(1[Bi
\
r
232003
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
STAft.
(W
LL1NOIS
Pollution
Control
Board
MILTON
and
VIRGINIA
KAMHOLZ
)
)
COMPLAINANTS
)
PCB
02-41
)
(Citizen’s
Enforcement
case Air,
Noise)
)
v.
)
)
LAWRENCE
and
MARIANE
SPORLEDER
)
)
)
RESPONDENTS
)
NOTICE
OF
FILING
To:
The Clerk
of
the Board
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
100 W.
Randolpph
Street
James
R
Thompson
Center
Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
To:
Bradley
0.
Halloran
Hearing
Officer
Illinois
Pollution Control
Board
100 W.
Randolph
Street
James
R
Thompson
Center
Suite 11-500
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
To:
Joseph
Gottemoller,
attorney for
the
Respondents
Madsen,
Sugden,
and
Gottemoller
One
North
Virginia
Street
Crystal
Lake,
Illinois 60014
(815)
459 5152
PLEASE
TAKE
NOTICE
that
I have today
filed
with
the
Office of the
Clerk of the
Pollution
Control
Board,
and to
Hearing
Officer
Bradley Halloran,
the Complainant’s
Reply Brief.
This
filing is
being
issued
by
the
Complainants,
Milton
and
Virginia
Kamholz,
and
is directed
to
the Board,
and to
Hearing
Officer
Bradley
Halloran.
A copy
is herewith
served
upon
you.
Milton
and
Virginia
Kaolz
, Compinants
Milton and
Virginia
Kamholz
1306
Sullivan
Rod
Woodstock,
Illinois 60098
(815)
568
6166
January 21,
2003
‘flN
1
Rfl
H!Hq
i1A\n
R fl
BEFORE
TNE
ILLiNOIS
POLLUTION
J[1’dLrü[b
CONTROL
BOARD
2
3
2003
)
S.a.tiE
OF
ILLINOIS
)
Pollution
Control
Board
MILTON
C. and
VIRGINIA
L. KAMHOLZ
)
)
Complainants
)
BCB
02-41
)
(Citizen’s
Enforcement-
Air,
Noise)
v.
)
)
LAWRENCE
and MARIANE
SPORLEDER
)
)
Respondents
)
)
COMPLAINANT’S
REPLY BRIEF
NOW
COME
the complainants,
MILTON
and
VIRGINIA
KAMHOLZ,
on their
own behalf,
to reply
to RESPONDENT’S
SUPPORTING
BRIEF,
and
in
support
of
their own position,
submit
the following
brief.
ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS
Complainants
allege
that the
Respondents
violated
Section
9 (a)
of the Environmental
Protection
Act,
(Act) (415
ILCS
5/9 (a),
(Act)
(415 ILCS
5/24 (2000),
and Sections
900.102,
900.102(a),
of the
Board
regulations.
(35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
900.102,
901.102(a).
These
alleged
violations occurred
due to the
riding
of dirt bikes,
ATVs,
go-carts,
a
truck,
and numerous
cars.
Section
9(a)
of
the
Act, states,
No person
shall cause or
threaten
or
allow
the discharge
or
emission of
any
contaminant
into
the
environment
in
any
state,
so
as to
cause
or tend
to cause air
pollution
in Illinois.
415 ILCS
5/9
(a)
(2000)
Section
3.02 of
the
Act defines
“air
pollution”
as: The presence
in
the
atmosphere
of one
or
more contaminants
in
sufficient
quantities and
of such characteristics
and duration
as to be
injurious to
human,
plant, or
animal
life, to health,
or
to property,
or
to
unreasonably
interfere
with
the
enjoyment of
life
or property.
415 ILCS
5/3.02
(2000)
2
Section
900.102
of the
Board
regulations
provides
that:
No person
shall cause
or
allow the
emission
of sound
beyond
the boundaries
of
his
property,
as
property
is
defined
in
Section
25
of the
(Act),
so
as
to
cause
noise
pollution
in
Illinois,
or
so as
to
violate
any
provision
of
this Chapter.
35 ILL.
Adm.
Code
90 1.102.
Section
900.101
of the Board
regulations
defmes
“noise
pollution”
as:
The
emission
of
sound that
unreasonably
interferes
with
the
enjoyment
of
life
or with
any lawful
business
or
activity.
35
III.
Adm.
Code
900.101
Section
901.102(a)
of
the
Board”s
regulations
prohibits
emitting
sound
above
numeric
limits
during
daytime
hours
from
a
source
on
Class
A, B,
or
C land
to any
receiving
Class
A
land. See
Ill.
Adm
Code
901.102(a)
FACTS
A formal
complaint
containing
these
alleged
violations,
was served
upon
the
Respondents
on November
11, 2001.
The
Board
accepted
the
complaint,
and
on November
19,
2002,
a
hearing
was held.
The
Complainants
decided
not
to
file
a
brief,
however
the Respondents
did
file
one.
The following
is
our response
to
their
brief,
and
to
their
alleged
established
facts.
Page 3,
Paragraph
1, under
FACTS,
MR.
GOTTEMOLLER,
respondents
attorney,
states
that
the 1993
Polariis
350
ATV,
is
a
required
piece
of
machinery,
needed
for
maintenance
purposes.
REPLY
By saying
nothing
more
than this
about
the ATV,
he
implies
that this
is
the
main and
only
purpose
for this
vehicle.
Complainants
allege
that this
ATV
is used
once
or
twice a
year for
maintenance
purposes,
and the
rest
of
the time
it
is
used by
the grandson
to
rod around
on,
as
he desires.
Kamholz
made
numerous
attempts
to
establish
this
fact.
Tr.
275,
291, 292.
As
the
videos
show,
the ATVs
are
ridden
often, and
are
responsible
for
much
of the noise,
dust,
and
smelly
exhaust
fumes,
that are
being complained
about.
It
is
obviously
a
desired
piece
of
equipment,
not
a required
piece
of
equipment.
3
MR.
GOTTEMOLLER
also states
that the surrounding landowners
use similar vehicles,
ride them
in
the
ditch line parallel
with
Sullivan
Road,
and asks SPORLEDER
if KAMHOLZ complains
about them.
(Tr.
285, and 286) SPORLEDER
answers
on line
7, and adds,
“nor
the neighbors to the north
who has a
dirt bike”
REPLY:
Here
again he
implies
something that does not
exist the way it
is intended
to
make one
believe. The
Kamholzs’
haven’t ever complained
because
there’s
simply nothing to complain
about.
There
are no
violations of the
law involved. The west
neighbor is
a 68
acre farm, and an ATV
drives past in the
ditch
line
once or twice a year.
They do
not rod
around. The north neighbor
owns a dirt
bike,
but doesn’t ride it.
SPORLEDER
tries to paint a
different picture.
Page 3,
Paragraph
2, contains
four misleading
statements. It reads: Further
, it was
established that over the
past sixteen years,
SPORLEDER
allowed their
grandchild
to
operate mini-bikes
and
motorcycles
on their
own
property. That the
vehicles were
factory
built(Tr287).
The time allowed
for said
operation
was set
by
SPORLEDER from
11:00 am to 8:00
p.m.
and
that the
grandchild
owns
one
dirt bike at the
time
of hearing.
Tr256)
In addition, it
was undisputed
that
SPORLEDER has not
allowed the
use
of any truck
or
car
on the
property
itself since 1997.
REPLY
The use of the
word grandchild,
implies one
small child. It should read
grandchildren,
other family
members, and
friends. Only
mini- bikes and motorcycles
are
mentioned
as
the vehicles
ridden over the past
16 years.
For the
record, it’s
been
dirt bikes, ATVs, go carts,
a
truck and
a couple of
cars.
Mini bikes
haven’t been
ridden
over there for a long time.
“Vehicles
are
factory
built” is a true
enough statement,
but
we
still question
the
extremely
high
decibel readings
on
the
ATV?
(Exhibit # 15,
and
video tape.
)
The
time
allowed for
riding was 10:00 am,
not
11:00 am.
The 11:00
am
time
stated
by
MRS.
SPORLEDER,
(Tr
255)
was an
error,
and gave
us an hour
of reliefthat we
never really got. MR.
SPORLEDER
states
10:00
am
which is
correct, (Tr.299)
The fact that the
grandchild owns
1 dirt bike at time of
hearing. (Tr
256)
implies
again
that
we are talking about a child
instead of a
21 year old adult
man. One
dirt
bike
implies
that
this is the only
vehicle this person
rides.
Our
video
shows different.
The truck has
not been
driven
on the
property
since
1997,
but not because MR.
SPORLEDER
disallowed it. It
was
simply
because
the
grandson
that drove it
turned 16 in
June
of 1997,
and got a
driver’s
license. The
offense still
occurred, and
was
stated in
the
complaint
because it was a part of
the ongoing violations
of that time
period. It also
shows
a pattern
of
behavior.
4
PAGE
3, PAR
3 states
SPORLEDER
testified
that
their grandson
would
educate
himself
by
working
on
the dirt
bikes
and
br trucks,
and
by doing
so,
he
would
learn
how to
fix
motors,
and learn
other
mechanical
skills (Tr253)
and that
they
allowed
the
riding
so that
their grandson
would
keep
out of
trouble
(Tr 270-27
1 and
because
of
the rural
nature
of
the
area,
there
was not
of other
activity
for an
adolescent
(Tr.286)
REPLY:
In SPORLEDER’S
attempts
to justify
their
grandson’s
activity,
KAMHOLZ
can
only
refer
to
the fact
that their
grandson
quit school
as soon
as
he turned
16.
(Tr
83) If education
was so important
to
the
SPORLEDERS,
it
seems he
would have
finished
his
education
in school.
That
also would
help
to
keep
him
out of trouble.
There
are
many activities
in
rural
areas, this
was just
their
choice. SPORLEDERS
tried
to
make
his riding
appear to
be about
learning,
instead
of fun
and frolic.
KAMHOLZ
objected
to this
questioning
(Tr
251-252-253-
and 254).
Whether
he was
learning
or
not, had
nothing
to
do with
the
way
he
rodded
around
the property.
It had
nothing
to do with
the
noise,
dust,
and smelly
exhaust
fumes
he
was
creating.
PAGE
3,
LAST
PAR.;
states
After
receiving
the
KAMHOLZ
complaint,
and
learning
that
an
action
was
pending,
the
grandson
has
not
ridden
a dirt
bike
or
ATV on
the property.
Further,
SPORLEDER
attempted
to
resolve
the
alleged
problem
by
restricting
the
riding of
dirt
bikes
and ATVs
so
that the riding
(
PAGE
4)
avoided
the abutting
corner
of the
KAMHOLZ
property.
Additionally,
evergreen
trees
were
planted
to
buffer
the sound
of the
vehicles.
(Tr 259-260)
SPORLEDER
testified
that the
riding
did
not
cause
noise,
which
bothers
them
(Tr 286),
and that
SPORLEDER
entertained
guests
while
the
riding
took place
(Tr 288-
89)
REPLY:
The
riding
did continue
after
the
complaint
was
received
as seen
on video
# 3.
The complaint
was
served
upon
the
SPORLEDERS
by
messenger,
on November
11, 2001.
This
is
a matter
of record,
even
though
SPORLEDERS
still
maintain
that
it
was
not served
until
December.
The
riding stopped
for
the
winter,
in 2001,
and
did
not resume
in
2002.
There
was
absolutely
no
attempt
to resolve
the alleged
problem
by
restricting
the
riding
to
avoid
the abutting
corner
of
the
Kamholz
property..
Video
shows
this.
Exhibit
#
13,
the diagram
of the
properties,
shows
the
diagonal
path,
and
it states
right
on there,
that
sometimes
the
boys
ride
in
that
direction.
It’s
always
been
that
way, and
they
did it on
their own.
High
decibel
readings
(Tr 218,222,223,
and
exhibit
#
15
)
shows
that
the
diagonal
path didn’t
,and
wouldn’t
make
a difference
in
the
noise.
MR.
ZAK
testified
that
the noise
distance
of
75
A weighted
300 to
400
feet
away,
and
as
high
as 90 close
to the
property
line
.(Tr
218)
He speaks
of
noise
variations
in (Tr
221-222-
5
Top
of
Page
4 con’t
and
223)
The
wide range
of
readings
take
in
SPORLEDER’S
entire
property.
MR.
and
MR
SPORLEDER
both
testified
that
evergreens
were
planted
to
buffer
the
noise.
(Tr
259-260
301-302.)
There
are
4 evergreens
approximately
8 feet
tall,
and
another
6 tiny
evergreens
approximately
3
feet tall.
The first
row
was planted
In 1997,
and
were
about
3
feet
tall
at the
time.
They are
now
8
feet.
The
second
row
was
planted
in
2000.
They
are
now 3
feet tall.
I
video
from
my
window,
and
I had
a clear
view
of the
riding.
If
the line
of vision
is
not obscured,
the
path
of
sound
waves
will
not
be obscured.
Please
see
exhibit
# 14,
Photos
#23
, 26,
and 29.,
taken
in 2001...
These
trees
are
not
a sound
barrier
by any
stretch
of the
imagination,
but
definitely
misleading
testimony.
Page
4
Par. 2
states:
In
their
complaint,
KAMHOLZ
complained
that the
alleged
violations
were
on
a
continued
basis
since
1993.
Testimony
revealed
that
they
have not
spoken
with
SPORLEDER
since
1993
(Tr
248)
Moreover
it
was
in
1993
that Kamholz
complained
that
SPORLEDER
had
improperly
burned
material
in
violation
of County
Code.
(Tr
248)
REPLY
(Tr
248-249)
MRS
SPORLEDER
states
that
our
last
conversation
was in
1993
when the
burning
STARTED.
This
is wrong.
Our
conversation
stopped
when
the
burning
STOPPED,
which
was
in JULY
of
1995.
There
were
still
many
conversations
between
1993
and
1995.
Many
were
to
request
that
MR.
SPORLEDER
please
stop
burning
noxious
smelling
materials.
(Tr
26 1-262-263-264-265-292
293 294)
The
alleged
violations
listed
in
our complaint
did
start
in 1993,
(Question
# 7 of
the Complaint)
however
they
were
not
of
a
serious
nature
until
1995
with
the
arrival
of
the
first
dirt
bike.
Burning
was
not
an issue
in our
complaint
because
that
was
settled
by
the
McHenry
County
Health
Department.
We
didn’t
even
know at
that
time
that
we
were going
to
have
a
dirt
bike
and
ATV
problem
in
the near
future.
The
burning
issue was
resolved
before
the dirt
bike
came.
SPORLEDERS
stopped
speaking
to KAMHOLZS,
when
the
county
made
them
stop
burning.
That
had
nothing
to
do
with this
complaint.
PAGE
4 Par
3
states:
Further
testimony
showed
that
KAMHOLZ
made
no
attempt
to
contact
SPORLEDER
and resolve
the
alleged
riding
problem.
(Tr
289) Moreover,
SPORLEDER
testified
on cross
examination
by
KAMHOLZ
that
they
would
have
stopped
the riding
if KAMHOLZ
had
contacted
SPORLEDER (Tr
269)
REPLY:
6
Page 4 Par.
3con’t
REPLY:
KAMHOLZ
maintains
that
SPORLEDER
did indeed
know
of the problem.
It’s
a
matter
of record that
MRS SPORLEDER
signed
for
a registered letter
on August
10,
1996, which
spelled
it all
out
for them.
The letter
told them
that their
noise was driving
the KAMHOLZS’
crazy, and
asked
them to please
stop.
(See exhibit
#
6, the
letter, with
signed
receipt.)
MRS
SPORLEDER
testified
to
MR.
GOTFEMOLLER,
that KAMHOLZ
never
contacted them.
SPORLEDER
states that if
KAMHOLZ
would
have called,
and
tried talking
in a nice manner,
SPORLEDER
would have
had
them stop riding
over there. (Tr 258).
SPORLEDER
DIDN’T
HAVE
THE DIRT
BIKE iN 1993.
The noise was
not an issue in 1993.
That was
the burning
time period,
and
phone calls
didn’t
help that
situation.
SPORLEDER
S stopped speaking
to
KAMHOLZS
after
the County
Health
Department
made them
stop burning
in July of 1995, and
that was
the
reason for
the
letter rather than
a
phone
call.
PAGE 4
PAR. 4 states: Video
evidence
was also
introduced
by
KAMHOLZ.
SPORLEDER directs the
Board to important
facts
revealed
by
the video.
A portion
of the video involves
the driving of a pick
up,
which
has not occurred
in over five years
as previously
stated. More importantly,
Kamholz make
the
following
comments
while
the video tape:
“ATVs
and mini
bikes
are no
problem.”
Tr 90.
It has been
a
long
time
since we had riding
goin on,this bike
is
a little quieter:
(Tr
90) “he went
up
on the other
side.
That
is good. It is not
so
loud
when he goes
up there” (Tr
91)
REPLY
Regarding the
comments about
the
pick
up truck,
Kamholz
doesn’t know
what
SPORLEDER means
here.
KAMHOLZ acknowledges
the fact that the
truck
stopped
riding around
the property in 1997.
However this fact by
no means minimizes
the truck
activity
during that time
period. I was
a
very
stressful
period of time and was
in
serious violation
of
dust and
smelly exhaust
fumes. (The noise wasn’t
as bad as
the dirt bikes, and ATVs)
This
activity
displayed
a pattern
of behavior that
was worsening each
year
as the
offenders got
older.. As far
as
the comments make
by MRS. KAMHOLZ
on the videos,
Kamholz
tried
to explain them as MR.
GOTTEMOLLER
brought
them
up, but MR.
GO1TEMOLLER wouldn’t
allow
it.
(Tr 89,
90,
91, 92) KAMHOLZ
did
get
an
opportunity to explain
later, (Tr 95, 96,
97,
126,)
and
on Tr 128, KAMHOLZ
said, “years
back
the Atvs
didn’t
bother
us” The kids
were smaller then. Now
we
get 90 decibel readings
on
an ATV
that’s 100 feet
away from
you,
spinning around kicking
up dust and
expelling
exhaust
fumes.
Also, they
aren’t
riding
mini bikes any
more.
MR ZAK
testifies
about intensity
and
variation of
sound levels,
(Tr
218
and 221)
7
PAGE
4
LAST
PAR. States: Further,
the video does
not show any
dust
accumulation,
nor
exhaust
pollution.
In fact
KAMNOLZ
have
their windows
and
door
exposed
to the
natural
air during the video.
REPLY
_There are many
references
to dust
and
smelly
exhaust in
the
videos and through
out the transcript. (Tr
71,
75,
80,
83, 85, 124,
155,
156, 175,
177, 190, 277, 297)
PAGE 5 PAR. 1 states:
Finally,
the
video shows
only
a limited number of
days. (9dates are listed)
REPLY
There
are
a
lot
more than
9
days of riding
on the video. There
are 33 different
days
of riding
activity
on
the videos,
covering
a period
of time from
June 1997 to November
of 2001. Video #
4
was taken
in
2002,
but shows no riding. This
shows only that
the
vehicles
are
being loaded
up
and hauled away for riding
in
an appropriate place.
Testimony
of MRS. KAIvIHOLZ
states that there was
a lot of riding
that
took place,
without
video. (Tr 88)
Page 5 Par. 2 and
3 states:Section 9(a)
Under the
Act and Board
regulation,
and “air violation
has
occurred if the complainant
has proven the
the complained
of... air pollution
has unreasonable interfered
with the complainant’s
enjoyment of
life....” Detlafv.
Boado
&
Epb Park
services, Inc. PCB
92-26
(1993),
In Detlaf the
only air pollution evidence
produced
at hearing
was
smoke rising from
a cooking
area
in a neighboring
park.
The Board
concluded
that
the complainants did not
produce adequate
evidence
of an unreasonable
interference
due to the smoke.
REPLY
KAMHOLZ
does
not
see the relevance of this
to our case.
Kamholz maintains
that the dust and smelly
exhaust fumes that are
emitted from SPORLEDER’
S
vehicles,
comes onto their
property, comes into
their
house,
and
does
interfere with their enjoyment
of life
and property.
Page
5 Par
4 states:
The
present
case is very
similar
to Detlafwith regard
to air pollution.
Complainants
produced twelve
witness,
eight
of which did not
provide any testimony
to
air
pollution.
As to the
KAMHOLZS’,
MRS KAIVIHOLZ
testified that
you can see a little
dust
behind
the car” when referrring
to a
picture
(Tr 80) She further
concluded,
without
support,
that
“when
you see ruts
like that you know,
there
is
dust” (Tr 92-93) Her
testimony is devoid
of any fumes,
exhaust, or dust caused
by Sporleder,
which
unreasonable interferes
with the enjoyment
of her property.
REPLY
Complainants
produced 12 witnesses,
5 (not
8)
of
which did
not directly address
air pollution. Those
5
did
however testify
to
the
activity,
which we
know
creates
dust,
and exhaust fumes. All
12
witnesses
testified
to the activity that produces
the
pollutants
of noise,
dust,
and exhaust fumes. Video
and pictures
8
Page
5
Par.
4
con’t
show
ruts
and
grass-less
areas.
Testimony
of
SPORLEDER
admits
to dust.
(Tr
277,
and
297)
Other
mentions
of dust,
(Tr.
71,75,
80, 83,
124,
155,
156,
159,
175, 177,
190,
198)
There
ar many
mentions
of
smelly
exhaust
both
in
the
video,
and
in testimony.
We
know
how
unpleasant
exhaust
fumes
are,
and if
you
are smelling
them,
you
are not
going
to enjoy
yourself
until
the smell
goes
away.
You cannot
enjoy
your
recreation
room
or you
deck
and patio,
if
they
smell
of exhaust.
Page 5
Last
Par. And
top of
Page
6. states:
MR.
KAMHJOLZ
testified
that
he
could
not
relax
because
the
riding
was
taking
place
(Tr
189)
When
asked,
he
replied:
“I
guess
it was
stress
caused,
caused
a
stressful
feeling.
Q.
Because
of’?
A.
The noise,
probably
mostly.
I
probably
wasn’t
as
close
to the
dust and
fumes
because
usually
I
was
working
towards
the
other
end
of the
property.
MR.
GOTTEMOLOLER
states:
‘By his
own
admission,
MR.
KAMHOLZ
demonstrates
that he
was not
near
the allege
dust
or
fumes,
and
that he
was enjoying
his property
by working
the
land.
REPLY
By
his own
admission,
MR
KAMHOLZ
demonstrates
that he
does
not enjoy
his
property,
because
of
noise,
dust,
and
smelly
exhaust
fumes.
(Tr
190,
192)
He
can
not
enjoy
his
rec
room,
take
a
nap,
or watch
a
ball
game
on
his
one
day a
week
off
work.
When
he
works
toward
the other
end
of the
property,
dust
and
fumes
are
not a problem.
The
dust and
fumes
come
onto
our
patio
and
into
our house.
It
doesn’t
go
towards
the other
end
of the
property.
Page
6
Par
istates
The
next
witness
who
testifies
to any
air
pollution
is
Natalie
Secor.
Her
entire
air
pollution
testimony
consists
of the
following
at Tr.
159.
Q.
Have
you
ever
seen
dust
or smelled
exhaust
fumes
while
the riding
takes
place.
A.
Yes
There
is nothing
in
Ms.
Secors’s
testimony
which
demonstrates
that
the
dust
and/or
fumes
unreasonably
interferes
with
the KAMHOLZ’S
enjoyment
of
their
property.
In
fact,
Ms.
Secor
does
not
even
testif,’
that
the
fumes
smell
bad...
REPLY
MRS.
SECOR
testified
that
she did
see dust
and
smell
fumes
while
the
riding
took
place.
(Tr
159)
She
saw
it, and
she smelled
it.
That
means
it exists.
Exhaust
does not
smell
good,
and dust
gets
breathed
in
before
it
settles.
The next
paragraph
is the
same
type of
testimony,
only done
by
Mike
Dworzynski.
He
was
asked
the
same
question
by
MR
GOTTEMOLLER,
and
the same
answer
was given.
(Tr
175,
177)
KAMHOLZ contends
that
this is
air pollution.
We
know what
exhaust
fumes
smell
like,
and
we know
what
dust
looks
like.
No one
likes
having
someone
throwing
it at
you.
9
Page
6,
Last
Par.
States
KAMHOLZ
never
put
forth
evidence
or
testimony,
which
demonstrates
that
SPORLEDER
has
violated
Section
9(a)
of
the Act.
As
a result,
the
Board
must
find
that KAMHOLZ
has
not
met
their
burden
as to
this
allegation.
REPLY:
Again,
The
testimony
of
qualified
witnesses,
ALL
of
whom
have
noses,
who
testified
to
smelly
exhaust
fumes,
and dust,
is
what
KAMHOLZ
has
offered.
The
knowledge
that
the activity
does
take
place,
and
does
create
dust
and
smelly
exhaust
fumes,
is
what
KAMHOLZ
offered.
While
there
are
no technical
numbers
or
readings
offered,
Kamholz
believe
they
have
shown
sufficient
proof
of
air
pollution
, that
prove
to
be an
annoyance
and
a
nuisance
that
definitely
interferes
with
the
enjoyment
of
their
lives
and
property.
We
trust
that the
Board
will agree
with this
conclusion.
Page
7
Par.
1,2,3,4
MR.
GOTTEMOLLER
states:
that
MR.
GREG
ZAK,
(complainant’s
expert
witness)
did
not
record
any
decibel
reading
from
the
KAMHOLZ
property,
nor
did
he witness
any
of
the alleged
violations.
Also,
that
the
equipment
used
to record
these
decibel
readings
did
not
satisfy
the
requirements
For
measuring
sound
measurements
required
by Section
951.105.
KAMFIOLZ
wishes
the
Board
to
believe
that
Sporleder
did violate
901.102(a)
and
that
KAMHOLZ
has
sustained
their
burden.
Gottemoller
further
states:
“As
a
result
of
the
record
being
devoid
of
a
violation
of
901.102(a),
the Board
must
find
for
the
Sporleder
on
this charge.
REPLY
MR.
ZAK
saw
the
activity
on
video
tape,
which
provides
a dependable
and
accurate
accounting
of
the
activity.
What
you see
is
what
you
see.
Nothing
can
change
this.
Having
dealt
with
this
type
of
situation
for
many
many
years,
does
quali1,’
him
to make
judgment
upon
what
he
sees,
and
hears.
Video
recordings
are
acceptable
evidence,
and
are
used
in
every
field
of
media
and
police
work
in
today’s
world.
The
radio
Shack
decibel
noise
meter
is also
an
acceptable
and recommended
instrument
for
the
purpose
used.
Mr
Zak
advised
Kamholz
on
the
use
of
this
instrument,
and
viewed
on video
the actual
operation
of
it.
Mr.
Zak’s
testimony,
(Tr
207,208,
209,
210).
Mr
ZAK
did
an on
site inspection
of
the
properties,
and
found
that
things
were
as
they
appeared
on
video.
KAMHOLZ
has
provided
the Board
with
an abundance
of
evidence,
and
“Yes”,
Kamholz
does
want
the
Board
to
see
that
SPORLEDER
has
violated
Sec.
901.102(a),
and
trust
that
they
will
find
in favor
of
the
KAIvIHOLZ
complaint.
Page
8
Par.
1,2,3,4,
states:
The
definition
of
noise
pollution,
which
appears
at the
beginning
of
this
Brief,
so
I will
not
repeat
it.
Sounds
must
objectively
affect
the
complainant’s
life
or business
activity,”
The
unreasonableness
of
noise
must
be
determined
in
light
of
the
factors
set
forth
in Section
33©
of
the
Act.
(415
ILCS
5/33
©
Detlaff
Par
2
Addressing
each
factor
under
33(a)
it is
clear
that
KAM}IOLZ life
and
enjoyment
of
the property
has
not
been
interfered
with
unreasonably.
REPLY
10
Page
8 Par
1,2,3,4,
con’t
1)
Character
and
Degree
of
Injury
The
complaint alleges
that
the noise
from SPORLEDER
occurred
on
a
continuous
basis,
and
caused
harm
to
their
physical
and mental
health.
Specifically,
KAMHOLZ
allege
that they
suffered
from sore
throats, headaches,
and
that the
odor from
the exhaust
fumes has infiltrated
their
home.
However
the record
is silent
as to any
physical ailments
suffered
by KAMHOLZ.
No
physician
reports
were
tendered;
no testimony
as
to
physical
injury
was offered..
No
witness testified
that
they
physically suffered
from
the alleged
pollutants
from
SPORLEDER.
Page 8
Par 1,2,3,4
REPLY
1)
Character
and Degree
of Injury:
The record
is
not
silent.
The charges
are
clearly stated
in the complaint,
and
the
testimony
of 12 witnesses
stating
that
the
noise is excessive,
and
interferes
with the enjoyment
of life
and property.
These
allegations
are
as real as they
can possibly
get. The
video clearly
shows
terrible
abuse
to the
complainants,
due to the
noise that’s
being
generated
on the
SPORLEDER’S
property
and flowing
over onto
the KAM}{OLZ
property.
Mr.ZAK’S
Testimony
that This level
of
noise
would
have
a significant
impact on
ones life, and
that it’s’ ONE
OF THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT
SOUND
IMPACTS
I HAVE
SEEN
IN MANY MANY
YEARS’ (Tr
223 and 231)
This is powerfiul
testimony
coming
from a noise
expert of
30 years. The
noise
is real,
and the noise
is
loud. Decibel
readings
also
support
this fact.
Kamholz is
not going to
run off to see
a
doctor
every time
a
sore
throat or
headache
occurs because
of the riding.
Kamholz
realizes where
the
ailment
is
coming from,
and that
it
will go
away
when
the
air
clears.
This does not
make it any
less
of a
headache
or sore
throat.
Kamholz
hosted
only a couple
parties during
the
ten years
in question.
(She
used
to host quite
a
few) Both
were spoiled
by the SPORLEDER
activities.
One
during the burning
time
period, when
the
guests had to
leave
because
of
noxious
burning
by SPORLEDER.
(Tr
294)
We
couldn’t
even
escape
into
the house because
the smell
had
come
in through
the windows.
The other
was
interrupted
by the
riding
activity. I stopped
having
parties (other
than
family)
after
that.
Page
8 Par. 5
states:
Moreover, the
riding
is not
continuous.
The riding
does not
occur
in
the
early
morning
hours, nor
does
the
riding
take
place
late at night.
The evidence
also demonstrates
only nine
days
of riding
activity.
Out
of
a ten
year period, nine
days is not
continuous
in nature.
REPLY
This paragraph
is in
error.
It’s right
that the riding
didn’t take
place in the
early morning
or late at
night,
but
the
rest of it
is wrong
and misleading.
The videos
are NOT
of riding
activity over
a
10
year
period. They
are
from 1997
to
2001.
That’s 4
years. There
are
33
days
of riding
activity, not
9.
There is also
testimony
11
Page
8, Par
5
con’t
REPLY
by
MRS
KAMHOLZ
that there
was a
lot of
riding
that
was not
on
video.
(Tr88).
As
far
as
the
morning
and
night
time
limits,
when
were
the
KAMHOLZ’S
supposed
to
entertain,
or enjoy
their
lives or
property?
Do
You
have
a
cook
out
or watch
a
ball game
before
10 am
or
after 8pm.
Do
you
take
a nap
or
plan
your
outside
activity
before
lOam
or
after
8pm?
Page
8
Last
paragraph
states:
The complaint
also
alleges
a loss
in
Kamholz
property
value.
In order
to
support
this claim,
KAMHOLZ
called
LILLIAN
CARAUCIO,
a licensed
real estate
agent,
as a witness.
MRS.
CARACIO
never
witnessed
the
live
riding
of any
vehicles
by
SPORLEDERS
(Tr
56).
Because
she
had
not
seen
the
riding
activity
in
person,
MRS
CARAUCTO
had
to
speculate
if
someone
would
PAGE
9
Purchase
a
piece
of
property
which
was
adjacent
to land
where
mini-bikes
and ATVs
were
ridden
(Tr
58).
The
Board
should
take notice
that
the
speculation
is
not
even
with regard
to
the KAMHOLZ
property,
but
rather
a piece
of
property
in the
abstract.
REPLY
Witness
Caraucio
was
not speculating,
but was
voicing
an
opinion,
which
she
had
the right
to
do in order
to
answer
the
question
asked
of
her.
(Tr
54)
. KAMHOLZ
asked
CARAUCIO
what she
based
her
opinion
on.
(Tr
58)
Caracio
has
15 years
experience
in
selling
homes,
and
she
established
the
fact
that the
riding
of
dirt
bikes
next
door
to
a piece
of property
for sale,
could
be
detrimental
to
the
sale of
that property.
Page
9
Paragraph
2,3,
states
MOREOVER,
when
asked
by KAMHOLZ if
an interested
party
in the
KAMHOLZ
property
would
be
dissuaded
by
the
riding
of
the vehicles,
MRS.CARAUCIO
responded,
‘WELL,
I can’t
say
that
every
buyer
would
say
that’
(Tr
610. Further
still, in
her own
written
opinion,
Mrs.
Caraucio
stated
that
the riding
of
dirt
bikes
“with
in
70 feet
of the
subject
property
could
be
detrimental
to
the
sale of
this
property.”
(Tr
64) The
testimony
of MRS
CARAUCIO
brought
out
the fact
that
alleged
problem
caused
by
SPORLEDER
is
subjective
to
KAMHOLZ.
When
asked
why
KAMHOLZ
did
not
purchase
another
piece
of property,
Ms.
CARAUCIO
stated
that
the
neighboring
property
had
motorbikes.
(Tr
58)
Then
on
cross
examination,
she testified
that
two buyers
were
interested
in purchasing
the
KAMHOLZ
property
so
that
they
could
ride
their
motorcycles
on
the
property
(Tr 66-67)
The record
is
silent
as to
any
physical
damage
to
the
property,
to
KAMHOLZ,
and
with regard
to
any
loss property
value.
As
a
result,
the
character
and
degree
of injury
is
non-existent,
and
the
general
welfare
of the
party
and
property
is
not
harmed.
REPLY
MR
GOTTEMOLLER
uses
only part
of
CARAUCIO’S
answer
to leave
a
misleading
thought.
(Tr
61)
She
says “Well
I
can’t
say
that every
buyer
would
say that.”
The
rest
of it reads,
“But
ifthe
bikes
were
running
up and
down
and making
a
lot of
noise,
they
would
be more
inclined
to walk
away,.”
MR
GOTTEMOLLER
states
that
the
alleged
problem
caused
by
SPORLEDER
is subjective
to
KAMHOLZ.
Not
at all.
The
violations
that
have
taken
place
next
door
are
very
real,
and
living
with
these
problems,
is
12
reality. Why
would we
buy a
home
that would
offer
us
the
same
problem
we
have now?
That would
be
a
stupid
thing to
do.
Further, MRS
CARAUCIO
did
not
testi1,’ that
two buyers
were
interested
in purchasing
the KAMHOLZ
property. (Tr
66-67)
She said “A”
piece of property
where
they
could ride
their
motorcycles.
Our
property
was not on
the market,
and
she
knew they would
not
be
able
to
ride their
motorcycles
on our
property.
They
would
be
in violation
of the law,
just as SPORLEDERS
are. MRS.
CARAUCIO
went
on
to
say
“I
also knew
it would be
very difficult
to
find
a place
for
what
they wanted.
People
don’t
want
motorcycles
running
around
too
close to their
homes”
(Tr 67)
It
is
the professional
opinion of
MRS
CARAUCIO
that this
activity could
be detrimental
to
the sale of our
property.
KAMHOLZ
thinks so
also,
and hopes
that
the
Board
agrees.
Page Last
paragraph
9 states:
2)
Social and
economic
Value of Pollution
Source:
Testimony
at trial
revealed
that the
KAMI-IOLZ
children
operated
similar bikes
in
the
past (Tr 160)
In
fact,
a Kamholz
witness,
Mike
Dworzynski
testified
that he
rode motorbikes
when
he was younger,
and that
he
currently
allows
his
children
to ride on
their property
in Belvidere,
Illinois (Tr
179) Moreover,
other
residents
in the
area also use
similar
vehicles
for recreational
and
maintenance
purposes,
(Tr 285-86)
REPLY
KAMHOLZ
children
did
not
operate
similar
bikes
in
the past.
KAMHOLZ
children
operated
a
MINT
bike
over 25
years
ago,
for
a short period
of time.
There
are
no
similarities
to the activities
going
on next door
on
the SPORLEDER
property.
You
do
not see any
MINI
bikes
on our video.
You do not
see children
on
our video.
Our riding
took
place
during
a different
time,
under
very different
circumstances,
and
has
nothing
to do with
our
case. KAMHOLZ
and
SPORLEDER
were the
only homes
on Sullivan Road.
Our
son was, and
is
handicapped..
He never
rode aggressively.
The
bike
was
quiet,
and offended
no
one..
The
bike was parked
in
the barn
after
little
use,
25 years
ago, and it hasn’t
been touched
since.
Our
complaint is
about
now,
and violations
ofthe law.
There were no
violations
or laws broken
25 years
ago.
Further,
what
our son in
law did when
he was
young
has
nothing
to do
with us, or our
case,
and
what
he does
with
his children
has
nothing
to do
with
this
case.
Our grandchild
doesn’t ride
here,
because we
won’t
allow
it.
Times
are
different.
The other
residents
in this
area
are
not violating
any laws. As
said
before,
the
west
neighbor
is
a 68 acre
farm. You
may see
them
pass by
a couple times
a
year.They
do
not rod
around.
The
neighbor
to
the
north has
a dirt bike,
BUT
does NOT
ride it.
13
Page 10 Par
land 2 states In addition
to the complainant’s
witnesses
enjoying
the social
benefit of such
activity,
SPORLEDER
testified
that
the
ATV
is
used for yard
maintenance,
and for entertaining
their
granchildren
(Tr
257).
SPORLEDER
also
testified
that their grandson
would
educate
himself
by working
on the dirt
bikes
and
br trucks,
and
by doing so,
he would learn
how to fix motors, and
learn other
mechanical
skills. (Tr 253),
and that they allowed the
riding
so that
their
grandson
wouild
keep
out
of
trouble
(Tr 270-71, and
because of the rural nature
of
the area there
was not of
other activity for
an
adolescent (Tr 286)
The social
value
in the rural
setting is very high
as evidenced
by
the number of
participants. It
is clear from
the
record
that
SPORLEDER
are
not alone
in
this activity.
Riding
motorbikes
is and activity
that the
KAMHOLZ children,
in-laws and grandchildren
have
engaged
in as
well as many neighbors.
REPLY
This has
already been addressed
earlier
in
this brief. Every
statement above is either
misleading
or
untrue.
For
MR. GOTI’EMOLLER
to imply that the
past
lives
of KAMHOLZS’
mature adult
witnesses have
anything
to do with this
case is ludicrous.,
and is nothing
more than
a
diversion
from the wrong doings
of
his
clients.
.The
fact that MR GREG
WRIGHT rode
a
street
legal motorcycle
30 years
ago has nothing
to
do
with
our complaint. Mr. SECOR
rode a street
legal motorcycle
22 years
ago,
which
has no bearing on
this case.
MIKE DWORZYNSKI
used to ride
dirt bikes
at a legal
dirt bike
track,
and he now takes his
son
there. He also can allow
his
son to ride
on their property,
because there
are no laws being violated.
What
has
that got to do
with
our case? I
do
not allow
this child to ride
on
our property,
because it
would
violate
the
law. Because these
men rode motorcycles
in
a
legal
manner
at
one
time in their lives, has nothing
to do
with our complaint,
and SPORLEDER’
S illegal activity.
SPORLEDER
states that they allowed
the
grandson
to ride so he’d stay
out
of
trouble.
It doesn’t make sense
to allow him to break
the law
to
stay out
trouble.. You can’t
justify bad or illegal behavior
this way.
Kamholz
does
not
want
to take this
enjoyment
away
from
the SPORLEDER
family and
their
friends,
they just want them to
take the activity
to
a proper
and
legal
place to
do
it.
Once
a
year for yard maintenance
does not quali1,’
the ATV
as a maintenance vehicle.
This is a
recreational
vehicle
that
the grandson rods
around
on, creating
dust, smelly
flumes,
and noise. That’s the
truth,
and the
video proves
it. SPORLEDER
uses his
Allis Chalmers
tractor
for
maintenance,
not
his ATV.
KAMHOLZ
agrees
that
education is
a good thing, however,
The riding
activity that takes place
next
door
has absolutely
nothing
to do with education.
The
boy
quit school
at age
16. This does not display
a
concern
for education.
Rodding
around on
loud,
obnoxious, smelly
vehicles,
has nothing to
do
with
education.
As
far as
activities
in
a
rural
area being limited,
that’s all in how
you look at life. There
are many choices,
14
and SPORLEDERS
just
happened
to
choose this one.
The
SPORLEDRES ARE alone
in this
activity. To
say that “there are MANY
neighbors
involved, is an
untrue statement.
The “2” neighbors
previously
mentioned,
have already
been explained.
One
has a 68
acre farm, and
drives past in
the ditch line possibly
2
times
a
year,
and
the
other does
have a dirt bike, BUT
does NOT
ride it. This is
the truth.
SPORLEDER’
S
illegal,
and
inconsiderate
behavior
simply
cannot,
and
should not
be justified.
PAGE
10
Paragraph
3 and 4
states:
3)
Suitability
of
the
Source: The properties
in question are
in
a
rural
setting, with
many
ofthe lot
sizes
being five
acres or greater.
The physical
character
of the
land is
most
suitable
for the
engaged
activity.
The
Board is not
considering
motorbike
riding
in a
highly congested
neighborhood,
with half-acre
lots, with
twenty feet between
homes. The
tone of the complaint
and
requested
relief,
is that
the
KAMHOLZ
want
to live in
a
quite residential
area. The area is
zoned as Estate
property,
and the riding of
motorbikes is
a permissible
activity. However,
if KAMHOLZ
desire a tranquil
place to live,
perhaps a private
community
would
better suit
them.
In other
words,
KAMHOLZ
want the
spaciousness
of a five-acre
parcel,
but
they do not
want
to
deal with
other aspects of
owning such land.
REPLY
The physical
character of the land
is not at all suitable
for the riding
of loud dirt bikes,
ATVs and
go
carts.
This
possibility
exists only if
you do not have
a neighbor.
5 acres may sound like
a
lot
of land, but
the
property
is
only 385 feet wide.
This does not
give enough
space
for these vehicles to
ride
without emitting
noise,
dust, and fumes, onto
the
next door
neighbor’s
property.
Place
a house
50 feet from
the dividing
property
line, and
the suitability is
non existent. The
videos, the decibel
readings, the testimony
of the
witnesses,
especially
the expert
noise
witness, MR.
ZAK,
all support
this
conclusion.
We
DO
live in a
quiet residential
area. It couldn’t
get any quieter.
(See MR ZAK’S testimony
Tr 210)
The riding of dirt bikes,
ATVs,
and
go
carts have
disrupted
the
quietness
of the area.
We moved here 31
years ago. This is our
home.
We were
the first family
on Sullivan
Road
excerpt for the 2 farms.
The area
has been extremely quiet
for
all these
years,
until SPORLEDER’
S
grandsons and their friends
started
riding loud
recreational vehicles.
They
are
the offenders, and
they
are the ones who
are in
violation
of the
law.
Because we don’t like
excessive
noise,
dust, and
smelly
exhaust fumes,
MR. GOTTEMOLLER
suggests that we
move to a more
suitable neighborhood.
SPORLEDER AND
MR.
GOTTEMOLLER
want
the
riding
to
resume.
KAMHOLZ
thinks the riding
should
be
stopped,
and
the
neighborhood would
then
be quiet again. If
the riding
were
to resume, KAIVIHOLZ
still
believe
they would
not be able to sell their
home.
Look at the video, and
decide ifthat’s the
kind
of neighbor
anybody would
like
to have.
15
Page
10
Par.
5
states
:
4)
Techniocal
practicability
and
economic
reasonableness
of
control
:
Because
the area
in question
is rural,
and
therefore
without
many
natural
or
man
—made
barriers
to
block
sound,
it
would
be economically
burdensome
to require
SPORLEDER
to install
a
devices
to
(Page
11)
eliminate
the
sound.
Additionally,
KAMHOLZ
has
not
come
forth
with
the
type
of
barriers,
the
location
of
barriers,
and
the
cost
of
such
barriers.
Without
this
information,
the Board
cannot
determine
the
feasibility
of
such
action.
The
record
does
reflect
that SPORLEDER
has
planted
trees
to
absorb
some
of
the
sound,
and
that
they
have
avoided
riding
on
certain
portions
of
their
land.
(Tr259).
However,
to
require
SPORLEDER
to eliminate
all
use
of
the
vehicles
would
be unreasonable
and
unjust
to
SPORLEDER.
REPLY
As
stated
in
the
previous
paragraph,
the
area
is not
at
all
suitable
for these
vehicles.
The
above
topic
for
discussion,
helps
to
confirm
this
fact.
No
barrier
solutions
were
offered
because
there
are
no
AFFORDABLE
ones
possible.
(The
length
of
the
dividing
property
line
is
545
feet
long.)
Witness
GREG
ZAK
touched
on this
in
his
testimony.
(Tr234-235)
The
best
and
oniy
workable
solution
to this
problem,
has
been
found
by the
SPORLEDERS
themselves.
That
is
to
load
the
vehicles
up
and
haul
them
to
a
suitable
riding
place.
They
have
been
doing
this
for
a year
now,
and they
have
shown
that they
have
the
ways
and
means
to do
so.
(See
video
# 4)
As
discussed
supra,
To
state
that SPORLEDERS
have
planted
trees
to buffer
the
sound,
is
again,
very
misleading.
The
few
small
trees
that have
been
planted
do
not
even
obstruct
the
view,
much
less
any
sound.
The
last video
of
the
riding
activity,
was
taken
from
inside
my
recreation
room
in
November
of
2001.
(Video
#
3)
As
you can
see,
there
is no
obstruction
of
our vision
because
of
the
trees.
Page
11
Par.
3
and
4:
5)
Subsequent
Compliance
states:
As
discussed
supra,
SPORLEDER
has
modified
their
activity,
including
not
riding
on
the
property
for
the
last
year.
However, SPORLEDER
does
have
right
to
enjoy
his property,
and
the
riding
may
resume.
MOREVER, had
KAMHOLZ
CONTACTED
SPORLEDER
ten
years
ago
to address
the
alleged
pollution,
this
matter
would
have
been
resolved
in
a
more
neighborly
fashion.
REPLY
As
already
explained,
There
was
NO
modification
of
riding
before
it stopped
in
November
of
2001,
and
modification
wouldn’t
have
helped
anyway
(Tr
218)
The
riders
rode
the
entire
property,
with
the heaviest
riding
done
along
the
property
line.
High
decibel
readings
were
recorded
from
all
locations
of
the
property.
See
video,
and
decibel
readings.
KAIvIHOLZ
also
have
the
right
to
enjoy
their
property,
and
should
not
have
to endure
the
negative
results
of
SPORLEDERS
behavior.
SPORLEDER
CAN
and
should
enjoy
their
property.
There
are
many
to
do
this
other
than
riding.
His
pleasure
should
not
be at
the
expense
of
someone
else’s
freedoms.
His
activity
and
pleasures
hurt
other
people,
and
this
is wrong..
We
all
must
obey
the
laws
that
are
written,
for
our own
good
as
well
as
for
the
good
of
others.
This
is
understood
by
most
people.
16
Pane
11
Par 3 and
4
Subsequent
Compliance con’t
REPLY CON’T
This too has
afready
been discussed
earlier in this brief.
(See
first REPLY Page
6)
Review: The riding
activity
was
not a
problem
10 years ago. There was
a
problem
at that time, but it had nothing to
do
with
this complaint. Many phone calls were
made about that problem, all of which
fell on deaf ears. The
SPORLEDERS were notified of the riding
activity
problem
by a
registered letter
on August 10 of 1996.
Pane 11 Par
5
Conclusion
on Unreasonable Interference: The record
does
not
show
any
physical harm
to
KAMHOLZ
person
or property. Moreover,
the complainants allowed similar activity
to
occur on their
property
in
the past. Further, other residents in
the neighborhood engage in like activity.
There is no
evidence of diminution in value
of the KAMHOLZ property. In
fact the record shows that others would
purchase
the
property
to
ride
motorbikes. The video tapes show
that windows to the KAMHOLZ property
are open, and
that
MRS. KAMHOLZ
is speaking at
a
normal level
without any throat ailments. The tapes
also show that the television can be heard while
the
riding
is taking place. SPORLEDER contend
that
KAMHOLZ
have
not met their burden of proof
to show that the riding has objectively unreasonably
interfered
with the enjoyment of their property.
REPLY
All of the
above
statements have
been addressed, previously in this brief. In response
to
the
last
paragraph, the
burden
of proof has been met. This was done
through the testimony of 12 witnesses, the
registered
letter of Aug.
10
th
1996, the complaint, the work,
the time,
the money, the frustration, the videos,
the decibel readings, the elimination
of a social life at our home, the
years of dealing with this abuse, and
the
desperation. The fear of not
being able to sell our house,
and
the
fear of having to continue to live this
way. KAMHOLZ contend that
they have indeed met their burden of
proof.
PAGE 12
Par. 1
CONCLUSION: This
case is not the type of case that should
be
in front
of the Board.
Rather, it is a dispute between two neighbors. A dispute that began
with
something other than riding
motorbikes and ATVs.
The
animosity
displayed by KAMHOLZ
arises from a burning issue which
occurred
ten years ago. Because SPORLEDER did not commit any
burning violations, that matter was
dismissed
by a
court
of law. Unable
to
prosecute
the
burning
issue, KAMHOLZ found another
SPORLEDER activity that bothered them. KAMFIOLZ
became fixated on the activities of SPORLEDER
but
never once made any effort to communicate with Sporleder.
Instead KAMHOLZ videotaped
SPORLEDER,
and
complained
to anyone who would listen: the sheriff;
county
board, and now
the
Pollution Control
Board. However
the activity engaged in by SPORKEDER is not pollution.
The record is
devoid of any evidence
of an
air pollution violation, or noise pollution under Section 901.102(a).
Moreover, there is
insufficient
evidence to support
the remaining allegation: that the riding unreasonably
interferes
with the
KAMHOLZ enjoyment
of the property in an objective manner. It is clear from
the
record
that the
operation of motorbikes
has fallen
out of Kamholz favor. Kamholz allowed their children
to
ride
on
their
property in the
past, but they no longer allow it. They desire
to
move,
but
will
not purchase a
piece of property, because the neighbors
may
own motorbikes. The KAMHOLZ in-laws
own and ride
motorcycles
on their property,
but
will
not
do so when Kamholz come and visit. However, the
subjective
dislike of motorbikes and ATV’s is not
the standard the
Board is required
to use.
Objectively,
KAMHOLZ
has not proven that the activity engaged
by
SPORLEDER
unreasonably
interferes with their
enjoyment of
the property. As
discussed
supra other
people
were
interested in purchasing the KAMHOLZ property
to
engage in similar
activity.
Moreover other neighborhood residents
operate motorbikes and ATVs. What
KAMHOLZ defines
as pollution
is acceptable and
desired behavior by others.
17
REPLY
Oh
how wrong
can wrong
get?
This
case
does
belongs
in front
of
the Pollution
Control
Board,
because
it’s
all
about
pollution.
Air
and noise
pollution,
being created
by unreasonable,
inconsiderate,
neighbors
who
have
no
concept of
proper
social behavior
towards
their
fellow
man.
It is
not
about
a
dispute
of 10
years
ago.
That
is what
SPORLEDERS
and MR.
GOTFEMOLLER
would like
the
Board
to think.
From
the
very
beginning
of this
case,
that’s what
they have
tried
to
turn
this into,
and have
you
believe.
MR
(3OTTEMOLLER’
S opening
statement
at
the hearing
was
about
the
“dispute”
They
have nothing
to
fall
back on
without
the burning
dispute.
They
have
said many
misleading
and
untruthful
things,
and
KAMHOLZ
can
only
hope
for
the
sake of
their
case, that
this has
been
an
obvious
pattern
through
out the
entire time
of
this
ordeal.
The
SPORLEDERS
absolutely
did commit
burning
violations.
Not a
few, but
many
over
a period
of
3 years.
The
Mchenry
County
Health Department
handled
the situation,
and
ordered
Sporleder
to stop
the burning
of illegal
materials.
The
burning
issue
was
never
in
a
court of
law as stated.
We
were
not trying
to
prosecute
anything
or any
body.
We
just reported
the
offense
and
the
county
simpiy
shut
him
down.
That was
the
end
of it. Our
complaint
and
present
case is
not
supposed
to
be
about,
and
is not
about the
burning
dispute.
To state
that
the
KAMHOLZS’
displayed
animosity,
is an
unkind
and unnecessary
judgment
on the
part
of the
SPORLEDERS
and
MR.
GOTTEMOLLER,
and
to state that
KAMJ-IOLZ
becameJirated
on
the
activities
of the
SPORLEDERS,
is another
untrue
judgment
call.
We
put up
with
the noxious
burning
for
3
years
before
regretfully
having
to
report
them.
They
received
many pleas
from
us
to stop,
and fair
warning
of
the report
date. They
chose
to
ignore
us.
We
have
put
up with
the
present
problem
seriously
since
1995
and
we
are just
now
doing
something
about
it, after an
attempt
to
stop
it
failed.
Again,
they chose
to ignore
us. Their
lack
of
social manners,
has
forced
our
hand both
times.
We are tolerant
people,
but
will
seek help
when necessary.
We
have
sought
help
through
other
avenues
before
coming
before
the
Board.
We
now
find
ourselves
before
you
struggling
with
many
SPORLEDER
implications,
and
untruths,
as we
seek
a
solution.
SPORLEDER
wants
to
resume
riding,
the
very activity
that brought
them
here in
the
first
place. To
resume
riding
would
be to
resume
the
violations.
The
rest of
the
CONCLUSION
in SPORLEDER’S BRIEF,
is
repetitive
and
has
already
been addressed.
18
CONCLUSION
KAMHOLZ can hardly believe that the
word
“conclusion”
is on the page before me. This whole thing
started in
earnest
back on Mother’s Day of200l.
That was the day we decided that something had to be
done.
That was the
first
step
of many
that
brought
us here to our conclusion page. Many pages have
passed by before this one,
during the
past year and a half. In our opening statement at our recent hearing,
I stated that we were seeking a return to a peaceful, and normal life, which would offer some tranquillity in
our home. We return to that request now. We ask the Board to hear our plea, and grant us our needed
relief.
We are
confident
that
our burden of proof
has been met, that the law will prevail, and that the Board
will
find in favor of
KAMHOLZ.
Milton and Virginia Kamholz
1306
Sullivan Road
Woodstock, Illinois 60098
(815)-568-6166
Respectfully
submitted,
PCB
02---41
(Citizen’s
Enforcement,
Noise,
Air)
CVD
CLERK’S
OP1CE
JPiN
2
3
2003
STAFE
(J
lLui’OlS
Pollution
Control
Board
PROOF
OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned,
on
oath, state that
I served
on the date
of
/
?c
2
&3,
the attached
Notice
of
Filing,
and Complainant’s
REPLY
BRIEF,
by certified
mail, upon
the
following
persons.
The
Clerk of the
Board
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
James
R. Thompson
Center,
Suite 11-500
100 W. Randolph
Street
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
Joseph
Gottemoller
One North
Virginia
Street
Crystal
Lake, Illinois
60014
Milton
and Virginia
Itholz
Bradley
P.
Halloran,
Hearing
Officer
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
James
R.
Thompson Center,
Suite
11-500
100
W.
Randolph
Street
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
%
‘‘i
(Notary
Public
Milton and
Virginia
Kamholz
1306
Sullivan
Road
Woodstock,
Illinois
60098
(815) 568
6166
‘OFFICIAL
SEAL”
SHERALYNN
F.
THUROW
Notary
Public,
State
of
illinois
,isson
Exp.
02/05/2005
BEFORE
THE
ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOAR])
))
MILTON
and VIRGINIA
KAMHOLZ
)
Complainants
)
)
v.
)
)
)
LAWRENCE
and
MARIANE
SPORLEDER
)
)
Respondents
)
SUBSCRIBED
AND
OF
CIFRT<plCE
J1N
2
3
2003
SlATE
OF
ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control
Board
Milton and
Virginia
Kamholz
1306 Sullivan
Road
Woodstock,
Illinois
60098
(815)
568 6166
January21,
2003
Clerk of the
Board
State
of Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
100
W.
Randolph
Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
RE:
PCB 02-41
Dear Clerk
of the
Board,
Enclosed,
please
find
an
original
and
9
copies
of
a
Notice of Filing,
and a
Complainant’s
Reply
Brief.
Also
please find
a
notarized
Proof
of Service
for said mailing.
Sincerely
yours,
Milton
and
Virginia
Kamholz