ILLINOIS
POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
May
1,
1980
PtIILIPSBORN
EQU~TIES,
INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 79—86
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR.
JOHN
M.
CREGOR,
JR.,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
COMPLAINANT;
MR.
DOUGLAS
P.
KARP,
ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Durnelle):
On April
17, 1979 Petitioner
filed
for a variance
from
Rule 962(a) of Chapter
3:
Water Pollution to allow the
issuance of permits
for construction and operation of sewer
connections for sixty of 391 proposed apartment units.
Amended petitions were filed on September
14,
1979 and
February
6,
1980.
The Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (Agency) has recommended that a variance be granted
as
to the issuance of sewer construction permits and that
operating permits he issued
for sewer connections for four
model apartments
subject to conditions.
A hearing was held
on January 30, 1980 in Des Plaines,
Illinois.
Petitioner
is the owner of property located
in the
village of Barrington,
Cook County.
On October 22,
1973,
permits were issued by the Agency to construct and operate
sanitary sewers which were
to serve Petitioner’s
391
apartment unit complex.
Construction was to be completed
within two years.
Petitioner and co—joint venturers had
been issued
local building permits for the construction of
60 units of the complex on March
20,
1974.
Due to adverse economic conditions
in 1974 the project
was halted.
Petitioner states that prior to the expiration
of Agency permits,
a substantial
amount of work on the
project had been completed, including foundations
for four
12—unit buildings and sewer extensions and manholes to serve
a population of
842.
On April
14,
1976
the village of
Barrington’s treatment plant was placed on restricted
status
due
to
its being overloaded.
A
three-phased plan to upgrade
—2--
these
sewage
treatment
plant
facilities
was
subsequently
begun.
Petitioner
now
seeks
permits
to
complete
construction and
to
operate
connections
for
the
first
60
units
of
its project beginning in March,
1980 with estimated
occupancy of the units occurring
in August,
1980.
Without
the variance
it
is claimed that Petitioner will
suffer
substantial
hardship
through
potential
loss
of
four
foundations
constructed
at
a
cost
of
$400,000
and
additional
improvements at
a
cost
of
$150,000.
These
improvements were
tested in 1979 and found
fit
for use.
No information was
supplied to indicate
that
substantial
deterioration
would
occur
prior
to completion of rehabilitation of the Village
sanitary
sewer
system.
Petitioner
filed
an
Objection
to
Amendment
to
Amended
Recommendation
of
the
Agency
on
March
31,
1980,
stating
that
should the Agency Recommendation
be
followed,
Petitioner
will
be
forced to seek another variance for operating
permits when
the work affecting its project is complete
toward the end of
1980.
The Agency’s
Amended Recommendation
filed December 14, 1979 indicates that
upon completion of
the rehabilitation
of the sewage treatment plant and
sanitary sewer,
Petitioner will
not need a variance from
Rule 962(a)
to obtain permits to operate its connections.
At the hearing, testimony was given that Phase
I of the
sewer system rehabilitation had been completed and that
Phase II was within approximately one month of being
completed
(R.27).
The project manager for expansion and
improvement of the Village’s present system agreed with
Petitioner that completion of Phase
I and the Hager Avenue
sewer work of Phase II would result
in sufficient capacity
to accommodate the additional
flow from the 391-unit complex
(P.15-16).
However,
it was also pointed out that
in order
to protect public health and safety the problem created by
manhole overflows
and hydraulic overloading of the system
both Phases
I and
II of the sewage treatment plant program
as well as Phase
I and the Hager Avenue extension of Phase
II of the sewer system rehabilitation must be completed
prior to operation of the requested sewer connections
(P.29)
In its Amendment to First Amended Petition for Variance
filed February
6,
1980 Petitioner requested that connection
to the sewage system be permitted for four model
apartments
in the first building constructed in order to facilitate
rentals of the apartment units.
The models are not to be
used
for residential
purposes.
Testimony at the hearing
indicated that such connections would result
in undetectable
sewage
flow increases
(R.31).
The Agency supports the variance from Rule 962(a)
of
Chapter
3 to allow issuance of permits for construction only
—3—
for sewer connections
to the sixty apartment units which are
the subject of the petition.
The Agency also supports the
issuance of
a permit to operate a sewer connection to the
four model apartments only.
The Board
finds that a denial of the variance to issue
permits
to construct would constitute an arbitrary and
unreasonable hardship. However, Petitioner will not be
permitted
to operate sewer connections to its proposed
project until the wastewater can be adequately transported
and
treated
by the Village.
The Board does not view the
denial
of
issuance
of
operating
permits
as
imposing
a
hardship
since
Phase
II
of
the
sewage
treatment
plant
rehabilitation and Phase
I of the sanitary sewer
rehabilitation are scheduled for completion at approximately
the same time as completion of the 60 units
of Petitioner’s
project.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1)
Petitioner is hereby granted
a variance from Rule
962(a)
of Chapter
3 to allow issuance of permits for
construction only of sewer connections to the sixty
apartment units which are the subject of this petition.
2)
Petitioner
is hereby granted a variance from Rule
962(a) of Chapter
3 to allow issuance of a permit
to
operate
a
sewer
connection
to
four
model
apartments
only,
in
the
first
building
constructed by Petitioner,
subject
to
the
following
conditions:
a)
the
four
units
shall
not
he
used
for
residential
purposes
during
the
term
of
the
variance
and
h)
the
water
supply
to
the
other
units
in
the
building
housing
the
models
shall
not
be
connected.
3)
A variance from Rule 962(a)
of Chapter
3 to allow
issuance of permits
to operate sewer connections other
than those described in (2)(b)
is hereby denied.
4)
Within 45 days of the date of this Order Petitioner
shall execute a certification of acceptance and
agreement to be bound by the terms and conditions of
this variance.
This
45 day period shall be held in
—4—
abeyance
if this matter
is appealed.
The certification
shall
he forwarded
to the Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Division
of
Water
Pollution,
:~20()
Cliurchtfl
Road,
Springfield,
illinois
62706
and
1
1
I
r
I
I
ow~
CERT1~
F’ 1CATWN
I,
(We),
______,
having
read
and fully understanding the Order in PCB 79—86 hereby
accept that Order and agree to be hound by all of its terms
and conditions.
rr ~
SO OR1)EI~ED
SIGN,:: D
TITLE
DATE
r
,
Chr
i~L~n L
.
Mof Fe Lt
,
Clerk
of
the
Il
ii nets
P01 lotion
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
that;
the
above
Opinion and Order
were
adopted
on
the
~
day
of
—
,
1980
by
a
vote
of
~
Christan
L.
Moff~t~/)Clerk
Illinois Pollution ~ntrol
Board
