BTL/1/8/04
Attorney No. 90068
STATE OF ILLNOIS
COUNTY OF COOK
RECE~VE~
)
SS.
rj~
8
2004
b~M~
BEFORE THE ILLiNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARI~)LW11ONCONTRoL BOA~
N/lORRY GABEL, MYRA GABEL,
)
DON FOREMAN, MARSHA FOREMAN,
)
KEITH
PiNS
ONEAULT and TRACY PINSONEATJLT.
)
)
Complainant,
)
vs.
THE WEALSRTRE, INC., an
ILLINOIS CORPORATION.
)
)
Respondent.
)
NOTICE OF
FILING
)
)
No. PCB 03-38
)
BradleyP. Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suite
11-500
100 WestRandolph Street
Chicago, IL 60601
Mitchell S. Feinberg
Chuhak & Tecson, P.C.
30 South Wacker Drive
Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60606
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that
on the
8th
day of January,
2004,
there was filed with
the
Illinois Pollution Control Board Respondent’s Answers And Objections To Complainants’ First Set
OfInterrogatories, a copy ofwhich is attached and herewith served upon you.
Bruce T. Logan
Ash, Anos, Freedman & Logan, L.L.C.
77 West Washington Street
Chicago, IL 60602
312-346-1389
Attorneys forRespondent
THE WEALSHIRE, INC.
L~T~11~
Anos,
AFFIDAVIT
OF SERVICE
The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath, deposes and says that she served the above
and
foregoing
Notice of Filing
and
Answers
And
Objections
To
Complainants’
First
Set
Of
linterrogatories
by mailing a copy ofeachpleading to:
BradleyP. Halloran
Mitchell S. Feinberg
Hearing Officer
Chuhak & Tecson, P.C.
Illinois Pollution Control Board
30 South Wacker Drive
James R. Thompson Center
Suite 2600
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60606
100 WestRandolph Street
FAX 312-444-9027
Chicago, IL 60601
FAX 312-814-3669
and depositing same in the U.S. Mail Chute at 77
West Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602,
at 5:00 P.M.
on January
8, 2004, with proper postage prepaid.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this
ofJanuary, 2004
BTL/1/7/04
Attorney No. 90068
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
COUNTY OF COOK
ss.
~ECE~VED
STATE OF ILLINOIS
8
2004
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
~
100W. RANDOLPH STREET, SUITE 11-500
POWJT~ONCONTROL
BOARO
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601
MORRY GABEL, MYRA GABEL,
)
DON FOREMAN, MARSHA FOREMAN,
)
KEITH PINSONEAULT and TRACY PINSONEAULT.
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
vs.
)
No. PCB 03-38
)
THE WEALSTIRE,
INC., an
)
ILLINOIS CORPORATION.
)
)
Respondent.
)
)
ANSWERS
AN)
OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINANTS’
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
NOW
COMES the Respondent, TIlE WBALSHIRE, INC.,
an Illinois Corporation, and
in
response to the Complaintants’ First Set OfInterrogatories, states under oath, as follows:
1.
Please identif~’
all persons who assisted with the preparation of your responses to
these Interrogatories, whom you or your attorney(s) or other agents consulted in the preparation
of your responses to
the Interrogatories, andlor who otherwise provided
any information used in
the preparation of your responses to
these Interrogatories,
and
indicate the Interrogatories with
which each such person assisted or was consulted or provided information.
ANSWER:
Arnold
Goldberg
and
Ralph
Chapman,
The
Wealshire,
Inc.,
150
Jamestown Lane, Lincoinshire, IL 60069
2.
Please provide the acquisitionlpurchase price ofthe Wealshire, Inc.
ANSWER:
The
Wealshire
is
an
operating
corporation
that
did
not
purchase
the
facility.
3.
What was the date of closing for the purchase of the Wealshire, Inc. and the date
the Wealshire, Inc. first began operating?
ANSWER:
The Wealshire was never purchased or sold.
Its business is the operation
of the care facility for Alzheimer’s patients.
4.
Please
provide
the
dimensions
of
each
building
or
structure
located
on
Respondent’s
business premises.
ANSWER:
A)
Wealshire
75,418 sq. ft.
1st floor and basement
B)
Ponds
86,138 sq. ft.
1st
and 2”~’floors
5.
Please specifically identify under what property classification The Wealshire, Inc.
is zoned.
ANSWER:
The property is zoned PUD Commercial in the Village ofLincoinshire.
6.
Please provide Complainant with a written timetable listing the time of day each
ofthe air conditioning units complained of arerunning over the course of a year.
ANSWER:
There
is
no
written timetable
for the
operation of the
air cooling
units.
The air
conditioning
system
is
winterized
and
is
not
brought
online
until the
spring.
The
air
conditioning
units were
serviced and
the
winterizing antifreeze
material
that
was put
into
the
lines in
2002
was
removed by
outside service on
June 19,
2003.
Following the filing of the
formal
Complaint
in
this
cause,
the
entire
operation of the
air
conditioning
equipment
was
changed
from
manual
to
automatic
controls,
which
were
thermostatically
set
to
run
on
a
temperature range of
750
+1-
2°. This means the temperature range within the facility is 3°to
5°
higher than in prior years when the system was manually operated.
In the fall of2003, the system was winterized on October 28, 2003.
This occurs when the
staff determines the likelihood ofcontinued frost and is not scheduled in advance.
-2-
7.
Identify every noise
source
on
your property which
can be heard or detected
at
any location outside any of the buildings or structures located on yourproperty.
(a)
If the
noise
source
is
mechanical,
identify
the machine by
type, manufacturer,
model, serial number, and the purpose for which each such machine is used, and
state the times
at
which
each
such
machine
is
operated,
and
the
date
upon
which
each
such
machine
was
installed, and where each is located.
ANSWER:
The
Wealshire does not
have
a
survey of its
equipment that
allows
it to
respond to Interrogatory No.
7.
Besides the air conditioning cooling
system on the north side of
the building, which faces the Complainants’ property, there is
an air conditioning system on the
south side ofthe building.
The entire Wealshire site consists ofapproximately
18
acres and the
total
square
foot
of the
structures
on
the
site approximates
161,000
sq.
ft.
In the
past,
the
Complainants’ neighbors have complained ofnoise
from the hoist used to raise the flags
on the
flagpole
on
the
northwest
quadrant
of the
property.
Measures
were
taken
to
eliminate
the
complained ofnoise in the hoist lines.
8.
Please provide
Complainants with
a
list of those
measures
taken to
reduce the
noise ofthe air conditioning units complained of, including, but not limited to
any modifications
made by the Wealshire, Inc. to stop any sound from escaping from any air conditioning units.
ANSWER:
Based
on
the
O’Neill
recommendations,
The
Wealshire
began
remedial
modification during the pendency ofthe claim, including the following:
1.
The
entire
operation of the air conditioning equipment was changed from
manual
controls
to
automatic
controls,
which
were
thermostatically
set
to
run
on
the
temperature range of
730,
plus
or minus 2°. This
means the temperature range within the
facility is
30
to
5°
higherthan in prior years.
2.
Hill Mechanical was hired to check all ofthe air conditioning equipment and
anything needing attention or repairs was repaired.
This included repair to CompressorNo.
2 and changes to
the fan and blade.
This was completed around June 24, 2003.
3.
A
formal
assessment
was made of the
system
by
O’Neill.
Their
initial
recommendations were
contrary of the
local
zoning ordinances and
would have taken
an
extensive
amount
of time
to
implement,
because of the need
to
petition the Village
of
Linconshire
for variances to its building code.
4.
O’Neill
then recommended the
installation of a
sound
insulation
blanket
system.
This
system was purchased from
O’Neill
and
the installation
was completed on
July
18, 2003.
O’Neill’s testing showed a reducednoise level.
-3-
5.
Noise absorption panels with mylar exterior covering sound insulation were
applied
to
the
north
inside
walls
of
the
masonry
structure
in
October
of
2003,
as
recommended by O’Neill.
6.
In November of2003,
a 28” deflecting shield was mounted above the
8
1/2’
masonry
wall
enclosure
on
the
north
side.
This
shield was
constructed
according
to
O’Neill’s
specifications.
9.
Have
you or anyone on
your behalf prepared or obtained an estimate for the
cost
of relocating the air conditioner(s) at issue to the opposite side ofthe Wealshire, Inc. (the side not
bordering
residential
properties)?
If
the
answer
is
in
the
affirmative,
please
provide
the
company/individual providing the estimate, as well as the estimated cost
ANSWER:
Not at this time.
10.
Have
you
or anyone
on
your behalf obtained plans
and
specifications
(or, if
a
product by
a
specific manufacturer,
the name ofthe manufacturer and the product designation)
for any
sound barriers
or other devices that
would
affirmatively
reduce all
noise
violations
to
levels not in violation ofcurrent laws? If your answer is in the affirmative,
describe the nature of
such sound barriers or other devices.
ANSWER:
We
have
produced
the
O’Neill
Engineered
materials
concerning
the
potential for reducing the noise
to
acceptable levels.
The revised recommendations,
which
are
identified in Answer to Interrogatory No. 8 above, have been followed by The Wealshire.
11.
Please provide Complainants with copies of any written instructions on measures
to reduce the noise of the air conditioning units complained of.
ANSWER:
The O’Neill materials have been provided.
12.
Please specifically identify every sound level measurement taken on your property
or
elsewhere of any
sound
or
noise
of
any
kind
which
emitted
from
The
Wealshire,
Inc.’s
property,
the date and time
such measurements were taken, who took
such measurements,
each
other person who was present when such measurements
were
taken, the manner in which
such
measurements were
taken (including what type of equipment was used and what methods were
used to take such measurements), the sound or noise levels recorded by such measurements,
any
other results of such measurements,
and whether such measurements were written or otherwise
recorded and, if so, who is
in possession ofsuchwritings or recordings.
-4-
ANSWER:
The O’Neill Engineered materials have been provided.
13.
Please
state
what
Respondent
contends
is
a
reasonable
amount
of noise
(in
decibels or other uniform measurement) for it to produce at its Lincoinshire location.
ANSWER:
The Wealshire believes
its
remedial measures have
significantly
reduced
the noise emanating from its premises.
O’Neill Engineered has indicated the Complainants own
air conditioning units may be
violative ofthe current Board standards.
O’Neill Engineered has
informed us that the noise
level will be significantly reduced by the remedial measures taken by
The Wealshire.
The Wealshire intends to take further measurements when the units are put back
on line in the spring of2004.
14.
Please state whether your expert witness has offered any
alternative measures to
reduce
the
decibel level
from
the
Wealshire,
Inc.’s
air
conditioning
units,
including,
but
not
limited
to
the
measures
suggested,
the
cost
of implementing
such measures
and
whether the
Respondent or its experts have made any inquiries to the manufacturer, Trane, as to whether such
modifications would be acceptable.
ANSWER:
Yes.
O’Neill
Engineered
has
made
recommendations.
The
recommendations
are
contained
in
the
materials
produced.
All
of
O’Neill’s
revised
recommendations have been implemented by The Wealshire.
15.
Has
anyone
complained
to
you,
in
writing
or
orally,
about
noise
from
your
facility? Ifso, provide the name, address and phone number of each such person, and provide the
date and contents of each such complaint.
ANSWER:
In the past there have
been various
complaints
as noted concerning
the
hoisting
lines
for
the
flagpole
on
the
property’s
northwest
quadrant.
The
name
of
the
complainant
is not known.
In the sum of 2001,
a lawyer sent a letter saying there was too much
noise
from the air conditioners,
but did not
send anything to
support the claim,
also,
at various
times
there have been complaints by property
owners on the north that
delivery trucks
allowed
their engines to idle too long and measures were taken to
correct those complaints, but the names
ofthe complainants are not known.
-5-
16.
Is
Respondent
aware
of anyone
complaining
to
any
governmental
agency,
in
writing or orally,
about the noise
from Respondent’s
facility? If so, provide the
name, address
and
phone
number
of each
such
person,
and
provide
the
date
and
contents
of
each
such
complaint.
ANSWER:
As
stated in
the
answer to
Interrogatory No.
15
above, there
have been
noise complaints
to
the Lincolnshire Police
about
idling delivery vehicles.
It
is unknown who
made such complaints.
17.
Identify
with
particularity
every
federal,
state
and
local
law,
ordinance
or
regulation which you contend applies to or governs the noise produced at your facility.
ANSWER:
Unknown.
18.
Have
you (or has anyone acting
on your behalf) had any conversations with any
person at any time with regard to
the manner in which the incidents complained ofoccurred, or
have you overheard any
statements made by any person at any
time with regard to
the damages
complained of by Petitioners
or the manner in which
the incidents complained of occurred?
If
the answer to this Interrogatory is in the affirmative,
state the following:
(a)
The name and address of each suchwitness;
(b)
The date or dates ofsuch conversations and/or statements;
(c)
The place ofsuch conversations and/or statements;
(d)
All persons present for the conversations and/or statements;
(e)
The
matters
and
things
stated
by
the
person
in
the
conversations
and/or
statements;
(f)
Whether the conversation was oral, written and/or recorded; and
(g)
Who has possession ofthe statement if written and/or recorded?
ANSWER:
No.
19.
Please list the names
and addresses of all
other persons (other than yourself and
persons heretofore listed) who have knowledge ofthe facts of the incidents complained ofand/or
any
other
allegations
contained in
Petitioners’
Complaint
and/or the
damages claimed to
have
resulted therefrom, and/or Respondent’s defenses to Petitioners’
claims.
ANSWER:
Arnold Goldberg,
Ralph
Chapman,
Tim
O’Neill
and staff
employees
of
O’Neill Engineered Systems.
-6-
20.
Please
provide
the name
and
address
of
each witness
who
will
testify
at
the
hearing ofthis matter and state the subject ofeach witness’ testimony.
ANSWER:
A.
Ralph Chapman will be called concerning remedial measures he undertook on the
recommendations of O’Neill Engineered Systems.
These are outlined above.
He will also testify
concerning the costs
incurred during the
course of the work.
He
may also
be
called to
testify
concerning the possible costs or feasibility of any recommendation made by the Complainants or
the Complainants’ expert concerning the suppression ofnoise.
B.
Arnold
Goldberg
may
be
called
concerning
the
operation
of the
mechanical
systems in
the building prior to
the employment of Ralph Chapman.
Other areas he may testify
to
are
dependent
upon
the
identification of the
Complainants’
claims
and
the
findings
and
recommendations ofthe Complainants’ expert.
C.
Timothy
F.
O’Neill,
O’Neill
Engineered
Systems.
It
is
anticipated
that
he
will
testify
that
the measures
taken will
significantly
reduce the
noise
emanating from
the chiller
units;
that
a noise
enclosure for the chiller units would be
contrary to
the recommendations of
Trane,
the manufacturer, and
that it would
be
cost prohibitive;
that the modifications
made by
The
Wealshire
represent
the
only
available
engineering
alternatives
given
the
zoning,
manufacturer’s specifications,
and
cost constraints.
He will be
asked to
evaluate the Greg Zak
test analysis and recommendations.
21.
Please
identify
any
statements, information and/or documents
or other evidence
known to
you
and
requested by
any
of the
foregoing
Interrogatories
or by
any
Request
for
Production propounded on you by Petitioners
which you claim
to be work product or subject to
any common
law or statutory privilege, and with respect to
each Interrogatory,
specify the legal
basis for the claim.
By~~,Xsh~Anos,
Free~i~I~L~an,
ANSWER:
None.
THE
-7-
Under penalties as provided pursuant to
735
ILCS
5/1-109, the undersigned certifies that
the statements sets
forth in this instrument are true and correct,
except as to matters
stated herein
to
be
on information
and belief,
and as to
such matters,
the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that
he verily believes
same to be true.
SIGNED this
I
~
day of January, 2004
RALPH CHAPMAN
Bruce T.
Logan
Ash, Anos, Freedman & Logan,
L.L.C.
77 West Washington Street
Chicago, IL 60602
312-346-1389
Attorneys for Respondent
-8-