q:'
    ESH:psvr
    46417-7A
    REFORE
    THE
    LAND
    AND
    LAI.GS
    COMPANY.
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    \X/ILL
    COUNTY BO,{RD
    ANID
    WASTE MANAGEMENT
    OF
    ILLINOIS,INC
    Respondents.
    TO:
    See
    attached Senrice
    List
    RFcErv.E:cb
    NI
    PRK,S
    OFFTCE
    RD
    MRY
    051999
    STATE
    OF
    ILLINOIS
    Poilutlon
    Cantrol
    Board
    PCB 99-r39
    (Pollution
    Control
    Facility
    Siting Appeal)
    NOTICE
    OF'F'ILINC
    PLEASE TAKE
    NOTICE
    that on
    the
    Stb
    day
    ot'
    l\{ay,
    1999, there was filed with
    the
    Pollution
    Control
    Board,
    State
    of
    lliinois,
    certain Land
    and
    Lakes'
    Response
    to
    tlre County
    Board's Motion for
    More Definite
    Statemcnt.
    LAND
    AND LAKES COMPANY
    BY:
    STATE OF
    ILLINOIS
    COT'NTY
    OF
    COOK
    )
    this
    59
    day
    of
    h,{ay,19)9,
    UBLTC
    J.
    Maher
    Elizabeth
    S.
    I{arvey
    llcKenna, Storer,
    Rowe,
    200 North
    LaSalle $iroet,
    Chicago,
    Illinois
    50601
    I 12"5J0-J?00
    Fo,",-n"l
    Ltlut
    )
    )SS
    The unclersigned,
    being
    first
    duly
    sworn
    on oath, deposes
    and states that
    the
    foregoing
    Notice
    of Filing and
    Land
    and
    Lakes'Response
    referred
    to therein
    on the
    Sft
    day
    of Mny,
    1999.
    was
    hand-delivered
    to
    Mr. John lfuittle,
    faxed
    to
    Ms.
    Christine Zeman
    and
    mailed
    to
    all other
    persons
    on
    the attached service
    list.
    ,'OFFICiAL
    SEAL.,
    ,JACQUELYN
    F. GANNON
    ^TARY
    PUELIC,
    sTATE
    OF
    ILLII.IO]s
    .iJMlssl0N
    EXPIRES
    31
    13
    I
    2002
    White & Farrug
    Suite
    3ooo
    S
    Harvey
    Subscribed
    and
    sworn
    to before
    me
    TK(S
    NOCUMANT
    JD
    FILEP
    {)N
    RECVCLED
    PAPER
    qq*",
    ::earu.
    W
    $sp*FJ:{'P#
    9gPj;'l::
    rlN
    S,ls"
    '*
    N\hY
    \
    u$t:;:**ii,1""**
    ,?-$ill'F;'
    col{feo1'-"SS
    S;;r:$?':
    tolr'$
    ou*t'
    o^-
    n6g
    sot$ols
    vt'
    -
    gTlt9s\*
    tsT,$oBS"r*"-
    ouoB}'S
    \
    \
    uffi"**
    ieirtro"-
    )
    rt$
    ^..{."t*$$:$'
    \
    *oo"*dol
    )
    )
    ffcosrs$'*'
    ?etrtroner'
    ^<1
    \
    -^$trS),l
    )
    "^**':^f3i$$b"'1\iv'
    \
    s*l:**k,
    \
    ,conl;$\"'itr
    6*Ko$tcKl'
    .
    ecaj*ott
    \
    e"iX$.:";"
    ?eirtiorrer'
    ft
    sti::::;'
    ?etrt''
    )
    ,,0.r
    H$l
    )
    i'
    rrs'
    '-"
    sol*Sbit'n*
    t''
    \ti
    ^"NT{
    lXi
    p--
    r'ri
    -.,
    COQg1
    of
    t
    ,\
    \i
    3.
    4.
    LAND
    AND LAKES COMPANY
    (LALC),
    by its
    attorneys,
    hereby
    respotrds to
    respondent Tfm WILL
    COUNTY
    BOARD's
    (County
    Board) "Motion to
    Make More
    Definite
    the
    Petition
    for Review
    of
    Land
    and
    Lakes
    Company".
    l.
    The County Board contends that LALC's
    petition
    foi re.lriewr
    lacks
    suflicient
    detail
    to
    allow the
    County
    Board to
    prepare
    its
    def'ense.
    The County
    Board
    cites
    Section
    103J22(c) of the
    Board's
    proceduralnrles
    in
    support
    of
    its
    position.
    Initially, it must
    be
    noted
    that
    Section
    103.122(c) of the
    rSoard's
    rules applies to
    enforcemerrt cases,
    not
    to appeals of
    pcllution
    control
    faciiity siting decisions.
    The
    Board's
    current
    procedural
    rules
    do
    not
    address siting
    appeals.
    The County
    Board
    asks that
    LALC be ordercd to
    "state
    facts on whic.h
    it
    bases
    its
    conclusion that
    the
    siting
    process
    was
    fundamentally
    unfair
    and which criteria
    it contends
    were
    not
    satisfied."
    (Motion, page
    4.)
    LALC
    has no
    objection to
    making
    its
    petition for review more
    definite,
    and
    will file
    an
    amended
    petition.
    However,
    LALC
    does
    object
    to any claim
    by
    the County
    Board
    that
    LAI-C
    must state
    all
    facts
    in support of
    its claim
    of
    funciamental unfairness.
    As
    the
    Board
    noted
    in
    another
    siting appeal,
    Illinois does
    not
    require a
    petitioner
    to
    plead
    all facts
    specifically
    in
    the
    petition, but
    to set
    out ultimate
    facts
    which support
    his
    cause of action.
    Sierra Club
    v.
    City
    pf
    Wood
    Rivpr
    (November
    6,1997), PCB 98-43,
    1997
    V|L728179.
    *2.
    Pleading
    requirements
    for
    administrative
    review are less
    exacting than
    for
    other
    t
    LALC's
    petition
    for
    review was fiied with the Board
    on April
    7,
    1999, not oir
    April
    i2, 1999 as
    alleged by
    the County
    Board. The date of
    filing is importarrt
    because
    a
    petition
    for
    review
    filed on
    April 12,
    1999 would have been
    filed more
    than
    35
    days after the
    County
    Board's decision.
    it
    .-
    +
    ;,
    lra
    u;.
    ,
    -z-
    ,__,_&
    ).
    causes
    of aciion.
    Irl. To require
    all
    facts
    to be
    pled
    in the
    petition for revierv
    would
    negate the
    value
    of discovery, which is on-going
    in
    this
    case under
    the
    hearing officer's
    scheduling
    directions.
    LALC
    does not
    wish
    to
    turn this motion
    into
    a
    battle
    o.rer the
    specificity
    rvith which
    facts
    must be
    pled.
    LAL,C rvill amend
    its
    petition
    for review
    to
    identi$ the
    speoific
    oriteria
    i;
    believes
    were
    not
    satisfied,
    and to
    plea.d
    ultimate
    facts to support
    its belieithat
    the siting
    process
    was
    not fundanrentally
    fair. Because Ciscovery
    is
    orrgoing
    urntil
    May
    27,
    1999,
    hovrever,
    LALC
    reserves
    its right
    io
    seek
    leave
    to
    further amend
    its
    petition
    {br
    review
    based upon the
    information
    gathered
    through
    the discovery
    process.
    LALC
    will file
    an
    amended
    petition
    for
    revierv no
    later
    than
    May
    I l,
    1999,
    or
    as otherwise
    directed by
    the Board.
    Respectfu
    Ily
    submi
    tted,
    LAND
    AND
    LAKES COMPANY
    6.
    Elizabeth S.
    Harvey
    McKenna, Storer,
    Rolve, White
    &
    Farrug
    200
    N. LaSalle
    Street,
    Suite
    3000
    Chicago,
    IL
    60601
    3 l2l558-3900
    S.
    Harvey
    of
    its Attorn
    -3-

    Back to top