ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March

 28, 1977

FARMINGTON

 DEVELOPMENT

 CORP.,

INC.,

and

FARMINGTON MANOR,

INC.,

)

Petitioners,

v.

)

 PCB 76—284

ENVIRONMENTAL

 PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Mr. John Potter, Baudino

 & Potter, Attorney for Petitioners

I~r. JoseDh Svoboda, Environmental Protection Agency, Attorney

for Respondent

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr.

 Young):

This matter comes before

the

 Board on the petition filed

 Farmington Development Corporation,

 Inc.,

 and Farmington

Manor,

 Inc.,

 seekinq variance from Rule 962(a) of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution, which would permit them to connect a pronosed

seventy-four bed skilled nursing facility to the Farmington

sewer system.

 Because Farmington’s existing sewage treatment

olant

 is currently on restricted status, no sewer extensions

are permitted.

 Objections

 to the grant of this variance were

filed by the Farmington Sanitary District, the Agency,

 and almost

100 Farmington residents;

 a public hearing was held on February

28,

 1977.

During the year 1976, and with full knowledge that the

sewer ban was in effect,

 the petitioning corporations were formed

for the purpose of constructing and operating

 a nursing and care

center in

 the Farminqton community.

 It is Petitioners’

 contention

that an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship will be suffered by

both themselves and the Farrnington community unless

 the Board

grants this variance.

As

 in any variance case,

 it is Petitioners’

obligation

 to prove that such hardship will be suffered unless

the variance

 is granted.

 Petitioners’

 evidence in this regard

is not compelling.

 Although Petitioners have expended an unspecified

sum of money for land on which to build the proposed facility

(R.

15),

 the record fails

 to clearly set forth what sums of money,

if

any, will be lost if this variance is denied and the project

is

abandoned.

 If the project goes

 forward despite the variance denial,

207

—2—

Gerry Griffith,

 Petitionerst

 architect, testified Petitioners

would be required to install an on site treatment facility

estimated to cost $45,000.00.

 Requiring such an expenditure

would be unreasonable according to Griffith because he exoects

the new treatment plant to come on line at approximately the

same time the home

is

 to be completed

(R.

 145).

 While the

Board agrees that it would be unreasonable

 to require this

expenditure if

 the District’s plant was scheduled

 to be on

line,

 the Board notes that a firm timetable

 for the District’s

plant has not yet been established.

 Carroll Baylor, Clerk

and Trustee of the District, testified that

 a delay of

 14 months

had already occurred in the olant project

(R.

 202),

 and feared

that increases in construction costs due

 to inflation

may

require

the District

 to abandon construction of the new plant.

 This

question should be resolved in the near future,

 however, but

prior

 to the time this question is resolved,

 the Board is un-

willing,

 and unable,

 to determine the reasonableness

 of an

expenditure by Petitioners for their own treatment plant.

In relation to the hardship that would

 fall on surrounding

communities if this variance were denied, James Swanson, Peti-

tioners’ consultant,

 testified that the Farmington service area

needs

 148 additional intermediate and skill care beds

(R.

 111).

Mr. Michael Coultos,

 the administrator of

 a skilled nursing

facility located in Canton and only

 10 miles from Farmington,

testified,

 however, there was an excess of 134 beds in Fulton

 County

(R.

 70), and that in Knox County,

 also in Petitioners’

service area, there existed an excess of 146 beds

(R.

 73).

In regards

 to the existing treatment facility and the

environmental effects

 that would result from the grant of this

variance,

 the Board notes the following.

 By Petitioners’ own

admission, the conditions in the receiving stream are intolerable

at the present time

 (A. Pet.

2)

 It is

 fair to say such con-

ditions will continue to exist until the new treatment plant is

operational and that any additional discharge

 to the existing

facilities can only cause further deterioration of the receiving

stream.

 Petitioners contend, however,

 that

the

conditions

in

the receiving stream are of only minor importance in the question

before the Board because of their hone that

the

new plant will

come on line at approximately the same time as

 the nursing facility

(A.

 Pet.

2).

If

a

 firm treatment plant completion date was indeed

in existence,

 the Board could possibly agree with this

contention.

But absent the existence of such a date,

 it seems

 the Board would

be doing nothing other than risking further environmental injury

by granting this variance.

 Further, although it did not appear

to be

 a matter of concern at the hearing,

 the fact that Petitioners

are not presently located within the boundaries

 of the sanitary

district does present an apparent disability insofar as eventual

compliance is concerned

(R.

16)

 This matter

 should also be

resolved.

—

208

—3—

In view of the foregoing,

 the Board is disinclined

 to grant

the relief requested.

 The Board is unable to find that any

arbitrary or unreasonable financial hardship will be suffered if

this variance

 is denied.

 The money Petitioners allege would be

wasted

 if required to install their own sewage plant can he saved

simoly by waitinq for the District’s new plant.

 But this

is

a

business decision which only Petitioners can make;

 the risk

is

Petitioners’.

 The Board finds no justification

for

shifting the

risk onto

 the environment.

 Further, because the record does not

establish

 a shortage of nursing beds in the area surrounding

Farminqton,

 the Board does not believe the denial of this

variance will place either an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship

on citizens in the Farmington community.

 While many of the persons

testifying

 at the hearing expressed hope that a nursing home would

eventually he built,

 almost all expressed a belief that the sewage

plant should first be operational.

In conclusion,

 and in view of the condition of the receiving

stream,

 the Board does

 not believe Petitioners have established

sufficient hardship to warrant the grant of

 a variance and that

such request will

 therefore be denied.

 However, in the event

that construction at the new treatment plant will take place,

and once

 a firm completion date is established and annexation

occurs,

 the Board would be disposed to reconsider this matter

the

requested

connection

were

synchronized

with

the

plant’s

scheduled

completion

date.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of law in this matter.

ORDER

The

 petition for variance filed by the Farminqton Development

Corooration,

 Inc.,

 and the Farmington Manor,

 Inc.,

 is hereby

denied.

IT

 IS SO ORDERED.

Christan

Moffett,

Clerk

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereb~

certify

the

above

Opinion

 and Order were

adooted

the

‘

day

___________________,

 1977 by

a

vote

QAJ~m

Christan

Moffett~)/)C1erk

Illinois Pollution c~ntrolBoard

25

—

209