Clutts v. Beasley
| Decision Date | 18 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 5-88-0438,5-88-0438 |
| Citation | 185 Ill.App.3d 543,541 N.E.2d 844,133 Ill.Dec. 633 |
| Parties | , 133 Ill.Dec. 633 Gerald CLUTTS, Appellant, v. Herman L. BEASLEY, and Alexander County Board of Commissioners, Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Applegate & Maurizio, Carbondale, for appellant.
Michael P. O'Shea, Cairo, for Herman L. Beasley.
Mark H. Clarke, State's Atty., Cairo, for Alexander County Bd.
The Alexander County Board approved Beasley's proposed regional landfill. Clutts, an adjacent landowner, objected. The County Board denied his objections and he caused the Pollution Control Board to review the County Board's decision under the Administrative Review Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 110, par. 3-101 et seq.) The Pollution Control Board affirmed the County Board's decision. Clutts appeals.
Clutts claims first that the County Board's written decision did not include specific findings of fact, but instead, merely recited the criteria for approving landfills prescribed by statute. Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1039.2(a).
We hold that the decision of the County Board is adequate under both the provisions of the statute and the holding in E & E Hauling, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Board (1983), 116 Ill.App.3d 586, 71 Ill.Dec. 587, 451 N.E.2d 555, aff'd (1985), 107 Ill.2d 33, 89 Ill.Dec. 821, 481 N.E.2d 664. In the instant case, contrary to Clutts's argument, there can be meaningful review of the County Board's decision, because there is a record of all matters that were presented to the Board. That record, furthermore, supports the decision to approve Beasley's proposed landfill.
The criteria necessary for approval of a landfill are:
(i) the facility is necessary to accommodate the waste needs of the area it is intended to serve;
(ii) the facility is so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected;
(iii) the facility is located so as to minimize incompatibility with the character of the surrounding area and to minimize the effect on the value of the surrounding property;
(iv) the facility is located outside the boundary of the 100 year flood plain or the site is flood-proofed;
(v) the plan of operations for the facility is designed to minimize the danger to the surrounding area from fire, spills, or other operational accidents;
(vi) the traffic patterns to or from the facility are so designed as to minimize the impact on existing traffic flows;
(vii) if the facility will be treating, storing or disposing of hazardous waste, an emergency response plan exists for the facility which includes notification, containment and evacuation procedures to be used in case of an accidental release; and
(viii) if the facility will be located within a regulated recharge area, any applicable requirements specified by the Board for such areas have been met. Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1039.2(a).
These criteria are factual as well as ultimate findings to be made by the County Board. In the ordinary case, it would be difficult for a County Board to be more specific than what is set out as criteria. For example, either a proposed facility is, or is not, outside the boundary of the 100 year flood plain. The purpose of these criteria is to impose standards, so that the decision of the County Board to approve or deny operation of a proposed landfill is made with guidance, rather than arbitrarily or by whim. We hold that so long as the decision is in writing, and a record has been made showing the basis for the decision, neither a detailed statement finding specific facts, nor a detailed explanation of the relationship between the facts, the criteria, and the conclusions is necessary, and the decision can be framed in the language of the criteria set out in the statute.
Clutts next claims that the decision to approve the landfill was against the manifest weight of the evidence for three reasons: (1) the evidence did not show that the landfill is necessary; (2) the evidence did not show that the landfill is designed and is to be operated so as to protect the public health, safety and welfare; and (3) the evidence did not show that the landfill is to be located so as to minimize incompatibility with the surrounding area.
We hold that the decision to approve the landfill is in accord with the evidence.
First, a landfill does not have to be necessary in absolute terms. It is enough that it is "expedient" or is "reasonably convenient."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. Pollution Control Bd.
...it must demonstrate that the new facility would be expedient as well as reasonably convenient. (Clutts v. Beasley (1989), 185 Ill.App.3d 543, 546, 133 Ill.Dec. 633, 634, 541 N.E.2d 844, 845; A.R.F. Landfill v. Pollution Control Board (1988), 174 Ill.App.3d 82, 91, 123 Ill.Dec. 845, 851, 528......
-
Industrial Fuels & Resources/Illinois, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd.
...the various districts of the appellate court apply substantively different definitions. See, e.g., Clutts v. Beasley (5th Dist.1989), 185 Ill.App.3d 543, 133 Ill.Dec. 633, 541 N.E.2d 844 (A proposed facility is "necessary" if it is "expedient" or "reasonably convenient"); E & E Hauling v. P......
-
Turlek v. Pollution Control Bd.
...did not consider additional or cumulative evidence supporting a finding of necessity. Petitioners cite Clutts v. Beasley (1989), 185 Ill.App.3d 543, 545, 133 Ill.Dec. 633, 541 N.E.2d 844, as a case which "emphasizes the importance of a complete record." Clutts does not hold that the record ......
-
Wabash and Lawrence Counties Taxpayers and Water Drinkers Ass'n v. Pollution Control Bd.
...must demonstrate the PCB's decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (See, e.g., Clutts, 185 Ill.App.3d at 546, 133 Ill.Dec. at 635, 541 N.E.2d at 846; Waste Management, 160 Ill.App.3d at 441-42, 112 Ill.Dec. at 182-83, 513 N.E.2d at 596-97; Willowbrook Motel v. Pollution......