ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 4,
1988
CITY OF GENEVA,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 86—225
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
On January 4,
1988,
the City of Geneva
(Geneva)
filed a
Motion
for Modification of certain conditions of the variance
from restricted status with respect to combined radium.
The
variance was granted by the Board
in PCB 86—225 on July 16,
1987.
On January 21,
1988,
the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency)
filed a response supporting grant
of Geneva’s
modification request, with
a condition.
On January 28,
1988,
Geneva,
filed a Reply accepting the Agency’s condition.
The July 16,
1987 variance from restricted status was
limited to thirteen developments listed
in the Board’s Opinion.
On October
1,
1987, the Board affirmed the limitation
to the
thirteen developments in response to Geneva’s August 20,
1987
motion for
reconsideration.
Requested Relief
In its present motion, Geneva is again requesting relief
from the limitation.
Geneva wishes
to provide water service
to
developments not on the list of thirteen.
To this end, Geneva
requests that the limitation be stated
in population equivalents
(PE)
rather than specifically listing
the thirteen
developments.
Its goal
is
to allow reallocation of
the total
P.E.
represented by the thirteen named developments
to any
project the City designates.
Geneva asserts that this
modification would:
allow additional development to occur
at other
projects
without
increasing
total
overall
population
served
which
would
otherwise
be
allowed assuming all thirteen projects were to
proceed pursuant to the grant of
a variance
in
this proceeding.
(Geneva’s motion,
p.
2)
86—69
—2—
In its present motion
(at p.
3), Geneva computes
the
population equivalents
for
the thirteen projects as 27,601 broken
down as
follows:
Development
Est.
Population Served
R.R. Donnelley
& Co.
12,760.0
Randall Square
3,000.0
Blackberry Subdivision
500.0
Williamsburg Development
1,536.0
Bennett House Townhomes
21.0
Stonebridge Subdivision
180.0
Delnor—Community Hospital
500.0
Kirk Rd. Off./Research Dev.
4,554.0
Geneva East Subdivision
2,318.0
Lucerne Development
1,500.0
Riverfront Redevelopment Plan
450.0
Denalco Demolition/Redevelopment
192.0
Geneva Place
90.0
Geneva reports that these figures were based on
a
recommended
3 person equivalents per residential unit.
For those
areas without an approved site plan,
Geneva used
20 person
equivalents per acre.
The only exception to this was for the
hospital,
for which
the City used 2.5 person equivalents times
the proposed 200 bed design.
(Geneva’s motion,
p.
3)
The Board notes that Geneva’s population
in the July 16,
1987 variance was estimated at about 10,500
in 1985
(See PCB 85—
93, dated 7—1—85).
It would appear,
then,
that pursuant to the
original variance Geneva plans to provide water service
to more
than double its 1985 population.
The present variance expires on December
15,
1988.
However,
on January
8,
1988,
the same day Geneva filed the instant motion,
Geneva also filed
a petition for another variance for five years,
with no limitation on development “from the time
of issuance.”
(PCB 88—li,
p.
6).
Geneva appears also
to be seeking,
then,
a
shortening of the time frame
of the development limitation by way
of
its new variance petition,
since
the 120 day due date for
Board decision would
fall in early May.
Geneva asserts
in its motion that some
of the 13 listed
developments have “not proceeded to the point where
it
is
necessary that permits
be obtained for
the extension of water
mains”.
Geneva noted,
in particular, that
R.
R. Donnelley
& Co.
“will require only a limited number
of population served
in the
next six months.”
(Geneva motion,
p.
4).
However, Geneva asserts
that two new projects are ready for development and need permits
for water main extension:
86—70
—3—
Development
Est. Population Served
Geneva Knolls
237.0
Hamilton Manor
144.0
(Geneva’s motion,
p.
4)
Without specification, Geneva states that one of these
projects involves a court ordered zoning change pending since
1972.
Geneva also states that other unspecified developments will
require permits
in late winter
or early spring.
Geneva asserts
“that the total
of these projects, together with the projects
listed
in the original thirteen, will approach the calculated
values listed above
for the population served”
(Geneva motion,
p.
4).
Agency Response
The Agency agrees that the total population served should
not be increased by the grant of the motion.
However, the Agency
requests that the Board require Geneva to submit, along with each
permit application, an accurate statement
of the potential
population
to
be served.
The Agency additionally made a special
point of noting
that
1)
its previous position,
that this PCB 86—
225 variance should have been denied, has not changed,
and
2)
its response
to this motion does not reflect in any way its
opinion regarding
the new petition for variance, PCB 88—il.
(Agency Resp.,
p.
2,3).
Board Response:
The Board declines to accept Geneva’s population equivalent
strategy;
for all practical purposes
it effectively removes all
limitations on development.
Even including the development
limitations and short
time frame,
the grant of
the existing
variance,
as
the Board earlier stated,
“was
a very close judgment
call”
(Board Opinion, PCB 86—225, July 16,
1987,
p.
15).
In the
July 16,
1987 variance, the Board’s grant to Geneva of only
limited relief from restricted status reflected
its belief that
much
of Geneva’s asserted hardship had been self—imposed.
The
primary
focus of concern was the history of Geneva’s compliance
efforts,
and its resistance
to committing
to a specific
compliance option reasonably calculated
to achieve compliance by
a date certain.
The Board emphasizes that the merits of Geneva’s pending
variance petition will be addressed only in the variance
proceeding.
However,
the Board recognizes that the new petition
does contain
a compliance plan,
and was filed seven—months
earlier
(not ten—months as stated by Geneva in its motion)
than
86—71
—4—
required
in
the present variance schedule.
The Board also notes,
on the other hand,
that Geneva acknowledges that the compliance
schedule was filed early in response
to the imposition of the
development listing limitation.
(Geneva motion,
p.
2)
In light
of these considerations,
and
in recognition of the fact that
Geneva
is making some progress,
the Board will grant Geneva this
much
relief:
the two projects ready for development, namely
Geneva Knolls and Hamilton Manor, may be added
to the thirteen
developments listed
in present variance.
The Board emphasizes
that this flexibility is not to be construed as implied
acquiescence by the Board
to any further listing additions prior
to its action on the new variance petition.
In summary,
on balance,
the Board
feels that loosening the
limitation to include the two developments noted above is
warranted.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
J.
D.
Dumelle and
B.
Forcade dissented.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, ~reby
certify that the above Order was adopted on
the
~~-‘~-‘day
of
_______________,
1988,
by a vote of
~
Illmo
Pollution Control Board
86—72