ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

September

30,

1971

MR.

&

MRS. BILL LAWLER

v.

)

#

71—209

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr.

and Mrs.

Bill Lawler,

pro Se.

Mr.

Roger Ganobcik,

for Environmental Protection Agency

Opinion of the Board

(by

Mr.. Currie)

This

is another petition

for

a variance to allow

a new home

to be connected

to

a sewer tributary

to an overloaded treatment

plant in the North Shore Sanitary District.

League of Women

Voter~ v.

NSSD,

#

70—7

(March

31,

1971)

.

We deny

it after

hearing.

The serious condibions caused by overloaded plants

in the

District are amply described in our March

31 opinion.

They got

that way because of numerous

new connections such

as this one,

and they will

get worse

if more are allowed.

Consequently we have

granted variances only on

a showing of extreme hardship,

such as

the commencement

of construction that would leave

a new home

vacant

and subject

to vandals

(e.g., Tauber v.

EPA,

#71-171,

Sept.

2,

1971)

,

or extremely unfavorable existing living conditions

with no viable alternative solution

(e.g.

,

McAdams

v.

EPA,

#71-113,

Sept.

2,

1971).

Neither

of these conditions

is met here.

With

respect

to conrnitments prior

to the connection ban there was only

the purchase of

a lot

(R,

5)

,

which will retain

its value when

the ban is lifted; plans were procured at no cost

CR.

21), but

even paying for them would not have sufficed

(e.g., Monyek

v.

EPA,

#

71-80, July

19,

1971).

As for uncomfortable living

conditions,

this case falls far short of the poverty-stricken

circumstances

of the McAdams

case.

While

this family of six is

living in

a two-bedroom apartment

(R.

6),

there is no proof that

they

have no reasonable alternatives.

Even in Highland Park or

Highwood three-bedroom apartments can be had for

$250 per month

according

to the petitioners~ own researches

(R.

7)

;

and they

were prepared

to spend

an estimated

$266 per month for their new

home

(R.

16).

Their search

for alternative quarters did not go

beyond these two communities

(H.

23),

We

sympathize

with

the

petitioners’

inconvenience, but

it.

does

not

rise

to

the

level

of

unreasonable

hardship

as

is

required

to

justify

the

discharge

of

additional

wastes

to

a

plant

that

cannot

treat

them.

The

petition

is

denied.

2~-~57

---

This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of

fact,

conclusions

of law, and

order.

I, Regina

E.

Ryan, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board.. certify

that

the Board adopted the above Opinion and Order of the Board

this

30

day of September

-,

:L971.

2

—