RECE~VEO
CLERK’S OFFICE
MAR 25
2004
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOAR)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
Ronald Stuart and
)
Barbara Stuart
)
Complainants,
)
)
PCBO2-164
Vs.
)
Citizens Enforcement/Noise
Franklin Fisher and
)
Phyllis Fisher
)
)
Respondents
)
Dorothy Gunn
Bradley P.Halloran
David Harding
Bobby Petrungarro
Clerk ofthe IPCB
Hearing Officer
Lopez and Harding
Will County
100 W. Randolph
100 W. Randolph
100 N. LaSalle
States Attorney Office
Ste
11-500
Ste
11-500
Ste
1107
14 W. Jeffereson
Chicago,
Il. 60601
Chicago, Ii.
60601
Chicago, 1160602
Joliet, Illinois 60432
NOTICE
OF FILING
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that wethe Complainants have on March 24, 2004, filed with the
Clerk, Dorothy Gunn ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board a MOTION TO LEAVE TO
SUPPLEMENT THE
RECORD,
a copy ofwhich herewith served upon you.
The purpose for filing a MOTION TO LEAVE
TO
SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD, is to give
the Board an opportunity to review informationwhich was not disposed at ourhearing dated
March 9, 2004.
We will give detailed information as to what we would like the Board to consider
to incorporated into our Hearing record, as well as a reason why we feel this is relevant.
1.
Photographs taken ofFranidin Fishers home (two years ago)
but only developed in
February of 2004.
Authenticity ofdate offilm processing is
stamped on back offilm.
The originals will be placed in the safekeeping ofDorothy Gunn.
During the Hearing I
had intentions ofusing these photos as evidence showing Mr. Fisher dumps spoiled
produce on the front portion ofhis propertynear a ditch which leads to the Trim Creek
only
1/5
mile from his home. Whenquestioned he answered “no he doesn’t dump spoiled
produce on the front ofhis property. Unfortunately photos were mistakenly left at home
in our photo file.
These
are numbered 1,2,3,
and 4
RELEVANCE:
These photos will allow the Board to clearly see Mr. Fisher does indeed
have hundreds ofpounds ofspoiled melons, tomatoes, watermelon, corn, etc. dumped at the
front ofhis property, which is counter productive to protecting his crops from crows.
This
spoiled food attracts
CROWS, raccoon, fox and otheranimals that thrive on watermelons.
This
is like putting out appetizers for the pests he is trying to control.
2.
Photographs ofour home.
At the time ofthe hearing the photographs were not on hand.
These photos are ofthe back portion ofourhome. Marked are bedrooms,
living rooms, and
the pool area..
There is a log sheet which is an “offer ofproof’ from the hearing, with
propane cannon sounds I measured.
The logsheet has the records ofparticular dates oftaking
sound measurements from the cannons, along with the weather.However, I did not state
where I was taking the readings. I was relying on my tapings from the camcorder, and
did
not put this information into the computer.
On the photos is a circle where I took most ofthe
cannon noise readings from the
Radio Shack meter supplied by Greg Zak.
For the record, I
always avoided areas where there could be reflective or echo sounds.
I also stayed away
from the house to take reading as recommended by Mr. Zak.
These readings were taken
about
100 feet from our western property line.
For as much as I tried to have the
8 mm tapes
ofrecords from the cam corder converted to
a VHS tape, it failed everytime.
We stated
during the time oftestimony, it was difficult to sleep in the bedrooms becausethey were so
close to the sound ofthe cannonnoise.
The living room area is an area where we must keep
the windows shut to avoid the noise ofthe cannons. These areas are marked with bright
orange tape.
This
Photo
is
number #5.
RELEVANCE:
I feel it would be to the advantage ofthe board to get a visual picture of
how ourhome is set up.
Where the readings ofthe cannon noise were actually taken from.
At one time my son Michael during testimony at the Hearing went into description ofwhere
the dogs were at (living room) when pacing and shivering from the cannon sounds.
He also
stated he could not sleep without a fan on to dub out the noise.
I myself was always waken
by the sounds through my bedroom window each and every morning at 5:30 by this noise.
Yes even on Sundays.
Shutting the window did not help.
3.
At the Hearing we were given a black and white copy ofpictures ofdamaged
watermelons (an exhibit) supposedly from the Fisher farm.
These photos may be from 2002,
2001, or 2000.
We were never told.
It is difficult forus to even examine the photographs.
There were no
crows around the melons. After the hearing I did a little research on
watermelon damage. Through an agricultural cooperative Extension program photos were
available showing the damage crows, raccoons, fox, and other animals can do.
As you know
Extension programs at many Universities throughout the U.S. are Federally and State funded.
Extension programs are nonpolitical, objective and based on FACTUAL information, not
Hearsay.
With thepermission ofthe Board I would like to submit items
labeled
#6
(black
and white copies ofrespondents exhibit), along with the color photos taken by an Extension
Program depicting damage caused to watermelons from four footed animals this is
labeled
#7 They’re stapled together
RELEVANCE:
Since the black and white copies ofthe allegedly damaged watermelons are
a part ofevidence ofmoney lost from crops.
During the time ofDiscovery, Mr. Fisher
refused to answer #22 Interrogatory.
Mr. Halloran on May 29, 2003 sent a Hearing Officer
Order stating:
“by failing to
answer interrogatory number 22, the respondents will not be
permitted to argue or introduce evidence at hearing regarding loss ofincome due to birds.
Not being an attorney obviously, but wouldn’t a photo ofdamaged watermelons constitute a
“loss ofincome due to birds”?
Mr. Halloran was so patient with us during the hearing, and I
didn’t remember at the time ofthe hearing, he had ordered this.
So please know this is no
fault ofanyone’s.
Mr. Halloran cannot be expected to remember everything about this
complex case. The item labeled #7
shows how it’s difficult to distinguish if a crow or
4.
Theanswers from Mr. Fisher to Interrogatories,
were never filed at the Hearing.
We
were going to submit them, but didn’tknow the proper time.
There was a lot of
confusion on ourpart regarding when to do this and that.
Mr. Harding did not make it
any easier because he was raising his voice and showing howfrustrated he was with me,
(Barbara Stuart) in particular.
The answers to our asked Interrogatories ofMr. Fisher are
labeled
#9.
RELEVANCE: I Think the Board should have this information on hand.
There are
questions that never were given answers. Special attention to number 3, 7, 8,
19, 22, and
25.
Mr. Fisher calls the cannons a “Priviledged Work Product”. A priviledge workproduct is
a
piece ofequipmentthat
is NORMALLY used farmers.
No one uses them out in our area.
Only Mr.
Fisher, and there are otherwatermelon growers in the area, Bultema is one I know
of.
I would like to comment, almost every year I travel to the state of Arkansas, home of
some of the largest farms of Watermelon.
Not once have I ever heard a propane cannon in
a field go off.
5.The “Map Board”, as I call it was labeled an exhibit. (This took an enormous amount of
work.) On the board was a brochure from Reed-Joseph to
show a picture ofwhat propane
cannons look like.
It also showed other devices available instead ofusing cannons.
I
recently discovered Reed-Joseph changed their advertising and put new information on their
website.
I discovered a printable form with the Scare a way 3 cannon.
This
is
marked #8
this form states the numberofdecibels it emits when it is fired.
A Scare away 3 is an older
version ofa cannon, but still made.
It’s a little old and outdated,
so it is not adjustable for
sound, or amount offirings. But it can be put on a timer.
RELEVANCE:
To provide for the Board important information concerning the cannons
Mr. Fisher used.
A.
It gives the decibel levels,
very similar to Mr. Zak’s readings of
decibels in the
1979 case in Knox County.
B.
It gives more updated solutions to using
cannons, which are
also listed on the form along with the price ofthese alternatives.
In order
to get a real affect ofwhat the cannon looks, and the size of it, you would fmd it on the
“Judge Mathes”tape submitted by Mr. Harding as an exhibit.
Mr. Halloran is examining the
tape to determine it’s
significance to this case.
We appreciate the board for reviewing all this information.
We really were not well prepared
to properly present our case.
Please know we did the best we could.
And we are grateful
that there is a possibility that this
information could possibly be entered into the record.
We
knowand trust the Board will do what is right and fair.
This is the first time we have ever
been to a Hearing.
I wish I would have sat in on a Hearing to see the way one is conducted.
I felt so unprepared, even with all the months I put into this work.
Again thank you.
ALL FILING OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
~c~e
~
~
I
I
l~
-
er
fr~m~
2
~
~-47
4
DEFENDANT’S
,..
:1
~
~
~
-
Vegetable Home Page
Page
1 of 1
Vegetable Home
Soil & Water
Plant
Pathology
Horticulture
Science
Weed
Science
Page
ANIMAL PEsTs
Breeding &
Germ etics
Entomology
.d~
~t
-~
ø~
‘7
Rcc~nsiam~ige
Deer damag~
Crow damage
Beaver
damage
Back to
Watermelon Home
http://gcrec.ifas.ufl.edu/cabage20web/watermelon2oweb/animal2Opests.htm
3/23/2004
Typical raccoon damage to a watermelon fruit
Page
1
of
1
-
--
Typical raccoon damage to a
~
~i
atermelon fruit
Back to Animal Pests Digital Lib~aiy
Back to Watermelon Home I~ge
ource:
Watennelons: Characteristics, Production
IMarketing.
ASHS Press, Alexandria, Va.
~rigina1
provided by Donald N. Maynard
http://gcrec.ifas.ufl.edu/cabage20web/watennelon2Oweb/raccoon2oc~mage.~~
3/12/2004
Reed-Joseph International Company
rage
i
01
1
M8 Multi-Bang
($365 each)
Produces random series of single,
double,
and triple-shot clusters.
Time between series may
be
adjusted from every
30 seconds
to every
20
minutes.
M4
($310 each)
Produces single bangs which
can
be
regulated from one bang every
30 seconds to one bang every
20
minutes and utilizes piezo ignition.
Operating without batteries or
the
,~.)
Scare Away
LP
Gas Caonons_
Home:Scare Away LP Gas Cannons
Protect your investment from bird
and wildlife infestation
automatically! Scare-Away LP gas cannons produce harmless
130 decibel bangs to disperse
bird and
wildlife from crops,
orchards, vineyards, campuses, golf courses, fish ponds,
parks,
airfields,
and landfills. Scare-Away cannons are
powered by the
same five gallon LP gas cylinders
used for
outdoor grills. The cost forthis valuable
protection- pennies
a
day!
Scare Away
LP Gas Cannon Products
Click here
to
view accessories
M3
($275 each)
Produces bangs identical to the
M4 and
utilizes flint ignition.
Each
flint produces
up to 1000 ignitions.
Showing Ito
3 of3 works.
111
//~
77~2~
(4,
http://www.reedjoseph.com/cgi-reedjoseph/RlEstore.cgi?useraction=ljst&category=scare...
3/23/2004
rage
1
01
1
Reed-Joseph International Company
Sight &
Motiou._
~ç~:
Sight and Motion
Sight and Motion Products
NEW! Scarey Man
This human-sized
inflatable
scarecrow combines sudden
movement as it inflates with
a
siren-like noise,
a bird
phobic
color,
and illumination
at night.
The surprising effects frighten
away birds,
deer,
and
other
animal pests as Scarey Man
inflates and
deflates on a
controlled time basis. Click here
to see a brief video of Scarey Man
in action!
Multiuse Unit ($700.00
each)
can be set to operate during
daylight, dark,
or
on
a 24
hour basis.
Preset TimerUnit ($800.00
•
each) has a digital clock fitted.
Set the times you desire Scarey
Man to activate
and deactivate.
Evil Eye Balloons
($9.50
each)
These 16 inch diameter heavy-
duty vinyl balloons discourage
birds from roosting
around
gardens, boats, marinas,
buildings, airplane hangars, fruit
and
berry crops,
livestock pens,
and
other problem areas.
NEW! Avian
Dissuader
($995
each)
Disperse birds without sound or
harm! Simply
point the hand-held
laser in the direction of targeted
birds. The 650nm wavelength
beam will startle, frighten, and
drive them away. Most effective in
low light conditions.
Range is
1500 feet. For technical
information, visit
AvianDissuader.com.
Showing
1
to3of5works.
I
2 1ll’4exil
N
http://www.reedjoseph.comlcgi-reedjosephlRiTstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=Sight...
3/23/2004
Keed-Josepli International Lompany
rage
1
01
1
Home: Bird Gard
Bird Gard
Products
Showing ito 2 of 2 works.
1
Bird Gard
($550 each)
A cost effective tool in your bird
dispersal
arsenal,
the Bird Gard
system provides
a wide selection
of fully programable digital bird
distress cries and
predator
sounds.
Bird Gard
is powered
by
either 110 volt AC or 12 volt
battery.
For technical
information,
visit BirdGard.com.
Mobile Bird Gard
($580 each)
Target your bird dispersal
program more accurately with our
Mobile Bird Gard.
installation is a
snap! Simply plug the sound
generator into your vehicle’s
cigarette lighter and
place the
magnet-based speaker on the
roof.
r
‘~
~
~i~”~-ii1
girjGarg_.
http://www.reedjoseph.comlcgi-reedjoseph/RJlstore.cgi?user_action=list&category=Bird+...
3/23/2004
Reed-Joseph International Company
Page
1 of
1
: Scare Away
LP Gas Cannons
Protect your investment from
bird and
wildlife infestation
automatically! Scare-Away LP gas cannons produce harmless
130 decibel bangs to disperse
bird and
wildlife from crops,
orchards, vineyards,
campuses, golf courses, fish ponds,
parks,
airfields, and
landfills. Scare-Away cannons are
powered by the same five gallon
LP gas cylinders used
for
outdoor grills. The cost for this valuable
protection- pennies a
day!
Scare Away LP Gas Cannon Products
~D
Click here
to
view accessories
M8 Multi-Bang
($365 each)
Produces
random series of single,
double,
and triple-shot clusters.
Timebetween
series may
be
adjusted from every
30 seconds
to every 20
minutes.
M4
($310 each)
Produces single bangs which can
be regulated from one bang every
30 seconds to one
bang every 20
minutes and utilizes piezo
ignition.
Operating without batteries or
the piezo produces
up
I~
1~1
~-iI
b
ScareAwayLP Gas canNons_.
M3
($275 each)
Produces bangs identical to the
M4 and
utilizes flint ignition.
Each
flint produces
up to 1000
ignitions.
Showing Ito
3
of3 works.
((1
http://www.reedjoseph.comlcgi-reedjoseph!RJlstore.cgi?useraction=list&category=Scare...
3/23/2004
Reed-Joseph International Company
Page
1
of
I
Sight and
Motion
Products
NEW! Scarey Man
This human-sized
inflatable
scarecrow combines sudden
movement as it inflates with a
siren-like noise,
a bird phobic
color,
and
illumination at night.
The surprising effects frighten
away
birds, deer,
and
other
animal pests
as Scarey
Man
inflates and deflates on
a
controlled time basis. Click here
to see
a
brief video of Scarey Man
in action!
Multiuse
Unit ($700.00 each)
can
be set to
operate during
daylight, dark, or
on a 24
hourbasis.
Preset TimerUnit ($800.00
each)
has
a digital
clockfitted.
Set the times you desire Scarey
Man
to activate
and deactivate.
Evil Eye Balloons
($9.50
each)
These
16 inch
diameter heavy-
duty vinyl balloons discourage
birds from
roosting around
gardens, boats, marinas,
buildings, airplane hangars, fruit
and berry crops, livestock pens,
and other problem areas.
NEW! Avian
Dissuader
($995
each)
Disperse birds without
sound or
harm! Simply point the hand-held
laser in the
direction of targeted
birds. The 650nm wavelength
beam will
startle, frighten, and
drive them
away. Most effective
in
low light conditions.
Range
is
1500 feet. For technical
information, visit
AvianDissuader.com.
Showing
1 to 3 of 5 works.
11112 ilNexti
Sight &
MotioL.
!~g~:
Sightand Motion
N
http://www.reedjoseph.comlcgi-reedjoseph/RJlstore.cgi?useraction=list&category=Sight...
3/23/2004
Reed-Joseph International Company
rage
I 01
1
Bird
Card_.
Home: Bird Gard
Bird Gard Products
Showing
1
to
2 of2 works.
1
Bird Gard
($550 each)
A cost effective tool
in your bird
dispersal arsenal,
the Bird
Gard
system provides
a wide selection
offully programable digital
bird
distress cries
and
predator
sounds. Bird Gard
is powered by
either 110 volt AC or 12 volt
battery.
For technical
information,
visit BirdGard.com.
Mobile Bird Gard
($580 each)
Target your bird dispersal
program more accurately with our
Mobile Bird Gard.
installation is a
snap! Simply plug the sound
generator into your vehicle’s
cigarette lighter and place the
magnet-based speaker on the
roof.
http://www.reedjoseph.com/cgi-reedjoseph/Rilstore.cgi?user_actionlist&categoryBird+...
3/23/2004
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
BARBARA STUART and RONALD
)
STUART.
)
Complainants,
)
)
v.
)
No.
PCB 02-164
•
)
Citizen Enforcement
FRANKLIN FISHER,
)
)
Respondent.
)
To:
Barbara Stuart and Ronald Stuart
213 E.
Corning Rd.
•
Beecher,IJ.., 60401
ANSWERS
TO INTERROGATORLES
Franklin Fisher, being first duly sworn on oath, states that the following answers to
interrogatories propounded by complainants,—Rarbara Stuart and Ronald Stuart, are true:
1.
State the name, address apd job title ofthe person answering these Interrogatories on
•
-
behalfofthe respondei~.
N~S~YER:
••
-
••
Franidin Fisher, Corning Roa4, R.R.
2, Beecher, IL 60401-9802
2. Please identify each and every propane• cannon at the respondents facility at 13 W.
Coming Rd. Beecher, Illinois. With regard to each said propane cannon, specifically sate:
a.
make
b. model
c.
serial number
d. date of manufacture
e. the location ofeach ofthe above referenced cannons on the plan view
including
relocation sites of cannons.
~(NSWER:
The information shown on the cannons is Scare-Away, Maden~Lgi~i*i~4er-R~ett-
Je~?phCo., Gree~ille,Mississippi.
No model number, se~jal-nuuiu~r
or
date ofmanufacture is
available.
No plan view was provided with the interrogatory.
3. Please provide the dimensions ofeach building
or structure located on the respondent’s
Beecher farm facility at
13 W.
Corning Rd.
Beecher, Illinois.
Include any resident/relative who
is within 50 feet ofyour home.
-
ANSWER:
Objection.
The interrogatory calls for information which is not relevant or material or
likely to lead to relevant or material evidence.
4. For each propane cannon at respondent’s Beecher facility (located at
Corning
Road,) please state the date of purchase ofthese cannons, the date ofinstallation and the name
and address of each person who installed said equipment,
ANSWER:
The cannons were purchased.
in
~
-and-required-no speciaLinsta1laiLQ~n~
5.
Has anyone complained to you, in writing or orally, about the noise produced by the
equipment installed at you Beecher facility(~~7Corning
Rd.)?
If so, provide the name,
address and phone number ofeach such person, and provide the date(s) and contents ofthe
complaint(s).
‘
•
•
•
-
ANSWER:
•
•
••
Other than the complaints by these complainants, respondent did receive an unsigned
letter~a
few weeks after commencing
use
of
th~
~nnnns
in
7002, a copy ofwhich is attached..
o. Is respondent aware ofanyone complaining to any governmental ~eni,
in writing or
orally, about the noise produced
by the propane cannons used at you facility at
13 W. Coming
Rd. in Beecher, Ill?
Ifso provide the name, address and phone number ofeach such person, and
provide the date and contents ofthe complaint.
Please go back to 8-8-200 1
up until the present
time and date.
-
ANSWER:
-
Other thanthe present complainants, no.
-
7. Has the respondent been contacted by a local,
State, or Federal agency regarding the
complaints coming from the loud sounds ofthe propane cannons at your facility at
13
W.
2
Corning Rd. Beecher, Ill. Ifso specifically date, what agency, the dates, and the contents ofthe
complaint.
Starting on 8-8-01 til present time.
ANSWER:
—
Other than in response to the continuing harassment by these complainants, no.
8. Identif~jwith particularity every federal,
state and local law,
ordinance orregulation
which you contend applies to or governs the noise produced at your Beecher facility at
13 W.
Coming Road.
ANSWER:
Objection.
Privileged work product.
9. Please state what contends is a reasonable amount ofnoise (in decibels or other
uniform measurement) for it to produce at it Beecher facility:
ANSWER:
Objection, the interrogatory is incomprehensible.
Assuming that the interrogatory is
directed to a contention by respondent, respondent assumes that he is bound by the law ofthe
State ofillinois.
-
10. With regard to the propane cannons you use at your facility at
13 W. Coming road, in
Beecher including equipment intended to
minimize or mitigate the noise impact state:
a. Available alternative equipment at the time of your Purchase ofthe propane cannons,
ie: nets, lanterns etc.
b. the identity ofthe person or business you purchased each propane cannon from,
including address and phone number
b. The identity ofevery personresponsible forthe selection and purchase ofeach propane.
cannon.
-
ANSWER:
-
.
-
a. Alternative equipment suggested is
ineffective, and light producing or reflective
equipment actually attracts crows.
b. Bob Van Der Griend, Sr., 2812 Glenwood-Lansing Rd., Chicago Heights, IL 60411;
(708) 418-1820.
-
..
b. Franklin Fisher.
—
11. With regard to all truck traffic on respondent’s premises, please state the following:
c. the annual amount ofproduce/crops transported in and out of respondents facility, in
tons,
forthe years
1993 through 2002.
d. The percentage oflight (less than 8,000 lbs GVW) and heavy trucks (more than
8,000lbs GVW)
ANSWER:
Objection.
The information sought is not relevant or material or designed to leadto
material or relevant information.
Notwithstanding the objection, the data is has not been
gathered or maintained.
12.)Please state all equipment used by respondent to take noise measurements at
respondent’s Beecher facility (located at
13 W. Corning Rd.) by make, model, serial number, and
the date oflast calibration traceable to the National Institute ofStandards and Technology
(NIST).
-
ANSWER:
-
None.
13. Ifyou have retained, employed or subpoenaed any
expert witnesses
who may be
expeCted to render an opinion at trial, then as to each expert, state:
e. His name, address, telephone number and employer or
other business affiliation.
f. The subject matter on which the expert is
expected to
testify;
g. His conclusions and opinions;
h. The basis for each conclusion or opinion;
i. His qualifications;
j.
Whether the expert has prepared any written
reports,
communications,
correspondence, or documents of any kind, and a descriptionof each such document, and
attach a copy ofthe reports or documents to these intenogatories;
4
k. The date each said expert was retained-:
1. Whether said expert has been retained by you or your attorney on prior occasions;
ANSWER:
No expert has been retained to date.
—
••
-
-
14. Has any expert, or anyone at
said expert’s direction, prepared any field report, field
notes, hand written notes, memorandum, correspondence, records oftelephone conversations,
diagrams, drawings, blueprints, photographs,
statements orany other written, printed,
electronically or photographically recorded materials in preparing, investigating, researching,
evaluation, or forming any opinions on the issues involved in this case. If so, please provide a
copy ofthe same.
ANSWER:
No.
15.
Please state every regulation, statute, law or guideline on which such expert will rely.
ANSWER:
None.
16. State each and every article, book, report or other writing upon which each expert
relies in reaching the forgoing opinions.
ANSWER:
-
None.
17. Has respondent, its agents or anyone on its behalf ever made any repairs, adjustments,
modifications, replacement ofparts, or any othertype ofchange to respondent’s propane
•
cannons in
order to muffle the noise which is created by such cannons. Ifso, state the following:
a. specifically what repairs, adjustments, modifications and for replacement ofparts were
made;
.
b. date ofsaid change, repair, adjustment, modification, replacement ofparts
c. name and address ofthe party making such change, repair adjustment, modification,
replacement ofparts etc.;
d. the cost of any and all changes, repairs, adjustments or modification to the propane
5
cannons.
ANSWER:
No.
--
18. Has respondent, its attorneys or anyone acting on its behalfhad the propane cannons
tested examined and / or inspected? If so state:
A. The date upon which it was tested, examined or inspected;
B. The name and
last known address, title and employee ofeach person who conducted
or was present during such testing, examination or inspection.
C. The type oftest, examination or inspection conducted.
D. Ifan oral report was done, give name and last known address of all personsgiving and
receiving such report or record, and the substance thereof and
E. Ifwritten the date thereofthe number ofpages thereof, each addressee thereofthe
name and last known address ofeach person having possession ofeach suchreport or
record.
ANSWER:
state the approximate date the respondent first became aware the operation of
its propane cannons were interfering with the complainants’ use and enjoyment oftheirproperty,
along with the health and welfare oftheir son Michael age
13, who has a sensor neuro hearing
loss.
Michael their son has been advised by a specialist in the field hearing to avoid being
outdoors because the blasts ofthe cannon cause him pain in his
left ear along with a ringing
sensation which could cause further damage.
ANSWER:
-
Objection.
Argumentative.
Notwithstanding the objection, respondent states that
complainants never mentioned their son until after they failed in their quest to hold respondent
egally
responsible for the loss ofa dog.
-
6
20.
With regard to each and every propane cannon at the respondents Beecher facility (13
W.
Corning •Rd.) Please state the time of day the cannons are operated, the days ofthe week and
the months during the year.
ANSWER:
From around sun up to around sun down from late
July to
early November.
Occasional
days can be skipped.
Only rarely are they used on
Sundays.
21. Please state whether respondenthas ever contacted the noise Division ofthe Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, either in writing or orally, in order to determine whether the
respondent is
in viOlation ofany applicable Illinois Environmental Protect Agency regulations
regarding noise pollution. Ifso please state:
a. The person(s) who respondent spoke to
at the IEPA;,
and
•
b. The dates of said conversations.
ANSWER:
•
-
No.
22. What is tue annual income forthe respondent for fanningpurposes at his facility
Aocated at 13 W.
Coming Road, please give income from
1994 up to present date.
ANSWER:
Objection.
This rwncee4~g
should not b~
used asan excuse for complainant to delye into
private matters.
Notwfthstanding the objecti6n, respondent ansWers tnat the farm
is usually
oper~t~d
at a pro.fit, but incurred a loss, due
tp
the cron damage inflicted by crow& in 2000.
23. Has the respondent ever had to-claim a crop damage/loss during the .past 8 years? If
-
so please state the following:
•
A. The year ofclaims
B. The type ofcrop
C. Reasons for crop loss/damage
ANSWER:
Yes, but not insured, during the year 2000, damage to melons, crows.
7
24. The respondent states he is a third generation farmer. What methods did the
respondent use during his past farming years to deter crows/birds away from his farming of
melon crops?
ANSWER:
Objection.
Argumentative.
Notwithstanding the objection, 2000 was the first year we
grew melons because it became (we thought), for a variety of reasons, including prices,
profitable to do
sq,.
No particular problem ~~ithcrows. was encountered before 2000.
25.
Does the respondent know ofanyone within a 25 mile radius who is a produce grower
who uses a propane cannon forfarming purposes? Ifso state that persons name and address.
ANSWER:
Other than the person identified in answer to Interrogatory
10, respondent knows ofno
such person, but also knows ofno person within that radius who ~
26. Is the respondent knowledable ofthe adverse effects loud impulsive sounds have the
health and welfare ofboth adults and children? The EPA has set standards and limits on noise
this is factual not fiction.
ANSWER:
•
-
Objection.
Argumentative.
-
27. Does the respondent feel he does not need to do anything about the cannon noise
because he is a farmer, and he has the freedom to do as he wants regardless ofthe health
hazards?
ANSWER:
.
Objection.
Argumentative.
Notwithstanding the objection, respondent states that he
believes himself to be bound by the law ofthe
State ofIllinois.
.
-
I have read the foregoing answers to interrogatories, and I know the answers to be true and
8
correct.
Franklin Fisher
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
~~day
ofOctober, 2002.
~
~
SEAL~1
~~
DAVID G.
HARDJNG
.1
~
David G. Harding
Lopez & Harding
Attorneys for Respondent
Suite 2204,
134 N. LaSalle St.
Chicago, IL
60602-1121
(312)782-3039
PROOF OF
SERVICE BYMAIL
.
-
I, David G. Harding, the attorney, certify that I served the foregoing answers to
interrogatories by mailing a copy to each person to whom directed and depositing the
same in the
U.S.
mail at
134 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois at or before 4:00 p.m. on OctoberL~../C,
2002, with proper postage pre-paid.
/
9
From: Ronald Stuart and
March 23,
2004
Barbara Stuart
To:
The Illinois Pollution Control Board
Dorothy Gunn, Bradley Halloran
Re:
PCB 02-164
Citizen EnforcementJNoise:
Ronald and Barbara Stuart (Complainants) v. Frank and Phyllis Fisher (Respondents)
CC:
David Harding
Harding and Lopez
Attorney for Frank Fisher and Phyllis
CC:
Bobby
Petrungarro
Will county States Attorney Office
AFFIDAVIT
Barbara Stuart and Barbara Stuart
213 E.
Corning Rd.
Beecher, Illinois 60401
708-946-9546
We, Ronald Stuart, and Barbara Stuart, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and state as
follows:
1.
That we live at 213
E. Corning Road,
Beecher, Illinois 60401
2.
That at the time of ourHearing on March 9, 2004 we were unable to offer this
information
to the Hearing Officer, Bradley Halloran, regarding PCB 02-164
3.
That the Photos enclosed were taken by Barbara Stuart, complainant in the Case 02-164
4.
Thatthe areamarked on photo
#5
with a circle is indeed a location where Barbara Stuart,
myselftook readings with a Radio Shack meter on multiple occasions which is listed on
the log as a offer ofproof.
5.
Thatthe copies from the Reed Joseph bird control company were obtained from their
website.
6.
That
copies ofWatermelon Damage was obtained from an Extension Program.
7.
That the copy ofthe “Answers to Interrogatories” ofFrankFisher, was sent to me by
David Harding.
8.
That no copies, or photos have been altered.
9.
That all
comments mentioned in the MOTION
TO LEAVE TO
SUPPLEMENT THE
RECORD were honest and truthful.
THIS-AFFIANT,
SA
1
TH, FURTHERNOT
/
L
~
~
Ronald Stuart
Barbara Stuart
ME, this
(23
day of March 2004
SEAL
t
ALL DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER
From: Ronald Stuart and
March 23, 2004
Barbara Stuart
To:
The Illinois Pollution Control Board
Dorothy Gunn, Bradley Halloran
Re:
PCB 02-164
Citizen Enforcement/Noise:
Ronald and Barbara Stuart (Complainants) v. Frank and Phyllis Fisher (Respondents)
CC:
David Harding
Harding and Lopez
Attorney for Frank Fisher and Phyllis
CC:
Bobby
Petrungarro
Will county States Attorney Office
AFFIDAVJT
Barbara Stuart and Barbara Stuart
213
B. Corning Rd.
Beecher, Illinois 60401
708-946-9546
We, Ronald Stuart, and Barbara Stuart, being first duly sworn on oath, depose and state as
follows:
1.
That we live at 213 E. Corning Road, Beecher, Illinois
60401
2.
That at the time of ourHearing
on March 9, 2004 we were unable to offer this
information
to the Hearing Officer, Bradley Halloran, regarding PCB 02-164
3.
That the Photos enclosed were taken by Barbara Stuart, complainant in the Case 02-164
4.
Thatthe area marked on photo
#5
with a circle is indeed a location where Barbara Stuart,
myselftook readings with a Radio Shack meter on multiple occasions which is listed on
the log as a offer ofproof.
5.
That the copies from the Reed Joseph bird control company were obtained from their
website.
6.
That
copies ofWatermelon Damage was obtained from an Extension Program.
7.
That the copy ofthe “Answers to Interrogatories” ofFrank Fisher, was sent to me by
David Harding.
8.
That no copies, or photos have been altered.
9.
That all comments mentioned in the MOTION TO LEAVE TO SUPPLEMENT
THE
RECORD were honest and truthful.
THIS.AFFIAN~A~ETH,
FURTHER NOT
-~-~
~
I
~
j~~_~_
-~~1-r—
Barbara Stuart
ME, this ________day ofMarch 2004
OFF~CLAL
SEAL
rOE
OT-~Y
PUB~
‘~
0
LLIN~)~~
i()M
~
~7’l
Ronald Stuart
SEAL
ALL DOCUMENTS
WERE
PREPARED ON RECYCLED PAPER
THIS--AFFIANT,
SA~ETH,
FURTHER NOT
•
~
•.
\.
/
~
Ronald Stuart
-
Barbara Stuart
ME, this
(23
day ofMarch 2004
SEAL