I\flu~QflRiI L~1
RECEIVED
11 ~iDjUI ~I
IN
II
CLERK’S OFFICE
ILLINOIS
~
APR 06 2004
MICHAEL A. PETROSIUS and Dana G.)
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PETROSIUS
Pollution Control Board
)
Complainants,
)
)
v.
)
No. PCB 04-36
)
(Citizen’s Enforcement
ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY
)
Noise)
AUTHORITY
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Carol Sudman
Victor Azar
Hearing Officer
2700 Ogden Avenue
Illinois Pollution Control Board
Downers Grove, III. 60515
600 South Second St. Suite 402
Springfield, Illinois 62704
Please take notice that on the 2nd day of April, 2004, Complainant Michael and Darla
Petrosius, by their attorney, Scott Dworschak, mailed for filing the attached
COMPLAINANT’S RESPONSE TO RESPONDANT’S FIRST REQUEST FOR
ADMISSION OF FACTS with Dorothy M. Gunn, the Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, James R. Thompson Center, 100 West Randolph St. Ste. 11-500, Chicago,
Illinois 60601.
BY:_____
Scottb~brschak~
Scott Dworschak
Perkaus & Farley, LLC
1343 North Wells
Chicago, Illinois 60610
312-944-8200
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned, an attorney, states that copies of the foregoing were served
upon the above named individuals at the above addresses by depositing the same in the
United States mail chute located at 1400 North Wells, Chicago, Illinois, 60610, on the
2nd day of April, 2004 with proper postage prepaid.
By
Scott Dw~6~chak
ILLINOIS ~
(~\to~
~
I~\\~
APR 06 2004
MICHAEL A. PETROSIUS and
~
STATE OF ILLINOIS
PETROSIUS
)
Poll~ti~nControlBoard
)
Complainants,
)
)
v.
)
No. PCB 04-36
)
(Citizen’s Enforcement
ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY
)
Noise)
AUTHORITY
)
)
Respondent.
)
COMPLAINANTS’ RESPONSE TO
RESPONDENT’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS
NOW COMES, the Complainants, Michael & Darla Petrosius, by their
attorney Scott Dworschak, Perkaus & Farley, LLC, and in answer to
“RESPONDENT’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS”, responds
as follows:
ADMISSION NO. I
Complainants are unable to respond since Respondent has failed to state when
the 1-294 toll highway was constructed and/or began operation. Complainants
deny the allegation until such time as specific construction/operation information
is produced.
ADMISSION NO. 2
Complainants are unable to respond since Respondent has failed to state when
the 5th Street entrance ramp on the 1-294 toll highway was constructed and/or
began operation. Complainants deny the allegation until such time as specific
construction/operation information is produced.
ADMISSION NO. 3
Complainants are unable to respond since Respondent has failed to state when
the sound wall was constructed near their residence on 7335 Maridon Road.
Complainants deny the allegation until such time as specific
construction/operation information is produced.
1
ADMISSION NO. 4
Complainants are unable to respond since Respondent has
failed to state when
the sound wall was constructed near their residence on 7335 Maridon Road.
Complainants deny the allegation until such time as specific
construction/operation information is produced.
ADMISSION NO. 5
Complainants deny this allegation. Respondent has not produced any evidence
to support this allegation, nor have they adequately defined the term
“significantly”.
ADMISSION NO.6
Complainants admit that they inspected the residence located at 7335 Maridon
Road in regards to the condition and structure of the physical residence.
ADMISSION NO. 7
Complainants object to this request as vague. The purchase price of the
residence located at 7335
Maridon Road reflects numerous valuations and price
considerations.
ADMISSION NO. 8
Complainants were aware of the “location” of the residence situated at 7335
Maridon Road, however, deny the awareness of any specific noise levels.
ADMISSION NO.9
Complainants object that this request is irrelevant to the subject matter.
Complainants deny the allegation until such
time as evidence relating to specific
relevance can be produced.
ADMISSION NO. 10
Complainants object that this request is irrelevant to the subject matter.
Complainants deny the allegation until
such time as evidence relating to specific
relevance can be produced.
ADMISSION NO. II
Complainants deny this allegation. Respondent has not adequately defined the
term “reduction”, nor have they adequately described specific location(s) at which
to “notice a reduction of noise”.
2
ADMISSION NO. 12
Complainants object that this request is irrelevant to the subject matter.
Complainants deny the
allegation until such time as evidence relating to specific
relevance can be produced.
ADMISSION NO. 13
Complainants object that this request is
irrelevant to the subject matter.
Complainants have no knowledge of the route common carriers utilize when
delivering items to their home. Complainants deny the allegation until such time
as evidence relating to specific relevance can be produced.
Respectfully submitted,
Scoft
~
DworscI~
Attorney for Complainant
Perkaus & Farley, LLC
1343 North Wells
Chicago, Illinois 60610
312-944-8200
3