ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 26,

1971

ROBERT C. WAGNON

)

)

#71—85

V.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

ROBERT C. WAGNON, Pro Se

LEE

ZELLE, ATTORNEY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION OF THE BOARD

(BY MR. LAWTON):

This Opinion is in support of an Order entered by this Board

on Monday, July 19,

1971, denying applicant’s petition for variance.

The variance seeks relief from the sewer ban order entered by this

Board On March 31, 1971 in case ~entit1ed

“League

of Women Voters,

et a?, v. North Shore

Sanitary.. District,

#70-7,12,13 and 14.”,

Petitioner is the owner of two lots located in Waukegan, pur-

chased twenty-one years

ago, during most of which time Petitioner was

in the Armed Forces and recently discharged.

He seeks to build

a home

for his family on the subject property and has been denied a permit

because of the sewer ban.

A contract for construction was entered

into between Petitioner and Mordhorst Builders,

Inc., Waukegan,

Illinois, and a payment in the sum of $500.00 for house plans was

made on March

8,

1971, prior to the entry of the sewer ban order.

The recommendation of the Environmental Protection Agency appears

to recommend denial of the variance, based upon the original March 31,

1971 order.

Hearing was held on the petition in Waukegan on June

21,

1971,

at which time Petitioner stated the need. for new housing for

his family, his payment of taxes over the twenty years in which he

has been in title,

the payment of $500.00 to the builder and the likeli-

hood of increased costs resulting from further delay, all to establish

unreasonable hardship in order to justify the granting of the variance.

Raymond E’. Anderson, Secretary and General Manager of the North Shore

Sanitary District, testified in support of the requested variance.

In denying the variance petition, the Board is not unmindful

of the difficulties imposed on Petitioner as a consequence of the sewer

ban.

However, the $500.00 payment is not a forfeiture, but payment

for plans which petitioner has received and which will be available

for use at such time as Petitioner wishes to proceed with construction.

2—

---

We do not feel that the hardships imposed on Petitioner are

ot

a

magnitude sufficient

to invoke the doctrine

of estoppel entitling

the applicant to the issuance of the permit,

See Monyek v.

EPA,

#7l~8O, dated July

19,

1971,

in which we said:

“Undeniably, petitioner

is confronted with some measure

of inconvenience in this case,

We cannot, however, view

petitioner’s plight as singular and therefore arbitrary

nor can we commiserate to such

a degree t1~atwe grant rather

than deny

this request.

In cases where

a house has been

completely built before the date of the order

(March

31,

1971)

or where substantial steps toward completion have been taken

we can clearly judge

the hardship

of non~connection to be

unreasonable.

In fact we have done

so in

the recently decided

case of Wachta and Mota, d/b/a Belle Flame

Subdivision v.

EPA, PCB 7l~77.

There the petitioner had seven units

completely built, and

the Board granted

a variance

to permit

the sewer connections.

For the remaining lots in the subdi~

vision the Board ordered the builders

to present a program

to the Board demonstrating the feasibility of alternatives.”

This Opinion constitutes the findings

of fact and conclusions

of

law by

the Board.

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that the Petition

for Variance be denied,

1,

Regina B.

Ryan,

approved the above Opinion and Order

1971.