ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

January 30, 1973

LIBERTY

FINANCIAL

CORPORATION

)

#72—462

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

GIFFIN,

WINNING,

LINDNER,

NEWKIRK

•&

COHEN,

ON

BEHALF

OF

PETITIONER

THOMAS

J.

IMMEL,

ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY

GENERAL,

ON

BEHALF

OF

ENVIRON-

MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(BY

SAMUEL

T. LAWTON,

JR.):

On

November

8,

1972,

we entered our order denying the

variance

filed by Liberty Financial Corporation, seeking relief from the

Sewer Ban Order imposed by the Agency with respect to sewer connec-

tions

to the Springfield Sewage Treatment Plant.

We denied the

petition on the grounds that the record before us at that time

indicated that petitioner’s hardship was self-imposed and that there

was no evidence that petitioner had attempted to ascertain the

possibility of receiving an Agency permit prior to making its expen-

ditures

and

commitments.

The

petitiQner

sought

the

permit

in

order

to

construct

and

operate

a

mobile

home

trailer

park.

The

opinion

noted that the application had been denied because of the overloaded

condition of the Springfield Sewage Treatment Plant and that a new

sewage treatment plant was expected to be on line by March of 1973.

Subsequent to our November 8, 1972 Order, we received a Motion

for Rehearing and Consideration,

which

motion

stated

that

petitioner

was represented by new counsel and that certain evidence that would

have been available to the Board at the initial hearing had not been

presented, which conceivably wourd have caused the Board to grant

the variance requested.

The new evidence presented by way of affidavit sets forth that

petitioner, had ascertained that in April of 1971 and prior to the

commencement of any site work prior

to institution of any con-

tract or purchaseof l~andand prior to the imposition of the Agency’s

sewer ban on July 12, 1972,

that petitioner could connect with the

Springfield Sanitary District’s facility.

In reliance on this

6

—

679

---

assurance,

petitioner

began

development

of

its

project.

The

petition

notes

several

cases

where,

on

comparable

facts,

the

Board

had

allowed

connections

premised

on

similar

reliance.

See

Illinois

National

Bank

of

Springfield

v.

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

#72-300,

1st

National

Bank

of

Springfield

v.

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

#72-301

and

Illinois

National

Bank

of

Springfield

v.

Environmental

Protection

Agency,

#72—307.

Petitioner

has

prepared

an

186-unit

mobile

home

facility

which

is

ready

for

operation

if

the

sewer

connection

can

be

made.

A

response

was

filed

by

the

Environmental

Protection

Agency

to

the

Mo-

tion

for

Rehearing,

in

essence

supporting

the

position

of

petitioner.

The

Agency

concurs

that the factual situation of

the

instant

case,

based upon the matters included in the affidavit, would make the

case indistinguishable from those cited above in which a variance

enabling connection had been allowed.

‘

While there are some dis-

tinguishing characteristics of the instant case, we believe the

factual situations

to be sufficiently similar

to reverse our

previous holding and allow a variance permitting the requested

connection.

However,

in view of the likelihood that the Springfield plant will

be on line on or about March

1,

1973,

we will permit the connection

as of that date, believing that even

if the plant is not in operation

precisely at that time,

the pollutiona.

impact from petitioner’s

operation will be minimal.

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board.

IT IS THE

ORDER

of the Pollution Control Board that petitioner,

Liberty Financial Corporation, be granted a variance from and after

March

1,

1973 to connect its mobile home park, being the subject

matter of

the present proceeding,

to facilities of the Springfield

Sanitary District.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

certify that the above Opinion and Order was adopted on the

~3s~

day of~~

,

1973,

by a vote of

3

to

Cj~

6

—