ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 18, 1979
ROSSMOOR 1~SSOCIATES,
an Illinois Limited Partnership,
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 79—171
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by Mr.
Dumelle):
Petitioner requested a variance from Rules
604,
951 and
962(a) of Chapter
3: Water Pollution to provide for the
connection of various housing and commercial
units to the
DuPage County Lisle-Woodridge sewage treatment plant which
is currently on restricted status.
The Agency recommended
that the variance be granted subject to conditions.
No
hearing was held.
On October 4, 1979 the Board granted a
limited variance.
This Opinion supports the Board’s Order.
Petitioner is developing a 400 acre multiple use complex
in the Village of Woodridge
(Woodridge) with a variety of
housing options and commercial facilities.
Petitioner has
entered into an annexation agreement with Woodridge covering
the proposed development.
As part of that agreement, Woodridge
warranted that
it had access to adequate sewage treatment
capacity to provide treatment for Petitioner’s complex
through 1982.
Petitioner has already completed 13 units in
its
development and has plans for 736 more housing units and
various office and commercial
sites.
Petitioner claims that
it could not have known that its plans would be halted by
the Agency’s May 31, 1979 decision to place the Lisle—Woodridge
sewage treatment plant on restricted status. Since that date
the DuPage County Board has authorized the construction of
improvements to expand the capacity of the Lisle—Woodridge
plant by 1.4 million gallons per day (MGD).
Petitioner claims that it incurred severe losses from
1974 to 1977.
It expects to recoup its
losses by the end of
1982.
Petitioner estimates
it must generate $12 million in
gross annual
sales
to service a $1.4 million first mortgage
and break even on its other $6.1 million obligations.
Petitioner claims that the limitations of restricted status
could bankrupt the project.
Petitioner feels that it has no
alternative to connection to the Lisle—Woodridge plant.
Petitioner points to a loss of tax revenues to DuPage County
and Woodridge,
land and monetary donations to Woodridge
.,
~—
£Z
—2—
School District 68, reasonably priced needed housing,
a $6.4
million investment,
$1.0 million building permit
arid annexation
fees, employment for 25 persons with 60 dependents,
income
for 31 subcontractors with 1550 employees,
and additional
in-kind contributions if the project is not completed.
Petitioner needs to complete foundation work before the
onset of winter weather to maintain financing for construction
loans.
Petitioner anticipates that 264 units could be completed
and delivered by the end of 1980.
Projected flow from these
units
is 0.0756 MGD.
Additional
flow of 0.1102 MGD is
expected by the end of 1982.
When the Agency imposed restricted
status on the 6.94 MGD
(design capacity) Lisle—Woodridge
plant, outstanding additional permitted capacity was estimated
at 2.916 MGD over the next two years.
Petitioner claims
that when this flow is reduced by permit expirations, actual
occupancy, duplication of non-residential
flow, and anticipated
wastewater
flows, capacity as of September,
1982 will be
slightly less than the present design flow of 6.94 MGD.
Petitioner points to recent improvements in operation and
maintenance,
short term plans to expand plant capacity by
1.7 MGD,
and long term plans
to permanently expand plant
capacity to 10.0 MGD by September,
1982.
Petitioner feels
that these improvements should protect effluent quality and
that additional upstream improvements should enhance water
quality in the East Branch of the DuPage River.
In its Recommendation the Agency indicates that the
Lisle—Woodridge plant
is presently hydraulically overloaded
and will remain so even after the interim expansion of 1.4
MGD is completed.
The Agency has been advised that the
August,
1979 average flow rate was 10.1 MGD.
The Agency
knows of 1.7 MG!) in outstanding permits and has been advised
that local municipalities tributary to the Lisle—Woodridge
plant have issued additional permits.
Recent discharge
monitoring reports show consistent NPDES violations.
The
Agency feels that Petitioner’s present plans
to add 264
units by the end of 1980 should not be halted.
As conditions
to variance relief,
the Agency feels that Petitioner should
be required to provide lists of all permits to construct
buildings,
permits to construct and operate sewer connections,
and all plats which have been approved by Woodridge since
July,
1977 or are presently pending. Additionally the Agency
wants Petitioner to state the facts behind Woodridge’s
warranty of sewage treatment capacity in the annexation
agreement and to furnish copies
of agreements between Woodridge
and DuPage County on permit issuance.
Petitioner concurred in
the Agency’s Recommendation and
asked that the Agency be ordered to issue permits for the
264 units scheduled for completion by the end of 1980.
35—534
—3—
The Board concluded that denial of
a variance to the
extent recommended by the Agency would constitute arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship.
Petitioner has proceeded in good
faith, and the Board has not been advised that Petitioner
could or should have known about the status
of the Lisle-Woodridge
plant.
Petitioner’s
losses will be significant
if its
project
is not allowed to proceed.
However,
the status of
the overloaded Lisle—Woodridge plant cannot be overlooked.
The Board has limited relief to 264 units
so that it can
remain advised of DuPage County’s progress in resolving the
problems at this plant.
The Board concludes that the Agency’s
additional requested conditions are not reasonable.
Petitioner
should not be required to detail Woodridge’s accounts or
explore the reasons behind the stated warranty.
The Agency
should be able to acquire the information it needs through
direct contact with Woodridge and DuPage County.
Nowhere in this record is the reason given for the
issuance of permits in excess of plant capacity.
The Board’s Order does not address Rules 604 and
951
since relief from Rule 962 renders additional relief unnecessary.
In this case the Board has not seen any reason why the
Agency should be ordered to issue any permits.
Relief from
Rule 962(a) and cooperation with the Agency should pave the
way to resolution of Petitioner’s immediate problem.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings
of fact
and conclusions
of law in this matter.
I, Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Boar1I,
hereby certify the
bove Opinion was adopted
on the
______________
day of
_______________,
1979 by a
vote of
_____________________
~stanL.Moffcler~~
Illinois Pollution Control Board
35—5
35