Illinois Compiled Statutes
415 ILCS 5/40.1 (2026)
Appeal of siting approval
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(415 ILCS 5/40.1)
(from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 1040.1)
Sec. 40.1.
Appeal of siting approval.
(a) If the county board or the governing body of the municipality,
as determined by paragraph (c) of Section 39 of this Act, refuses to grant
or grants with conditions approval under Section 39.2 of this Act, the
applicant may, within 35 days after the date on which the local siting
authority disapproved or conditionally approved siting, petition for a
hearing before the Board to contest the decision of the county
board or the governing body of the municipality. The Board shall publish
21 day notice of the hearing on the appeal in a newspaper of general
circulation published in that county. The county board or governing
body of the municipality shall appear as respondent in such hearing, and
such hearing shall be based exclusively on the record before the county
board or the governing body of the municipality. At such hearing the rules
prescribed in Sections 32 and 33 (a) of this Act shall apply, and the burden
of proof shall be on the petitioner; however, no new or additional evidence
in support of or in opposition to any finding, order, determination or decision
of the appropriate county board or governing body of the municipality shall
be heard by the Board. In making its orders and determinations under this
Section the Board shall include in its consideration the written decision
and reasons for the decision of the county board or the governing body of
the municipality, the transcribed record of the hearing held pursuant to
subsection (d) of Section 39.2, and the fundamental fairness of the
procedures used by the county board or the governing body of the
municipality in reaching its decision. The Board shall transmit a copy of
its decision to the office of the county board or governing body of the
municipality where it shall be available for public inspection and copied
upon payment of the actual cost of reproduction. If there is no final
action by the Board within 120 days after the date on which it received
the petition, the petitioner may deem the site location approved;
provided, however, that that period of 120 days shall not run for
any period of time, not to exceed 30 days, during which the Board is
without sufficient membership to constitute the quorum required by
subsection (a) of Section 5 of this Act, and provided further, that such
120 day period shall not be stayed for lack of quorum beyond 30 days
regardless of whether the lack of quorum exists at the beginning of such
120 day period or occurs during the running of such 120 day period.
(b) If the county board or the governing body of the municipality as
determined by paragraph (c) of Section 39 of this Act, grants approval under
Section 39.2 of this Act, a third party other than the applicant who
participated in the public hearing conducted by the county board or governing
body of the municipality may, within 35 days after
the date on which the local siting authority granted siting approval, petition
the Board for a hearing to contest the approval of the county board or the
governing body of the municipality. Unless the Board determines that such
petition is duplicative or frivolous, or that the
petitioner is so located as to not be affected by the proposed facility,
the Board shall hear the petition in accordance with the terms of subsection
(a) of this Section and its procedural rules governing denial appeals, such
hearing to be based exclusively on the record before county board or the
governing body of the municipality. The burden of proof shall be on the
petitioner. The county board or the governing body of the municipality
and the applicant shall be named as co-respondents.
The Board shall transmit a copy of its decision to the office of the
county board or governing body of the municipality where it shall be
available for public inspection and may be copied upon payment of the
actual cost of reproduction.
(c) Any person who files a petition to contest a decision of the
county board or governing body of the municipality shall pay a filing fee.
(Source: P.A. 92-574, eff. 6-26-02.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases, 1994–2012 · leading case: Town & Country Utils., Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd., 866 N.E.2d 227 (Ill. 2007).
Town & Country Utils., Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd., 866 N.E.2d 227 (Ill. 2007). “415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 2002). The Board reversed the City’s finding that the application met the statutory criterion that the site be “so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected.”
Cnty. of Kankakee v. Pollution Control Bd., 955 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “" 415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 2004). Resolution of a contest may occur by a written decision by the Board or the passage of "120 days after the date on which [the Board] received the petition" to contest the decision of the county board or governing body.”
Ogle Cnty. Bd. Ex Rel. Cnty. of Ogle v. Pollution Control Bd., 649 N.E.2d 545 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “1 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 1992)). At the PCB hearing, Carmichael raised a challenge to the sufficiency of the prefiling notice required by section 39.”
City of Elgin v. Cnty. of Cook, 660 N.E.2d 875 (Ill. 1995). “(415 ILCS 5/40.1(b) (West 1992).) Any "party" adversely affected by a final order or determination of the Pollution Control Board may appeal directly to the appellate court, bypassing the circuit court.”
Land & Lakes Co. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd, 319 Ill. App. 3d 41 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “1 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 1998)), such a party has a statutory right to “fundamental fairness” in the proceedings before the local siting authority.”
Fox Moraine, LLC v. United City of Yorkville, 2011 IL App (2d) 100017 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “” 415 ILCS 5/40.1(a) (West 2006). We note that, when we review an administrative decision, we exercise special statutory jurisdiction and thus our review is limited by the Act, which allows us to review the Board’s decision rather than the siting authority’s decision.”
Daly v. Pollution Control Bd., 637 N.E.2d 1153 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “(See 415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 1992).) Section 40.”
Peoria Disposal Co. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd., 896 N.E.2d 460 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “415 ILCS 5/40.1(a) (West 2006); Land & Lakes Co.”
Env't Control Sys., Inc. v. Pollution Control Bd., 630 N.E.2d 554 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “1 (now 415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 1992)).) Section 40.”
Bevis v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd., 681 N.E.2d 1096 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 1992). This statute does not grant the PCB discretion to waive or otherwise modify this requirement.”
Dimensions Med. Ctr., Ltd. v. Elmhurst Outpatient Surgery Ctr., L.L.C., 718 N.E.2d 249 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “2d at 308 , citing 415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 1992). Thus, by statute, a lack of fundamental fairness warranted the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s reversal in that case.”
Residents Against a Polluted Env't v. Pollution Control Bd., 687 N.E.2d 552 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). “415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 1994). Therefore, any allegation of improper amendment of a solid waste management plan by the county was beyond the scope of the Board’s review.”
— 415 ILCS 5/40.1(a) — 12 cases
Town & Country Utils., Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd., 866 N.E.2d 227 (Ill. 2007). “415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 2002). The Board reversed the City’s finding that the application met the statutory criterion that the site be “so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected.”
Cnty. of Kankakee v. Pollution Control Bd., 955 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “" 415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 2004). Resolution of a contest may occur by a written decision by the Board or the passage of "120 days after the date on which [the Board] received the petition" to contest the decision of the county board or governing body.”
Fox Moraine, LLC v. United City of Yorkville, 2011 IL App (2d) 100017 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “” 415 ILCS 5/40.1(a) (West 2006). We note that, when we review an administrative decision, we exercise special statutory jurisdiction and thus our review is limited by the Act, which allows us to review the Board’s decision rather than the siting authority’s decision.”
Ogle Cnty. Bd. Ex Rel. Cnty. of Ogle v. Pollution Control Bd., 649 N.E.2d 545 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “1 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 1992)). At the PCB hearing, Carmichael raised a challenge to the sufficiency of the prefiling notice required by section 39.”
Land & Lakes Co. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd, 319 Ill. App. 3d 41 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “1 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 1998)), such a party has a statutory right to “fundamental fairness” in the proceedings before the local siting authority.”
— 415 ILCS 5/40.1(b) — 8 cases
Ogle Cnty. Bd. Ex Rel. Cnty. of Ogle v. Pollution Control Bd., 649 N.E.2d 545 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “1 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 1992)). At the PCB hearing, Carmichael raised a challenge to the sufficiency of the prefiling notice required by section 39.”
Town & Country Utils., Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd., 866 N.E.2d 227 (Ill. 2007). “415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 2002). The Board reversed the City’s finding that the application met the statutory criterion that the site be “so designed, located and proposed to be operated that the public health, safety and welfare will be protected.”
City of Elgin v. Cnty. of Cook, 660 N.E.2d 875 (Ill. 1995). “(415 ILCS 5/40.1(b) (West 1992).) Any "party" adversely affected by a final order or determination of the Pollution Control Board may appeal directly to the appellate court, bypassing the circuit court.”
Cnty. of Kankakee v. Pollution Control Bd., 955 N.E.2d 1 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “" 415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 2004). Resolution of a contest may occur by a written decision by the Board or the passage of "120 days after the date on which [the Board] received the petition" to contest the decision of the county board or governing body.”
Land & Lakes Co. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd, 319 Ill. App. 3d 41 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “1 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/40.1 (West 1998)), such a party has a statutory right to “fundamental fairness” in the proceedings before the local siting authority.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|