ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 31, 2004
     
    BARBARA and RONALD STUART,
     
    Complainants,
     
    v.
     
    FRANKLIN FISHER and PHYLLIS FISHER,
     
    Respondents.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
     
     
     
     
     
    PCB 02-164
    (Citizens Enforcement – Noise)
          
    HEARING REPORT
     
     
    On March 9, 2004, a hearing in this matter was held at the Bolingbrook Village Hall, 375
    West Briar Cliff Road, Bolingbrook, Illinois. Complainants Barbara and Ronald Stuart appeared
    and represented themselves
    pro se
    . Attorney David Harding appeared and participated on behalf
    of the respondents.
     
     
      
      
      
      
    Preliminary Matters
     
    This report addresses only motions received prior to March 9, 2004, as well as events at
    the hearing itself.
     
    As reflected in the hearing officer order of August 21, 2003, complainants were directed
    to provide the report of their expert, Greg Zak, to the respondents on or before September 10,
    2003. On September 11, 2003, the complainants filed Zak’s report. Among other observations
    that Zak made after visiting the site on August 2, 2003, the report includes a chart of ambient
    noise levels Zak took at the site. Nowhere in the report are the propane sound measurements
    taken at the site by the complainants.
     
    On or about March 1, 2004, the hearing officer as well as the respondents received a
    document entitled Testimony Outline by Greg Zak, along with the complainants’ log of cannon
    sound measurements. As reflected in Zak’s report received March 1, 2004, Zak was to testify,
    among other things, that the sound measurements taken by the complainants on July 28, 2002,
    July 31, 2002, August 4, 2002, August 15, 2002, and August 25, 2002, constitute nuisance noise.
     
    The respondents objected to Zak’s second report on the grounds that they would be
    prejudiced should the second report be allowed where they had no time to prepare for the areas
    that Zak’s second report delves into.
     
    The hearing officer sustained respondents’ objection to the extent that any testimony
    given by Zak referencing the complainants’ log of cannon sound measurements would be
    allowed only as an offer of proof.
     
    2
     
    On January 30, 2004, complainants filed a motion to incorporate portions of the
    transcript in the PCB 00-219 hearing and certain documents in 79-CH-48, a Knox County circuit
    court case. On February 6, 2004, respondents filed its objections to complainants’ motion to
    incorporate.
     
    On March 9, 2004, the hearing officer found that the documents from the Knox County
    case were not from another Board docket as required by Section 101.306 of the Board’s
    procedural rules and denied the requested incorporation. The hearing officer also ruled that the
    portions of the transcript in PCB 00-219 that complainants sought to have incorporated were not
    relevant to this case and denied the requested incorporation. The motion and the attached
    documents, however, were taken with the case as an offer of proof.
     
    It is noted that respondents motion to incorporate portions of the transcripts in PCB 99-
    82, and PCB 99-38 was granted in a January 13, 2004 hearing officer order.
     
    On March 9, 2004, respondents offered a videotape of the Judge Mathias television show
    in which the parties in the above-captioned matter appeared (hearing officer exhibit 1). The
    complainants objected on the grounds of relevance.
     
    The hearing officer has now reviewed the videotape and the transcript and finds that it is
    sufficiently relevant to this case to be admitted into evidence.
     
    Witness Credibility
     
    Based upon my legal judgment, experience, and observations at the hearing, I find that
    the credibility of the witnesses is not an issue in this matter.
     
    Exhibits
     
    The parties offered exhibits as evidence at the hearing. An exhibit list itemizing the
    offered exhibits and summarizing their status is attached to this order.
     
     
    Briefing Schedule
     
     
    A briefing schedule was discussed and agreed to at the hearing. The complainants post-
    hearing brief is due to be filed on or before May 3, 2004. Respondents post-hearing brief is due
    to be filed on or before June 15, 2004. Complainant’s reply, if any, is due to be filed on or
    before July 15, 2004. Public comment is due to be filed on or before April 23, 2004. The Will
    County State’s Attorney’s
    amicus curiae
    brief
    ,
    if any, is due to be filed on or before
    May 3, 2004.
     
    At the request of the parties, the hearing officer designated April 16, 2004 as the due date
    to appeal any of the rulings made at the hearing, including the ruling regarding the Judge Mathis
    video tape.
     
     
    3
     
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
     
     
    ______________________________
     
      
      
      
      
      
      
    Bradley P. Halloran
     
      
      
      
      
      
      
    Hearing Officer
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
    100 W. Randolph Street
    Chicago, Illinois 60601
    312.814.8917
    4
    PCB 02-164
    March 9, 2004, Hearing
     
     
    Exhibit List
     
     
    Exhibit Description Status
    Complainants’ Group Exhibit 1 Letters, medical diagnosis relating to
    Michael Stuart’s hearing status
    Denied.
    Taken with
    the case as
    an offer of
    proof
    Complainants’ Exhibit 2 Maps, photographs, diagrams and propane
    cannon pamphlet attached to large
    cardboard
    Admitted
    Complainants’ Exhibit 3 Letter to Helen Gehring from the IEPA,
    dated September 27, 1979
    Admitted
    Complainants’ Exhibit 4 Log of cannon sound measurements Denied.
    Taken with
    the case as
    an offer of
    proof
    Complainants’ Group Exhibit 5 A collection of articles regarding noise,
    hearing loss, wildlife, letters,
    maps/diagrams and a uniform residential
    appraisal report.
    Denied.
    Taken with
    the case as
    an offer of
    proof
    Respondents’ Exhibit1 Complainants’ answers to request to admit
    with attached exhibits
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 2 Complainants’ responses to respondents
    second set to request to admit with
    attached exhibits
    Admitted
    with
    exception to
    the attached
    exhibit c,
    which was
    taken as an
    offer of proof
    Respondents’ Exhibit 3 Complainants’ responses to interrogatories
    and requests for production
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 4 Letter dated August 15, 2001 to Frank
    Fisher from Barbara Stuart
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 5 Letter dated November 14, 2001 to
    Franklin Fisher from Barbara and Ronald
    Stuart
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 6 Arbitration agreement for the Judge Mathis
    show
    Admitted
     
     
    5
    Respondents’ Exhibit 7 Appearance agreement for the Judge
    Mathis show
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 8 Undated letter to Frank Fisher from a
    fellow farmer
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 9 Complainants’ objection to set discovery
    schedule and hearing date
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 10 Letter dated July 21, 2002 from Barbara
    Stuart
    Admitted
    Respondents Exhibit 11 Letter dated March 27, 2003, from Barbara
    Stuart to Bradley Halloran and David
    Harding
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 12 Letter dated April 25, 2003, from Barbara
    Stuart to David Harding
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 13 Letter dated April 25, 2001, from Barbara
    Stuart to Bradley Halloran
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 14 Letter dated May 12, 2003, from Barbara
    Stuart to Bradley Halloran and David
    Harding
    Admitted
     
    Respondents’ Exhibit 15
     
    Letter dated August 28, 2003, from
    Barbara Stuart to David Harding
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 16 Letter dated September 3, 2003, from
    Barbara Stuart to David Harding
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 17 Letter dated September 20, 2003, from
    Barbara Stuart to David Harding
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 18 Letter dated October 10, 2003, from
    Barbara Stuart to David Harding
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 19 Letter dated November 18, 2003, from
    Ronald and Barbara Stuart to Bradley
    Halloran
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 20 Undated newspaper article regarding crows Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 21 Letter/agreement from the Judge Mathis
    show
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 22 Photograph of watermelons Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 23 Photograph of watermelons Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 24 Undated letter to editor from Barbara
    Stuart
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 25 April 24, 2003, letter to editor from
    Barbara Stuart
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 26 Undated letter to editor from Barbara
    Stuart
    Admitted
    Respondents’ Exhibit 27 Undated letter to editor from Barbara
    Stuart
    Admitted
    Hearing Officer Exhibit 1 Video tape of Judge Mathis show Admitted
     
     
    6
    Hearing Officer Exhibit 2 Complainants motion to incorporate with
    attached documents
    Taken with
    the case as
    an offer of
    proof
    Public Comment 3 Affidavit of Wayne Genis Taken as
    public
    comment
    Public Comment 4 Affidavit of David Pilotto Taken as
    public
    comment
    Public Comment 5 Affidavit of David Stuart Taken as
    public
    comment
    Public Comment 6 Affidavit/petition of Barbara and Ronald
    Stuart
    Taken as
    public
    comment
     

    Back to top