Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. Pollution Control Bd., No. 1-89-2541

CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtMcNAMARA
Citation234 Ill.App.3d 65,175 Ill.Dec. 432,600 N.E.2d 55
Parties, 175 Ill.Dec. 432 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Petitioner, v. The POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, and Village of Bensenville, a municipal corporation, Respondents.
Decision Date28 August 1992
Docket NumberNo. 1-89-2541

Page 55

600 N.E.2d 55
234 Ill.App.3d 65, 175 Ill.Dec. 432
WASTE MANAGEMENT OF ILLINOIS, INC., a Delaware corporation, Petitioner,
v.
The POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, and Village of Bensenville, a
municipal corporation, Respondents.
No. 1-89-2541.
Appellate Court of Illinois,
First District, Sixth Division.
Aug. 28, 1992.

Pedersen & Houpt, Chicago, for Waste Management of Illinois, Inc.

Roland Burris, Atty. Gen., Chicago, for Illinois Pollution Control Bd.

[234 Ill.App.3d 66] Larry M. Clark, Mundelein, for Village of Bensenville.

Justice McNAMARA delivered the opinion of the court:

Petitioner, Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. (Waste Management), sought local site approval from the Village of Bensenville (Village) for construction of a solid waste transfer station pursuant to section 39.2 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1039.2). Following an evidentiary hearing, the Village denied the request for site approval, and Waste Management appealed the Village's decision to the Illinois Pollution Control Board (PCB). Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1040.1.

On review, the PCB upheld the Village's denial of site approval for the waste transfer station. Following the PCB's denial of its motion to reconsider, Waste Management filed its petition for review with this court. Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1041.

On July 20, 1990, this court issued an opinion which held that Waste Management's application for a permit for the proposed waste transfer station was deemed approved due to the failure of the PCB to issue its opinion within the 120-day time period mandated by the statute. (Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. Illinois

Page 56

[175 Ill.Dec. 433] Pollution Control Board (1990), 201 Ill.App.3d 614, 146 Ill.Dec. 961, 558 N.E.2d 1295.) The PCB appealed that decision to the Illinois Supreme Court, which reversed, holding that Waste Management's permit application was not deemed approved because the July 13, 1989 order of the PCB was a final action as contemplated by the Act. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Board (1991), 145 Ill.2d 345, 165 Ill.Dec. 875, 585 N.E.2d 606, opinion modified upon denial of rehearing, February 3, 1992.

Upon remand from the Illinois Supreme Court, we now address Waste Management's claim that its permit application for the proposed waste transfer station was improperly denied based upon its failure to prove sufficient need.

The record reveals that on July 22, 1988, Waste Management filed with the Village a proposal for construction of the solid waste transfer station on approximately seven acres of property located immediately east of Waste Management's Garden City disposal plant, a waste hauling company, in the Village of Bensenville. The transfer station was designed to receive, compact, and transfer to sanitary landfills [234 Ill.App.3d 67] non-hazardous and non-specific refuse. Its purpose was to make waste hauling in the service area more efficient and cost effective. The facility was also to be used as a processing center for recycling aluminum, paper, glass, wood skids, and cardboard. The transfer station operations, including unloading, compacting, and loading were to be completely enclosed, minimizing or eliminating noise, odors, dirt, and litter.

On November 10, 1988, the Village held a hearing on the proposal for the waste transfer station. In addition to the member of the village board, counsel for Waste Management and for the Village were present. At the hearing, Waste Management presented seven witnesses who testified in support of the application. No testimony or other evidence was presented in opposition to the proposal.

The evidence offered by Waste Management to establish the necessity for the waste transfer station consisted of the testimony of Edward Evenhouse, general manager of the Garden City disposal plant (Garden City). Evenhouse testified that the waste transfer station was necessary due to three factors: (1) the scarcity of available landfill space in the vicinity of the service area; (2) the imposition of a quota system by the nearest available landfill; and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 practice notes
  • Turlek v. Pollution Control Bd., No. 1-94-2829
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 26, 1995
    ...or "reasonably required by the waste needs of the area." (Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd. (1992), 234 Ill.App.3d 65, 69, 175 Ill.Dec. 432, 600 N.E.2d 55.) Petitioners cite no authority finding that necessity determinations are predicated on consideration......
  • Roxana Landfill, Inc. v. Ill. Pollution Control Bd., NO. 5-15-0096
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 25, 2016
    ...the new facility would be expedient as well as reasonably convenient. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 234 Ill. App. 3d 65, 69 (1992). The applicant must show that the pollution control facility is reasonably required by the waste needs of the area, including c......
2 cases
  • Turlek v. Pollution Control Bd., No. 1-94-2829
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 26, 1995
    ...or "reasonably required by the waste needs of the area." (Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd. (1992), 234 Ill.App.3d 65, 69, 175 Ill.Dec. 432, 600 N.E.2d 55.) Petitioners cite no authority finding that necessity determinations are predicated on consideration......
  • Roxana Landfill, Inc. v. Ill. Pollution Control Bd., NO. 5-15-0096
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 25, 2016
    ...the new facility would be expedient as well as reasonably convenient. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board, 234 Ill. App. 3d 65, 69 (1992). The applicant must show that the pollution control facility is reasonably required by the waste needs of the area, including c......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT