September 28, 1989ANTHONY KOCHANSKI, Complainant,v.
) PCB 88—16
) (Enforcement)HINSDALE GOLF CLUB, ) Respondent.
First, the complainant argues that the Board’s
evaluation of the evidence presented with respect to the allegedviolation of Section 900.102 was contrary to the intent andpurpose of the Environmental Protection Act (Act).
The
complainant also states that the Board’s consideration of thefactors enunciated by Section 33(c) of the Act was similarlyimproper.
Therefore, according to
the complainant, Section 900.103 if applied to Section 901.104 isinternally inconsistent....
Allowed
scantmp5
Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf) - application/pdf
... 
