L1~

:Nf::s

POLLUTION

CONTROL

B~.

January

19,

1978

C.

A.

HEMPHILL

AND

ASSOOIL:Cs

and

the

VILLAGE

OF

LAKE

BLTT~L.

Petitioners,

v.

)

PCB 7~—272

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGE.NCY~

Respondent.

OPINION

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr.

Dumelle)

This

case

comes

before

the

Loard

on

a

Petition

for

a

variance from the requirements

of

Rule

962

of

Chapter

3:

Water

Pollution of the Board~s Rules

Regulations.

The Agency

denied a permit for the Villacis

of

Lake Bluff which would

have

allowed construction of a sewer

~tension

to serve Petitioner

Hemphill’s subdivision of

17 h~n~cs,

5

of which can be

connected

to

an existing sewer.

Hemphii~.

r~opealedthe

permit

denial,

and a hearing was held on Oct~:

14,

1977

in

Lake

Forest,

On November

10,

1977

the

Board held

that

the

permit

denial

was

correct

(PCB 77—204),

The transcript of the October 14,

1977

hearing, the exhibits admitted at the hearing~ the

Petition

in

this

case

as

well

as

the

Agencys

Recommendation

herein

have

been

stipulated

as

the record for the Board’s decision.

No

additional hearing was held,

The village was joined as a

party by

a Board Order dated November 10,

1977.

Hemphill has claimed that

it will suffer hardship

in that

any delay in construction will result in greater costs;

the

overall marketability of this development is being negatively

affected;

and

two homes can be connected without permits but

only at additional costs of $500 each.

There are additional

claims

of

hardship on prospective homeownern who cannot move

in

and

lost

tax

revenues

to

the vi ILlaje

Iluniphi.

.1 1

asserts

that

these

hardships

must

be

balanced

against

insignificant

environmental

harm.

It

is

agreed

that the East Terrace Sub-

division

sanitary

sewer

system,

which will receive sewage

from

Hemphill~ssubdivision,

is subject to surcharging due

to

infil—

tration and inflow,

Hemph~illfeels, however, that there

will

be no perceptible contribution from the proposed extension

and

that the problem will be

~emedied

in the near future through

construction of an emergency pumping station,

The Agency has recommended that the variance be denied

or

dismissed,

This position is based on the fact that a permit

has already been issued to the Village

to construct the emergency

29

—

77

---

—2—

pumping station.

Consequently, Hemphill ~ay

be

~qib1e for a

conditional installation or “construct only” pennL~.which would

allow for construction of the proposed sewer extension im-

mediately and operation of the extension upon (:c:nplction of the

pumping station in June 1978 provided aLl the necessary Agency

permits are obtained.

At the hearing Hemphill claimed that it had relied on the

fact that the village had not been placed on either of the

Agency’s “Restricted Status” or

Critical Review”

lists.

In

its prior Opinion the Board has already oharacterized such re-

liance as

“.

.

.at best,

ill advised”.

Hemphill must have been

aware of the problems

in the receiving

sewer since the surcharging

of that line was the subject of the Bleck Report which Hemphill

placed in evidence at the hearing.

Any hardship experienced

as a result is simply self—imposed.

No evidence was introduced

to support the claims of hardship on the village or the ~o-

spective homeowners.

The Board does not agree that no significant adverse en-

vironmental effects would result from granting the requested

relief.

More sanitary sewage would be placed into an admittedly

inadequate system which now floods basements.

That additional

sewage,

in borderline

situations,

might make the difference

between flooding and not flooding or the creation of an electro-

cution hazard or the absence of one.

The variance must be

denied since no legitimate hardship has been proven

to support

it--only a self-imposed one.

Hemphill would be well advised to

seek a conditional permit,

particularly since

it requested

that relief in the prior proceeding.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law

in this matter.

ORDER

It

is

the

Order

of

the

Pollution

Control

Board

that

Petitioner’s request for a variance from Rule

962 of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution of the Board’s Rules and Regulations be denied.

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board,

hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the /~‘

day of

~

,

1978 by

a vote of

I

i3oard

Illinois

Pollutio:

29

—