
The
County
only
cited
two
instances
of “evidence”
originally,
in
support
of its
motion
to
compel,
that
it argued
proved
Watson
was
-not
a
“citizen”
rather
was
a
landfill
competitor.
1-lowever,
in
its
Response
to
Watson’s
motion, the County only relies pages 64-67 of the public hearing of December 5,
2002
at
6
p.m.,
containing the cross-examination of Ms.
Keller and
does not
address its previous
and
improper
reliance
-
on
a
portion
of Watson’s
closing
argument
on
pages
19-20
of
the
public
hearing of December 6, 2002, which was not “evidence” as it
was a closing argument of counsel.
Thus,
the
only
“evidence”
the
County
relies
on
in
support
of its
motion
to
compel
is
Ms.KeiIer’s testimony concerning her
husband, Mr. Kelle.r and his relationship with Mr.
Watson.
This
pages
of testimony,
64-67, (attached
as
Exhibit
I
to
Watson’s
Motion
to
Reconsider) are
woefully
insufficient
to
show
Watson
fits
within
Senator
Karpiel’s
statement of an
exception
which was
made durint
a session of the General Assembly,
namely that an
owner or operator of
a
landfiU facility
does not
qualify for the
exception
for a
“citizen”
or “citizen
group.”
Further,
the
County’s
statements
in
its
Resconse-to- Watson’s
Motion
to
Reconsider
that
Ms.
Keller’s
testimony,
referenced
above,
shows
he
is
a
“hands-on
participant
in
the
daily
operations”
is
nothing
more
than
false,
as
Ms.
Keller’s
testimony
does
not,
in
any
respect,
state,
show
or
otherwise
support
that
statement.
The
“gist” of Ms.
Keller’s testimony
was
that
her
husband,
Mr.
Keller,
occasionally
drives
a
garbage
truck
that
picks
up
garbage
for United
Disposal,
a
company
in
which
Watson
has
an
interest.
That
is
insufficient
to
make
Watson
a
landfill
competitor,
even
if the
legislative
history
exception
was
found
to
be
sufficient
to
essentially
overrule the language
of the applicable
IPCB
Rule
and
Section of the
Act.
Therefore,
for the
reasons stated in Watson’s
Motion for Reconsider~andthis Reply, the IPCB’s
August
7th
decision
5
Printed on Recycled Paper
-
with
respect to
the
County’s
Motion
to
Compel
should
be
vacated
and
the County’s
Motion
to
Compel should be denied.
B.
Notice
Solely
Upon
Mailing
With
Return
Receipt
Requested,
Without Actual
Receipt
of Notice by
a
Property
Owner,
Is
Not
Sufficient
to
Perfect Service
of
Notice
Under
Section
39.2(b)
of the
Act.
Thus,
Mr.
Keller
Never
Received
Proper
Notice
_______________
_____
________________
_____
The
notice
provision of Section
39.2(b) fur the Act,
by its clear
language as construed by
Illinois
courts of review,
requires actual
receipt of notice
via certified mail
by
a property owner
rather
than
mere
mailing
of
notice
via
certified
mail
with
return
receipt
requested.
The
iespondents’
only
true
arguments
against
this
proposition
are
that:
(I)
the
only
authority
addressing
this
issue,
Ogle
County
Board
v.
Pollution
Control
Board,
272
Ill.App.3d
184,
649
N
E.2d
545
(2d Dist.
1995), was
wTorlgly decided;
and
(2),
the
issue
is
instead controlled
by
a
case, Peopj~
cx
ret.
Devirie
v.
$30~7O0U.S.
Currency, (2002),
199
Ili.2d
142,
776 N.E.2d
1084,
that
did
not
even
address
Section
39.2(b).
These
arguments
thu.
-
Qg!c
County
Board
is
legitimate
authority
for
Watson’s
position
whether
Respondents
accept
its
reasoning
or
not.
Also, additional
language
in
the statute
at issue
in People
cx
ret.
Deyj~distinguishes
that case
from -both O~ile_CountyBoardand the instant case.
The
key
to
resolving
this
issue
is
the relevant
statutory
language
in
Avdich
v.
Keinert,
(1977),
69
Jll.2d
1,
270
N.E.2d
504
(which provided
the
basis
for the
opinion
in Ogle
County
Board),
and
Section
39.2(b).
The
statutory
language
at
issue
in
People
cx
ret.
Devine
is
sufficiently distinct such that that case
is not controlling.
1~
Statutory
Language
in
People cx. rd.
Devine
-
The statute
at
issue
in
People
cx.
ret.
Devine
was
the
Drug Asset
Forfeiture
Procedure
Act (725 ILCS
150/1
etseq
(West 2000).
6
Printed on Recycled Paper
The
notice
provision
of that
statute
outlines
the
niethod
of notice
required
to
apprise
individuals
of pending forfeiture proceedings.
The
method
of service depends
upon
the
State’s
knowledge of the identity and location of the claimant
at the time of service.
Section
4, entitled
“Notice
to Owner or Interest Holder,” provides that:
“if the owner’s
or interest
holder’s
name and
current address are
known,
then
notice
or
service
shall
be
given
by either
personal
service
or
mailing
a
copy
of the
notice
by
certified
mail,
return
receipt
requested,
to
that
address.”
725
ILCS
150/4(A)(1)
(West
2000).
The statute
requires
notice
by
publication
in the event the address or name of the owner
or interest
holder
is
unknown.
725
ILCS
150’4(A)(3) (West
2000).
However, the
statute
also
contained an additional provision stating when ~iotice
became effective:
“Notice
served
under
the
Act
is
effective
upon
personal
service,
the
last
date
of
publication,
or
the
mailing
of
written
notice,
\Ahichever is earlier.” 725
ILCS
150/4(B) (West
2000).
The
statute
at
issue
specifically
stated
that
service
was
effective- upon
the
mailing
of written
notke.
2.
Statutory
Language in
Ojde
count
p
Board
The statute
as issue
in Ogle Cou~ty~Board
was the
same one
at issue
in the instant action,
Section 39.2(b) ofthe Act.
The pertinent part of Section 39.2(b) ofthe Act provides that:
“No later than
14
days prior to ~ request for location approval the applicant
-
shuil
cause written notice of such request to be served either in person! or by
registered mail, return
receipt requested, on the owners ofall property
within the subject area not solely owned
by the applicant, and on the
owners of all property within 250 feet in each direction ofthe lot line of the
subject property...
Such written notice shall also
be served upon members ofthe General
Assembly from the legislative district
in which the proposed facility is
7
Printed on Recycled Paper
-
located-and shall he published in
a newspaper ofgeneral
circulation
published in the county in which the site
is located.” 415
ILCS
5/39.2(b)
(West Supp.
1993).
The court in
Og,le
County ruled
that
that
language
required actual receipt of notice
by a
property owner in order to perfect proper service.
Significantly, Section 39.2(b) does not contain
a
prov~s~on
—-
as
did
the statute
in
People
ex.
ret.
Devine
—
that
states that
service
is
effective
upon
the. mailing of written notice.
The respondents both completely ignore the difference
in this statutory
language.
Neither
acknowledges that
the
language
at issue
in People
ex
ret,
Devine contained a separate
provision
specifically stating that notice was effective upon the mailing ofwritten notice.
Both
respondents
emphasize
various
relevant principles
of statutory
construction.
One
such prlnelpal
in determining the
intent ofthe
legislature is the legislature’s ability
to specify the
partic~~iar
conditions
under
which
service
of notice
becomes
effective.
(See,
i.e.,
County
of
Kankakces
response
at
p.
7,
citing
People
cx
ret.
Devine).
The legislature clearly
did so
in the
Drug
Forfeiture
Act
by
including
a
clause
specifi~a1lystating
that
notice
of service becomes
effective
upon
the
mailing
of
written
notice.
Conversely,
Section
39.2(b)
contains
no
such
clause.
The
legislature~plainly
demonstrated
its
ability
to
specify
when mailing
of notice
is
sufficient
to
perfect
service of notice.
It
did
so
by
including
a
specific
clause
in
the
Drug
Forfeiture Act that said
so.
Because no
such clause exists
in
Section
39.2(b), it is clear that the
legislature did not intend to make service ofnotice-effective upon mere mailing of the notice.
-
When viewed-in
this
light,
the
decision
in
Ogle
County
construing
Section
39.2(b)
to
require actual
receipt of notice is correct.
To argue that Ogle County is wrongly decided ignores
the
clear difference
in
the
statutory language
between the Drug Forfeiture Act
in
People cx
ret.
8
Printed on Recycled Paper
Devine
and
Section
39.2(b)
as
construed
by
the
Court
in Qgi~co~ty. Along
that
line,
the
contention that the Supreme Court in
People
cx
ret.
Devine effectively
overruled Qgle
County is
wrong.
The Respondents place
a great deal of emphasis
on
the difference between the
language
of Seclion
39.2(b)
and
the
language
at
issue
in
the
Supreme
Court’s
opinion
in
Avdich
v.
Kj.cin~:t,(1-977),
69
ilI.2d
1,
370
N.E.2d
504.
In
Avdich,
the
Supreme
Court
interpreted
the
inclusion
of similar
language
in
the notice
provision of a
statute to
indicate that
the legislature
intended
that
service of a
notice
was
not to
be considered complete until
it
was
received
by the
addressee. Ogle County Board, 272
Ill.App.3d
at
195-96
(citing
Avdich,
69 Ill.2d at 9.
Contrary
to
respondents’
contention,
Watson accurately quoted the
statutory
language
at
issue in
ii,
which provided:
“Any demand made or notice
served
...
by
sending
a
copy of said
notice
to
the
tenant
by
certified or registered mail,
with
a returned
receipt from
the addressee.”
-
Avdich,
69
Ill.2d at
5.
The
Supreme Court
in
Avdich
ruled
that
this
language
required
actual
receipt
by the addressee in order
to
perfect service of the
notice.
Avdich, 69
Ill.2d at 8-9.
The
point
to
he
made
about the
statutory
language in
Avdich
is that
it
is
both:
(1) substantially
similar
to
Section
39.2(b);
and
(2),
most
significantly,
devoid of a
provision
similar to
that
in
People
cx ret.
Devine
specificaiiy
stating
that
service
of notice
is effected
upon
mailing of the
notice.
Neither Section
39.2(b) nor the
statute
at
issue
in
Avdich
had
such a provision.
In that
regard, the IPCB erroneously disregarded the principles of statutory
construction in construing a
statute according to
its
plain meaning.
The
IPCB apparently,
and incorrectly, read the additional
9
Printed on Recycled Paper
provision allowing
service by
mailing alone
in People
cx.
rel.
Devine
into
Section
39.2(b), even
though Section 39.2(b) does not contain such language.
Nothing in
People
cx. rd.
Devine can be
construed as overruling
Qgie
County
Board,
which
correctly
applied
Avdich
and
controls
this
issue in this action.
The
Boaru’s
ruling
was
a
clear
mistake
in
the
application of this
law,
and
should
be
reversed.
WHEREFORE,
Michael
Watson, by
and through
its
attorneys, -respectfully
requests that
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
enter an
order:
(1) vacating those
portions of its August
7,
2003
ruling
(a)
taxing
the
costs
of certifying
the
record against
Watson and
(b)
holding
that
Section 39.2(b) of the Environmental
Protection Act requires only mailing ofnotice to
a property
owner
in order to
perfect service; and
(2) holding that (a)
Watson is
not required to pay the costs
of’ eet-tifyirg
the
record
and
(b)
Section
39.2(h) of the
Environmental
Protection
Act
requires
actual
receipt
of notice
by
a
property owner
in
order
to
perfect
service.
Watson
requests
any
additional
relief that the
I3oard deems appropriate.
Dated: October
10, 2003
Respectfully Submitted,
PETITIONER
MICHAEL WATSON
By:~~
~.
AJ
One of his Attorneys
Jennifer
J. Sackett
Pohlenz
,
Illinois Attorney #6225990
David
E. Neumeister,
Illinois Attorney #6207454
QUERREY
& HARROW, LTD.
175
W.
Jackson, Suite 1600
Chicago, Illinois
60604
(312) 540-7000
Attorneys for Michael Watson
10
Printed on Recycled Paper
m
-1-
Ms.
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
Mr. Donald
Moran
Querrey & Harrow,
Ltd.
Pedersen
&
Houpt
175 West Jackson Boulevard
161
North Clark
Street
Suite 1600
Suite 3100
Chicago,
IL 60604
Chicago,
IL 60601-3242
Mr.
L. Patrick Power
Mr. Kenneth A.
Leshen
956 North
Fifth Avenue
One
Dearborn
Square
Kankakee,
IL
60901
Suite 550
Kankakee,
IL
60901
Re:
City
of
Kankakee
v.
County of Kankakee
PCB 03-125,
03-133,
03-1 34,
03-1 35
(cons.)
Waste M3nagement v.
Kankakee County Board
PCB
03-1 44
Dear
Counsel:
Pursuant to Section 39.2(n) of the Environmental Protection Act, as
‘Nell
as Section
107.306 of the
Board’s procedural
rules, petitioners
in
siting
appeals are required
i.o pay
the
costs incurred
by the
County
in
preparing
and
certifying
the
record
on
appeal.
4-15
LOS
5/39.2(n);
35
III.Adm.Code
107,306.
The
Board
directed
the
petitioners
in
these
appeals to pay those costs,
in
its
March
6, 2003 order.
This demand for payment is directed to V-/aste Management-of iflinois, Inc.
(WM1I),
the
City of Kank-akee,
and
Mr. Watson.
None
of those parties
is
a “citizen” or a
ci~izens
group” who would be exempt from
payment ofthe c.osts.
Enclosed
please find the
bill
for
the
copying of the voluminous
record,
in
the
amount
of $4206.19.
The
County
hereby
demands that
WMII,
the City, and Mr. Watson each pay one-third of the copying hiji,
which
computes to $1402.07 each.
Please make your check psyabie to IKON Office Sokitions,
-
but
mail the
check to me.
I
will
then
forward the
three checks directly to
IKON,
to insure
proper credit for the payment.
SWANSON,
MARTIN
&
BELL
Writer’s Direct Dial
Line
(312) 923-8260
Writer’s E-mail Address
ehsrvey@srnblrials. corn
ATTORNEYS
AT
LAW
ONE
IBM
PL&ZA
•
surr~
2900
330 NORTH WABASH
.
CHICAGO.
ILLINOIS
6011
(312) 323-9100
•
FAX-(312)
321-0990
April 29,
2003
:~~cs COUNTY
OFFICE
•
2100
MANCHESTER
ROAD
•-
BUILDING C,
SUITE :;~o
•
wHI:NrON.
ILU\X5
t’1~IS~
•
(~.3CI)653-2766
FAX (~))653-2292
LAKE COUNTY
OFFICE
•
404 WEST
WATER
•
I’O.
BOX
690
WAUK2AN.
ILLINOIS
)7Q.(~A)
•
~4~)
~,.;ççr,3
•
FAN
(647)
625-5555
SWANSON,
MARTIN
&
BELL
Ms.
Pahlenz and
Messrs.
Moran,
Power, and
Leshen
April 29, 2003
Page 2 of 2
Please forward your check to
me
no
later than May 13, 2003,
so that the invoice can
he paid promptly.
If
we do not receive your
check
by
that date, the County will assume
yOU
have
no
objection
to the
County
making
payment
or.
the
invoice,
arid
then
pursuing
reimbursement from
you.
Very truly yours,
SWANSON,
MARTIN &
E~zahetn
S.
Harvey
ESHjp
-
Enclosure
cc;:-
E.
Smith
C.
Helsten
R.
Porter
B.
Gorski
Fax:(312) 332.2351
TERMS:
Net 10
Days
SOLD TO:
SHIP TO:
SWANSON,
MARTIN
&
BELL
SWANSON, MARTIN
&
BELL
ATTN:ELIZABETH
HARVEY
ATTN:ELIZABETH
HARVEY
ONE
IBM
PLAZA
SUITE 2900
ONE IBM
PLAZA
SUITE 2900
CHICAGO,L 60611
CH1CAGO,IL
60611
INVOICE
Page
i
Invoice #
LO5149~7
Invoice Date
03/31/2(103
Due Date
04/1012003
Customer #
L05-SWAN
Order#
0303068i
Order Date
—
Ordered By
Reference
I
Case#
Account Manager
03/2812003
ELIZABETH
HARVEY
0198-001
KERRY INNIS
Reference
2
Reference 3
Description
-
Quantity
Unit
Price
Extension
565
567
642
000
A Litigation
Copy
C Litigation
Copy
OS Copying
Color Oversize
5463
22640
60
39
0.080
0.140
1.250
13.450!
437.04
3169.60
-
-
75.OO~
-
524.55j
Thank You for Usina IKON Document Services
-~
—
-
TaxableSa$os:1
PLEASE
PAY
FROM THIS INVOICE
Sales
Tax:
YOUR SIGNATURE
BELOW
IS
AN AGREEMENT THAT THE
ABOVE DESCRIBED WORK HAS BEEN
Non-Taxable:
3UTHORIZED AND RECEIVED.
THE
PARTY
ABOVE ASSURES PAYMENT OF THIS N/OICE WITHIN
Postage:
1~
DAYS.
ALL
INVOICES
ARE DUE UPON
RECEIPT.
INTEREST AT THE
RATE OF THE
LESSER
1.5
Deliveru
I
PER MONTH OR THE
MAXIMUM LEGAL RATE
WILL BE CHARGED
ON
INVOICES UOTPAID 1N
1UDAYS.
j
CUSTOMER AGREES TO PAY
LEGAL FEES INCURRED
IN THE
COLLECTION OF PAST DUE ACCOUNTS.
PAY THIS
-
AMOUNT:
4206.1 ~
0.00
~
4206
19
—____
Rec&’~edand approved
by:
-
Date:
(Please pay from
this
copy.
The party
named
on
this
bill
is held responsible
for payment
)
Pa~~nt
From:
S\’~A~.SON,
MARTIN
& BELL
AiTh ELIZABETH
HARVEY
ONE
~M PLAZA
SUITE 2900
CH.AGO,IL
60611
~i~EncIos~
Invoice
L05149957
invoice- Date
Customer #
Order-#
03/31/2003
LOS-SWAN
03030667
PIea~eRemit
to:
ikon Office Solutions
Central District -L05
1570
Solutions Center
Chicago,IL
60677-1005
PAY THIS
AMOUNT:
04102/2003
N
Office
Soluflons’
Document
Services
Phone:(312) 332-7777
Federal ID #:230334400
4206.19
m
Querrey ~
Harrow
Querrcy &
Harrow, Lcd.
Other Offi~ei~
175
West J~iticon
.9tvd.
Crystal Like.
Suite
1600
JoIie~,
IL
Chicigo,
IL
60604-2827
Waukcg~in,
11
-
Jennifer 3. Sackett
Pohlenz
Wheaton,
U..
Ta(312)
540-7000
Direct Dii!: (312) 54O-~54O
Merllvd1e.D’~
•
-
NlewYotk,N\
FAX
(312)
,40-0578
E—\1
au:
t~ThIenz(a~t~errev.com
-
UK
Offie.
M.~
:~,
2003
Lcndon
VIA F~4
J.MILE ONL YJ312j32l-099~)
Ms.
Elizaheti~Schrocr Harvey
Swanson Martin & Bell
One IBM Plaza
330
N, Wabash Aye, Suite 2900
Chicago,
IL 60611
Re:
IVatson
y.
JJ’Mf! and Kankakee
(‘ountr
Board,
PCB 03—134
Dear
Ms.
Harvey:
I
receked
your
notice
ol’ April
29,
2003
requesting
pa~mentfrom
my client,
Mr.
Watson,
for
preparing
and
certi lying
the
rccord
0fl
appeal
pursuant
to
the
Board’s
March
6,
2003
order.
However,
the
order
merely
references
Section
39.2(n) ofthe
Environmental
Protection
Act and
ciocs
not
name.specihcally what
parties are
responsible
for payment.
On
it’s
lace,
this
Section
clearly exempts citizens
and
citizens’
groups
from
paying
the
costs of preparing the record.
All
case
law
regarding citizen
petitioners
follows
this
plain
reading
of this
Section.
As
Michael
Watson
is
a citizen
and
beneficial
landowner ofproperty adjacent
to the proposed expansion,
he
would
be affected
by the expansion of’this s~tc.
I
am curious why
Petitioners
Merlin
Karlock and
Keith
Runyon were not
included
in this
notice,
while
Mr.
Watson was
included.
You
surely cannot be alleging
that these parties
are considered
citizens,
while
Mr.
Watson
is
not.
As
with
Mr.
Karlock
and
Mr.
Runyon,
Mr.
Watson
has
appeared
in
his
individual
capacity
at
the
hearings
and
throughout
the
petition
proceedings.
Accordingly,
as
Mr.
Watson
is
a
citizen, please modify your letter and calculations olthe bill
for
preparation
of the
record
to
remove
Mr.
Watson
as
he
is
exempt
from payment.
If you
think
I
am
misinterpreting Section 39.2(n), please call
me or
write
me
to explain.
I want to be clear
this
is
an
objection and
not
an
outright denial of your request.
Further, this is fl~ian approval of your
request.
I
am
asking
you
to
provide
me
with
your
rationale
as
to
why
Mr.
Watson
and
not
Messrs. Karlock or Runyon were included in
your letter.
Sincerely,
—7
Jennifer J. Sackett Pohlenz
Document I?: 823716
**
JOB STATUS REPORT
**
AS OF
MAY
05 2003 12:46PM
PAGE.
01
QUERREY & HARROW 16FL
JOB p437
DATE
TIME
TO FROM
MODE
MIN~-’SEC
PGS
-
STATUS
001
5/05
12:44P
312 321 C~0UF——S
0036”
002
OK
-
Queney ~
Harrow
~ H~ir~’,
(.0.
O:.~r
Offlc~s:
~
W
tJJc~(4Q,~
L~t~l.vi~j
Cry~ti~
Lake.
IL.
SuIr~
l6O~
bile; L
IL
6~~4-2817
Meirfilvilic.
IN
NcwYo~k,NV
TEL
(fl2)34~—~OOO
-
-
W2ukg~n,
it.
-
PA ~
(
.Jeniifer.t.
~aei~ett
~
Repr~~n~ati~
U.K.
Offlc~:
threct
Diii:
(312) S4O.7~i4O
~-nui;
jpoM.nz(9l.1u~rr.v.corn
-
-
FAX TRANSMISSION SHEET
DATE:
May
5,
2003
TO:
NAME
I
COMPANY:
-
FAX NUMBER:
Elizabeth S.
h’a~rvey/
Sw~’nson,
Martin & Sell
(312) 321-0990
iennif~r
i. Sackett Fohlcnz
USER
NO.:
932~
CMR
NO.:
65448
NUMBER
OF
PACES
BEINC
SENT
(DICLUD1NC COVER
SHEET):
2
-
~F YOU
1!AVE ANY-DIFFiCULTY INRECEIVU’IC
THIS
TRANSMISSION
PLEASE CALL 31 2-540-7065 IMMEDIATELY
RETURN TO:
P01!
SENT
BY:
DJH
The
iifci~tion
-
contained
in
this
facsimile
commwiic.txion
is
attoniey
privileged
and
confidential
infotmation
intendad
only
for the
use
of the
individual or entity to whonaor to which itis
addressed.
If thc recipkntofthi~
t~ansmlsa~on
is not
the intended
recipient,
the
recipient
is
hereby
notified
that
any
disseminaton,
distribution,
or
reproduction
ofth~sooninnmjcetion
is
s~ictly-prohibited.
If
you
have recewed
this communication in
error,
please
nQt~fyQUERB~X&
HARROW,
LTD.
at
the
abuvc
tc1cpho~icnumber
and
return
the
coroniemication
to
QIJERREY
& HARROW, LTD.
at
the above address
Vt.
the
U.S.
Postal
Service.
Thank you.
m
C)
.1W
2.4
‘~
1~23
FR S~t~Ort
M~RTIHE~_.
~2
~21
C~3~J
T~5.4U~7~
~
~:
SWANSON.
MARTIN
&
BELL
ATTORNE’($
AT
LAW
Writers
Direct Dial
Line
ONE
SM
~‘LAZA
•
SUITE
2900
(312)
923-8260
330
UORTH
WABASH
CHICAGO.
IWNOIS
60611
WrIters
E-ma~Addr~s~
(312)
32~-~100
•
FAX
~312)
321-0990
ahar~’ey~smbIriaIs.com
July 24, 2003
VIA
FACS/M/LE
~‘31V54O~O578~
Ms.
Jennifer J.
Sackett Pohlenz
Querrey & Harrow,
Ltd.
175 West Jackson Boulevard
Suite
1600
Chicago,
IL 60604
Ro.
Watson
v.
WMIt and Kankakee
County
Board
PCB
03-134
De2r Ms.
Pohlenz:
ri Apr~
wrote
you, along
with counsel for
the
City
of
Kankakee
and
for WMII.
requesting
that
Mr. Watson
pay one-third
of the County’s costs
incurred ir~preparing the
County record
for submission
to the Pcl~ution
Control Board.
You subsequently wrote me,
c~aimingthat
Mr.
Watson is
exempt
f:orn
the
statutory
and
regulatory
requirement
that
petitioners
pay
the
costs
of
the
record.
You
contend that
Mr.
Watson
appeared
as
an
individul.
The record
is replete with
refemnces
to
Mr.
Watson
as the owner and operator of
United Disposal.
It is
clear,
by the
leg slative
history of
Section
39.2(n),
that owners
and
operators of
competing disposal com~eniesare
not exempt as ~citizensgroups.”
When
defir~ng“citizens
groups,” Senator
Kapiel
(the sponsor of the citizens group exemption)
specifically stated that “citizens
group’
means:
a
group of
individual
citizens
that
have joined
together
to
participate
~na
regional
pollution
control
faci~tysiting
hearing....lt
also.
does
not
include
~
~nmpetlfl~~fl~J
raciI~or units
of
local governrnehts acting
alone
State
of
Illinois 8&~’General Assembly
Regular Session Senate
transcript,
52~
legislative
day, June
22,
19.~9,
quotedin
Shawv.
Village of Do/ton,
PCB
97-68 (November 21,
1996),
and
Zeman
v.
Village of
Summit,
FOB 92-1 74
(December
17, 1992).
DUPAC~
cOu:’:rr
OI~-ICC•
2100
Md~\’CHEST~R
ROAD
•
BL1Lc1~:cC.
SUITE 1421)
•
W1-IEATON.
ILLfl4OLS
G0ts~
•
(~3o(
~,2-22G6
•
FAX
c63U
S5..-~:
LAKE COuNT?
OVVICC
•
404 WEST
wArE1~
•
P.O.
luOx
~
•
WAUX?CJ~,
rLLNOIS
6C~79-O~90
•
(M47)
~25-5550
MX
(847)
~25.5S55
3w
24
‘33
~:2
~R
i~ON
r•i~PTIrJ
312
2:
:~
T:
543357~
SWANSON,
MAwrrr~&
BELL
Ms.
Pohenz
—-
July
24,
2003
Pag?2 of2
Mr. Watson is the owner of a competing disposal facility, and thus is not a “citizens
group.’
Therefore, he is not exempt from payment of costs
under Section
39.2(n).
I
renew the Countys demanc for payment of one-third of the County’s
costs~,Those
cosls totaled
$4206.19, so that cne~third
is $1402.07.
Please make the check payable to
the County of Kankakee, and send
it to
me.
I will file
a
motion
to compel
~aymentof costs with the Pollution
Control Board
on
Monday afternoon, July 28, 2003.
If
I
have not heard from you
by noon on July 28,
I will
include
Mr.
Watson
in the motion to
compel.
Please call me
if you
have
any questions.
Very truly yours,
SWANSON,
MARTIN
&
BELL
Elizabeth S.
Harvey
ESH:jp
cc:
R.
Porter
~*.
TOWL
FPI3E.03
~1c
JIJL
24
‘33
1.~:23FR
S~lS0N rI~FTItiEE__
~:2
32~33~3
TI:
~
~i:
SWANSON,
MARTIN
&
BELL
ONE
IBM
PLAZA
-
SUITE 2900
330
NORT~I
WABASH AVENUE
CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS 60611
(312) 321-91
DO
-
FAX
(312 321-0990
FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Date:
July 24, 2003
Pages
Transmitted:
3
(ihc)uding cover poge)
Re:
Wafsonv.
WMI!andKankakeeCountyBoard
PCB 03-1 34
User’s Direct
Dial
Line:
(312)
923-826()
Client No.:
0198-001
TransrniWng to:
Jennifer
J. Sackett Pohlenz
--
(312) 540-0578
Rick
Porter --(815) 490-4901
Received
from:
Elizabeth
S.
Harvey
If you
do
not receive
all
transmit’ed
paces,
please
call
Shel
at
(312)
321-9~O0.
This facsimile
is intended only for the use
of th~
addressee(s)
herein sro may
contain
Iegafly-priviieged and
confdential information.
If you are not the int~n~ed
recipient of this facsimile, you are hereby notified that
any
dissemination, distribution or copying of
this fzcs~m~le
is strictly prohibited.
If you have received this facsimile in
error, please immediately
notify us by telephone
(if
long.distarce, please c.afl collect),
and return the original
facsinile
to
the
sender’s attention at
the abovE
address via
the
United
States Postal
Service.
m
C
Querrey
~
Harrow
~
Qu~y& Harrow, Ltd.
‘—
Oh~
Qffi~
l7~W,~tJadc~ortB1vd.
Cry~taILiJc~ji
Suitc
1600
Jolkc,
IL
Chi~igo,
IL60604-2827
Wau1’.~,n.
IL
TEL(312);40-7000
Jennifer J.
Sackett
Pohlenz
FAX(312)
540-057f~
Direct D~l:(312) 540-7540
E-Mail:
i~~jenz(~guerrey.corn
i~,yse,ztath~’
t’.~w.qu~c~y.ctur~
0ffi.
J~i;
28.
2003
Londo,~
~
Ms.
Elizabeth Schroer Harvey
Swanson
Martin &
Bell
One IBM Plaza
330
N.
Wabash
Aye, Suite
2900
Chicago,
IL
60611
Re:
Watconv._WMII
and Kankakeecoun~Board,PCB03-134
Dear
Ms.
Harvey:
!
find
it
odd
that
you
have
waited
nearly
three
months
to
reply
to
my May
5tli
letter
responding
to
your
July
24~request
for
payment
from
Mr.
Waston
for
certification
of
the
record.
F1owcve~,regardless of the
timing,
I
do
not accept your
conclusory
statement
that
the
“record
is
replete
with
references
to
Mr.
Watson
as
the
owner
and
operator
of
United
Disposal”
as
evidence
that
Mr.
Watson
is
required
under
Section
39.2(n)
of
the
Illinois
Environmental Protection Act
(Act) to
pay
for the cost
of certifying
the
record on appeal,
and
I
again object
to your
request.
My objection
is based on,
at
a minimum,
the following
zeasons.
By
providing
you
with
this
rationale, I
am
not waiving
Mr.
Watson’s
rights
to raise
additional
argument or objections
should
this
issue
be presented
to
the IPCB.
First, you
fail
to reference
any
“evidence”
in the
record supporting
your allegation that
Mr.
Watson is participating in this
appeal
as anything but
a local
landowner.
Second,
there
is
undisputed
evidence
in
the
record
an
no
party
has
contested
Mr.
Watson’s standing
in his
proceeding
as
a beneficial
property owner.
Third,
on
it’s
face,
Section
39.2(n)
of
the
Act
clearly
exempts
citizens
and
citizens’
groups
from
paying
the
costs
of
preparing
the
record
and
all
case
law
regarding
citizen
petitioners
follows
this plain reading of this
Section.
Thus,
your reliance
on
legislative history
(although not
even relevant) should not be considered,
since there
is
no
ambiguity in the
law.
Fourth,
even if the
legislative history is considered,
it
does not prevent
a landowner
and
citizen,
irrespective of that
individual’s business
interests,
from personally
appealing and being
Elizabeth Harvey
July 28, 2003
Page 2 of 2
exempt from costs
of certifying
the record
under Section
39.2(n).
Additionally, your proposed
expanded application of Senator Karpiel’s
statements
is
not applicable
to
this case,
since
there
is
no
evidence
in
the
record
before
the
~CB or
otherwise,
that
either
Mr.
Watson
or
the
corporation,
United
Disposal of Bradley,
Ir.c.,
to
which
you
may
have
intended
to
refer,
but
misstate
in
you
letter,
“own
or
operate
a
nearby
landfill
facility.”
In
fact,
according
to
WMH’s
testimony
at the local hearing’i,
there
is
no
operating or permitted landfill
in Kankakee
other
than
WMII’s
landfill,
and
no
evidence
was
presented
concerning
a
surrounding
landfill
bearing any name similar
to
“United
Disposal”
as you state in your letter.
Finally,
it
simply
is neither
logical
nor consistent with
Section 39.2(n)
to
argue that
an
individual
landowner,
like Mr.
Watson,
particularly
in his
case where
he
is
a
beneficial owner
o.f
land
adjacent
to
the
proposed
expansion
on
at
least
two
sides,
is
required
to
carry
an
extra
financial burden
on
appeal
that other
citizens of the County
are relieved
of,
when he
is
also
a
shareholder
in a corporation which is in the solid waste
management business.
Does this
mean
that
Kankakee will
seek the
exclusion of
Section
39.2(n)
from every
citizen
of Kankakee
who
owns
shares of Allied
Waste,
Inc.?
As
I
stated
before,
in
May
when
I
initially
responded
to
your
letter,
Mr.
Watson
has
appeared
in
his
individual
capacity
at
the
hearings
and
throughout
the
petition
proceedings.
Accordingly,
as
Mr.
Watson
is
a
citizen,
and
whether
he
is
employed
by,
an
officer
or
shareholder
of,
or
a
cheerleader
for,
a
corporation
that
conducts
itself
in
the
solid
waste
management
field
has
and
should
have
no
bearing
on
his
role
as
an
individual
citizen
and
landowner.
Please modify your
letter
and calculations of the bill
for preparation
of the
record
to
remove
Mr.
Watson
as
he
is
exempt
from
payment.
If
you
think
I
am
missed
some
evidence
or
law
that
supports your
argument,
please
call
me
to
discuss
it.
I
want to
be
clear
that
this
is
a
continuing
objection
to
your
request,
and
neither
an
outright
“denial”
nor
“approval”
of your request.
I
start
a jury
trial
tomorrow,
on July
29,
2003,
that
is
expected
to
last
two
weeks.
If
you
intend on filing
a
motion
to compel
as
referenced
in your
letter,
I will
be objecting ~tothat
motion and I wilt utilize my full fourteen-day
response period, pursuant
to the IPCB
Rules,
for
filing the objection.
Sincerely,
-
L~.—~——
•.“—~~- •—
-
Q
uerrev
~
Harrow
Quetrey & Harrow,
Ltd.
Other
Offices:
175
West
Jackson
Boulevard
-
Crystal
Lake,
IL
Suitc
1600
-
Joliet,
IL
Chicago,
IL
60604-2827
Merrillville, IN
-
New
York, NY
TEL
(312)540-7000
-
Waukegan,
IL
FAX (312)540-0578
Wheacori, IL
Jennifer J.
Sackctt Pohfenz
Rept~sentative
Drcct
1)a1: (312)
540-7540
U.K.
Office:
London
E-mail:
~~ilen~1aq~wrre’.coni
-
FAX TRANSMISSION SHEET
DATE:
July
28, 2003
TO:
NAME / COMPANY:
FAX NUMBER:
Elizabeth S. Harvey! Swanson, Martin & Bell
(312) 321-0990
FROM:
Jennifer
3.
Sackett Pohlenz
USER
NO.:
9328
CMRNO.:
65448
NUMBER OF PAGES BEING SENT (INCLUDING COVER SHEET):
3
IF YOU HAVE ANY DIFFICULTY
IN RECEIVING THIS TRANSMISSION
PLEASE CALL 312-~54O-7O65IMMEDIATELY
RETURN TO:
POH
SENT
BY:
DJH
The
information
contained
in
this
facsimile communication
is attorney
privileged
and
confidential
information
intended
only
for
the
use
of the
individual or
entity
to
whom or
to
which
it
is
addressed.
Ef the
recipient of this
transmission
is
not
the
intended
recipient,
the
recipient
is
hereby
notified
that
any
dissemination,
distribution,
or
reprodt~ction
-of
this
communication
is
strictly
prohibited.
If
you
have received this communication
in error,
please
notify
QUERREY
&
HARROW,
Lii).
at
the
above
telephone
number
and
return
the
communication
to
QUERREY &
HARROW,
LTD. at the above address via the
U.S.
Postal Service.
Thank you.
—CCMM.
JGLRN~_—
*-~-~-~~--
D~TEJLL—29—22C3
~‘*s~~’
TIME
22:43
~
P,Øj
MODE
tEM0R~
T~PNS~iSSICN
~~T=JUL-28
22:42
END~JUL—2S22:43
FILE NO.~’O3~
SIN
NO.
CO~
~as~~o.
~I~TICNNPrE~~.’-c.
PAGES
DU~TI0N
OK
~
eu5s44eaeea~2:-~~
~j3,ga3 ~Ø:~’~5’
—Quer’r9y
8~ Harrouj
~
—Ch
lca~:
:5~E
—
—
312
S4~aS?8—
‘~*~‘~*
Querrey ~
Harrow
Qticrtey &
l4snow.
Lid,
Od~,OPces.
175
WtI! J~
nC,I1CC*O1
Cyst~1Uks,
IL
S~uw
1603
j~ti~.
IL
Cltcsao,
L
6(J604-25’21
.
MiynF~iI(e,IN
-
NcwYork,NY
T~L (3L2)~40.70O0
Wiuk’r~an.IL
FAX (31 2~54O-0d78
W~ie,2~on,
IL
,Icnnl(er
i
SICItett Patiienz
Repremnisulw
l)~r,ciDeal:
(312)
~4~-1S4O
U.K.
Office:
Londan
r.-~naI:
jiIe.t~purrytyeom
FAX
TRANSMISSION
SI-LEET
DATE: July 28, 2003
TO:
NAME /COMPANY:
FAX NUMBER:
E1izab~th
S.
H~rieyf
Swanson.
Maniri&
3e~l
(312) 321.0990
FROM;
Jennifer
J. Sackcn Pohtenz
USER NO.:
9328
CMRNO.:
65448
NUMBER
OF PAGES
BEiNG
SENT
(INCLUDENG COVER Srn~ET):3
IF
YOU
HAVE ANY
DIFFiCULTY
IN RECEIViNG THIS TRANSMISSION
PLEASECALL 312-540-7065IMMEDIATELY
RETURNTO:
POH
SENTBY:
DJR
The
inforn~ationcontained
in
this
facsimile
comnumication
is
attorney
privileged
and
confidential
information
intended
only
for
the use
ofthe
in4ividual
or entity
to
whom
or to
which
it is
addressed.
If the
recipkn
of
this
U~tsmiss~on
Is
not
the imended
recipient,
the
recipicr4
te hereby
notified
that
any
di
exninaiicsn,
dLstribuiion,
or
reprod~sction
of this
communicn~ion
is
s~ictly
prohibited.
If
you have
received
this
communication
in error, plesse
notify
QUERP~Y&
ft4~ROW,
LTD. at the
z~o~te
telephone
number
and
return
the
cornznunicazi.~n
to
Q(JERRJIY &
HARROW,
LTD. at the abose address
vi,a the
U.S.
Postal
Service.
Thank you.
