December 18, 1975ELMHURST COUNTRY CLUB, ) Petitioner,v.
) PCB 75—76
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, )) Respondent.
The Board, while denying Petitioner’s motion to re-open, construed
that motion as a new petition for variance.
The net effect of the extraordinary delay has been to
prevent this Board from rendering its decision until almost thetime that Petitioner has stated as the latest possible date ofcompliance, and four months after the anticipated compliancedate.
Given the unexplained 7 month delay, Petiti~ner
should have at the very least submitted an explanation ofboth the delay and its progres...
Allowed
Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf) - application/pdf
... 
