ELECTRONIC FILING,
RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE, OCTOBER
27, 2005
BEFORE
THE JLLINt US
POl.l.UTION
CONTROl
BOARI)
KENNE’I’Ll
E. ~~1EDENIA,JR.
V
(‘niuplairiant,
TNT LOGISTICS
NORTH
AMERICA. INC.,
Respondent.
)
PCB
No. 05-220
(Enforcement Noise)
NOTICE
OF
FILING
TO:
Ms. Dorothy
M.
Gunn
Clerk of the Board
Illinois
Pollution Control
Board
100 West Randolph
St.
Suite
11-500
Chicago, II
6060
Bradley
P
Flallnran,
Fsq.
Headng ( )Ui cc
Illinois Pollution Control
Board
100 West
Randolph St.
Suite II -500
Chicago.
II.
6060
Edward W. Dwver
Thomas 0. Saucy
HODGE DWYER
ZEMAN
31St)
Roland
AVe.
P.O.
Box
5776
Springfield. II.
62705
PLEASE TAKE
NOTICE
that on
October
27,
2005,
NOLAN
LAW
OFFICE will file
with
the Office
of the
Clerk
of the Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
the
attached
Complainant
Kenneth
E.
Medema
Jr.’s
Answers
to
Aflirrnative
Defeys~(
copies
of which
are
attached
hereto
and hereby served
upon you.
Timothy M
Nolan,
Mary
A. Sullivan
NOLAN
LAW OFFICE
Attorneys lbr
Defendants
53
West Jackson Blvd.,
Suite
1137
Chicago. II.
60604-3702
(312) 322-I l00~Fax (312)322-1106
PROOF
OF
SERVICE
The
undersigned
attorney
certifies
that
this
notice
is
served
by
mailing
a
copy
to
each
person
to
whom
it
is
directed,
by
placing
a
cops
of
said
document
in
an
envelope
properly
addressed to
each
person above with
postage
prepaid
an
W.
Jackson Blvd..
Chicago, Illinois on October 27,
THIS
DOCUMENT PRINTED ON
RECYCLED PAPER
ELECTRONIC
FILING,
RECEIVED,
CLERK’S OFFICE, OCTOBER 27, 2005
HEFt IRE THE IllINOIS
P0111 ‘FION CONTROL
HOARI)
KENNETH
F.
\lFl)EMA,
JR.
Complainant,
)
V.
)
l’CI3
No. 05-220
(Enforcement Noise)
TNT LOGISTICS
NORTH AMEItl(A,
INC.,
)
Respondent.
ANSWERS TO AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
NOW
COMES
the
Complainant,
KENNE
Ill
F.
MEDEMA, JR.,
by
and through
his
attorneys.
\
)l
AN
LAW
OFFICE.
and
answering
Respondent’s
Affirmative
Defenses, states a,
t~IIows:
1.
I NI
operates the Facility
in
order
to warehouse and distribute
tires.
ANSWER:
Complainant
admits
the
allegations
set
forth
in
Respondent’s
Affirmative
Deknse
No.
1.
In
Iiirther
answering,
Complainant
states
the
affirmative
matter
asserted
herein,
by
itself or
in conjunction
with
the other affirmative
tnatter
set
forth
by
Respondent.
is
not
legally sufficient to constitute a defense herein.
2.
Irticks deliver
trailers
of tires to the
Facility.
ANSWIR:
Complainant
admits
the
allegations
set
forth
in
Respondent’s
Affirmative
DeIen~eNo.
2.
In
further
answering,
Complainant
states
the
affirmative
matter
asserted
herein,
by-
itself or
in
conjunction with
the
other affirmative
matter
set
forth
by Respondent
is
not
legally sufficient to constitute
a defense herein.
3.
1 Ni
does
not own or operate these trucks.
ANSWER:
Complainant
lacks
sufficient
knowledge
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
set
forth
in
Respondenfs
Affirmative
Defense
No.
3.
Notwithstanding,
Complainant
states
the affirmative matter asserted
herein, by itself or in conjunction
with
the
other
affirmative
matter set forth
by
Respondent.
is not legally sufficient to
constitute
a defense
herein
In
addition.
Complainant
states affirmatively that
Respondent controls
and directs the
use
and
operation of all trucks
at
and around
its facility’.
This document
p~
~edon recycted paper
ELECTRONIC FILING,
RECEIVED, CLERK’S OFFICE,
OCTOBER 27, 2005
ANSWER,:
Contplaiit:iiii
lacks
sufficient
kno\\ledL’e
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
set
Iorth
in
Respondents
:\fiirniatise
Defense
No.
3.
Notwithstanding.
Complainant states
the aliirmati\e
matter
asserted herein,
by
itself or in conjunction with
the other affirmative
matter
set
fi’rth
by Respondent.
is not lcgaII~sufficient to
constitute
a defense
herein.
In addition,
(
iiiplainant
states a
flrmativclv
that
Respondent controls
and directs the use and operatron
alt
trucks at and around
its
foci
Iit\.
4.
‘1 rucks also transport
trailers
of tires from
the
Facil itv.
ANSWER:
Complainant
admits
the
allegations
set
torth
in
Respondent’s
AfFirmative Defense
No.
4.
Notwithstanding. Complainant
states
the aflirmative
matter
asserted
herein,
by
itself or in
conj
unction
with
the other affirmative
matter set
fbrth
by
Respondent. is not legally
su Iticient
to
constitute
a
defense herein.
5.
NI’
does not owii or operate these trucks.
ANSWER:
Complainant
lacks
sufficient
knowledge
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
set
tbrth
in
Respondent’s
Affirmative
Defense
No.
5.
Notwithstanding.
Complainant
states the affirmative
matter asserted
herein,
by
itsel I or in conjunction with
the
other affirmative
matter set
forth
by
Respondent.
is not legally
sufficient
to constitute
a defense herein,
In
addition,
(‘oinpbainant
states affirmatively
that
Respondent controls
and directs thc
USC
and operation ot
all trucks
at and around
its facilit.
6.
Complainants
in
part
appear
to
allege
that noise from
these
trucks,
which
TNT does not own or operate,
has,
at
Complainant’s property.
violated
the numeric noise
limitations cited
by Complainants
in
Paragraph 5
of their Complaint.
ANSWER:
Complainant
stands
on
the
allegations
of
its
Complaint
and
the
provisions
of the Title
35
of
the
Illinois
Administrative
Code
cited
therein
and
further
states
that Respondent’s Atiirtnati~eDefense No.
6 provides
no
legally sufficient defense
thereto.
7.
‘Ni
has
no evidence
that this is the easeL
ANSWER:
Complainant
denies
the
allegations
set
forth
in
Respondent’s
Affirmative
Defense No.
7.
This document printed
on
recycled
paper
2
ELECTRONIC FILING,
RECEIVED,
CLERKS OFFICE, OCTOBER
27,
2005
8.
I
Ion ccci.
it
this
t~
tile
case.
Ha.
it
ilieced
violations
relating
to
trucks
which
‘l’N
I
d~
te
n
~
1
or
operate
dr
a
e~a
trite
violations
of
the numeric
noise
limitations h’
‘I
N
I
ANSWI l~
Complainant
denies
the
.tlleuations
set
forth
in
Respondent’s
Affirniative
I)etcnse
No.
8
and further
states
Iltat
relevant provisions
of ‘l’itle
35
of the
Illinois
Administrative
(‘ode
mandate
it
‘ise
len ci
limitations
from
~jjy
property—line—
noise—source
located
on
any
(‘lass
A,
It
or
land
to
any
receiving
Class
A
land.
“Property-line—noise-source”
is defined
at
~
Ill.
\dm.
(‘ode
900.101
as “~y equipment
or facility,
or conthiitatton thereof, which
operates within
any
land
used
as
specified
by
35
III.
Adm.
(
ode
000, It)
I
‘‘.
and
no
except
on
is
made
based
on
the
ownership of the
equipment
wh
icli
‘N rates
~ ii
hin
the Eu id
R es pectful lv submitted.
Not
~\.
MV
OFFICE
K)
NNE’l’II F. MEDEMA.
JR.
Timothy
M.
Nolan
Mary
Ann
Sullivan
NOLAN LAW 011
ICE
Attorneys
for
DcI~’ndants
53
West Jackson
Ulvd,.
Suite
1137
Chicago.
II.
60604.3702
(312) 322-1 100:
lax
(312) 322-I
306
This document prtnted
on
recycled paper
