ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April 2, 1998
    RONALD R. AND MELODY L.
    KANAVERSKIS,
    Complainants,
    v.
    M. A. GHALAYINI,
    Respondent.
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    )
    PCB 98-112
    (Enforcement - Noise - Citizens)
    ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Yi):
    This matter comes before the Board on the February 25, 1998, filing of a citizen’s
    enforcement complaint by Ronald R. and Melody L. Kanaverskis (Kanaverskis). Also before
    the Board are respondent M. A. Ghalayini’s (Ghalayini) February 25, 1998, response to the
    complaint; the Kanaverskis’ March 2, 1998, reply to Ghalayini’s response; Ghalayini’s March
    5, 1998, reply to the Kanaverskis’ reply, accompanied by a motion for leave to file reply
    instanter; and Kanaverskis’ March 12, 1998, reply to the Ghalayini’s March 5, 1998, reply.
    BACKGROUND
    Complainants allege that Ghalayini caused noise pollution by installing and operating a
    furnace vent and air conditioner in violation of Sections 23 and 24 of the Environmental
    Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/23 and 24 (1996)). Complainants also allege that Ghalayini
    caused or allowed the emission of sound beyond the boundaries of its property in violation of
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.102, 901.102(a) and (b), and 901.106 of the Board’s regulations.
    Complainants state that the noise generated from the site has resulted in an unreasonable
    interference with the use and enjoyment of their property. Complainants request that the
    Board enter an order directing Ghalayini to cease and desist from further violations of the
    applicable statues and regulations, and, more specifically, order Ghalayini to re-route the
    exhaust furnace pipe and permanently discontinue use of the air conditioning unit or move the
    unit to the rear of the property.
    DUPLICITOUS/FRIVOLOUS DETERMINATION
    Section 103.124(a) of the Board’s procedural rules, which implements Section 31(b) of
    the Act (415 ILCS 5/31(b) (1996)), provides that this matter shall be placed on the Board
    agenda for the Board’s determination as to whether or not the complaint is duplicitous or
    frivolous. This section further states that if the complaint is duplicitous or frivolous, the Board
    shall enter an order setting forth its reasons for so ruling and shall notify the parties of its
    decision. If the Board rules that the complaint is not duplicitous or frivolous, this does not
    2
    preclude the filing of motions regarding the insufficiency of the pleadings. 35 Ill. Adm. Code
    103.124(a).
    An action before the Board is duplicitous if the matter is identical or substantially
    similar to one brought in another forum. Brandle v. Ropp (June 13, 1985), PCB 85-68. An
    action before the Board is frivolous if it requests relief which the Board could not grant. Lake
    County Forest Preserve District v. Neil Ostro, Janet Ostro, and Big Foot Enterprises (July 30,
    1992), PCB 92-80. The Board finds that, pursuant to Section 103.124(a), the complaint is
    neither duplicitous nor frivolous and will be accepted for hearing.
    OUTSTANDING PLEADINGS
    The Board has received a number of pleadings in this matter. The pleadings commence
    with a timely filed response to the complaint, and continue with replies to the response and to
    each subsequently filed reply. No objection to the filing of any pleading has been received,
    and the Board accepts all pleadings.
    At this time, only one issue raised in the pleadings requires the Board’s attention. In
    the response to the complaint, Ghalayini requests to wait until the weather is warmer in order
    to determine the level of noise produced by the air conditioning unit. In their March 2, 1998,
    reply, the Kanaverskis assert that it is necessary to proceed to hearing in a timely manner. The
    Board agrees that this matter should proceed to hearing in a timely fashion consistent with
    Board practice. The timeframes inherent in the process should provide the respondent ample
    time to investigate the noise coming from the air conditioning unit. Thus, the Board orders
    this matter to proceed to hearing in accordance with standard Board procedure.
    CONCLUSION
    As noted, the Board accepts this matter for hearing. The hearing must be scheduled
    and completed in a timely manner consistent with Board practices. The Board will assign a
    hearing officer to conduct hearings consistent with this order and Section 103.125 of the
    Board’s rules (35 Ill. Adm. Code 103.125). The Clerk of the Board shall promptly issue
    appropriate directions to that assigned hearing officer.
    The assigned hearing officer shall inform the Clerk of the Board of the time and
    location of the hearing at least 30 days in advance of hearing so that a 21 day public notice of
    hearing may be published. After hearing, the hearing officer shall submit an exhibit list, a
    statement regarding credibility of witnesses, and all actual exhibits to the Board within five
    days of the hearing.
    Any briefing schedule shall provide for final filings as expeditiously as possible.
    If, after appropriate consultation with the parties, the parties fail to provide an acceptable
    hearing date or if, after an attempt the hearing officer is unable to consult with the parties, the
    hearing officer shall unilaterally set a hearing date. The hearing officer and the parties are
    encouraged to expedite this proceeding as much as possible.
    3
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, hereby certify that
    the above order was adopted on the 2nd day of April 1998, by a vote of 6-0.
    Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top