ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

13,

1971

HOWARD WEINSTEIN

AND

BARBARA

)

WEINSTEIN,

 his wife

)

#PCB71—107

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

ROBERT D. CHARLES

)

 #PCB71122

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

BARTOLOMEO BIONDI

AND

 CAROLINE

)

BIONDI, his wife

)

v.

)

 #PCB71—l92

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

)

ALLAN

 N, NIEDERMAN, ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONERS HOWARD WEINSTEIN,

ET AL

DELBERT

HASCHEMEYER,

ATTORNEY

FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

ROBERT

CHARLES,

PRO

DELBERT

HASCHEMEYER,

ATTORNEY

FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

THEODORE

PASQUESI,

ATTORNEYS

FOR

PETITIONERS

BARTOLONEO

BIONDI,

 ET AL

OPINION OF THE BOARD

 (BY MR.

 KISSEL):

The petitioners in the

above—captioned cases have all filed

petitions for variance with the Pollution Control Board asking

that they be permitted to

 build a house in the area served by the

North Shore Sanitary District

 (the “District”)

 and con~nectto the

sewers of the District.

 They seek a variance from an order of the

Board entered in the case of the League of Women Voters~,et al v.

North Shore Sanitary District, PCB 70-7,

 12, 13 and 14, dated

March 31,

 1971, which order provides,inter alia, the following:

“7.

 The District shall not permit any additions to present

sewer

connections,

new

sewer

connectionsto

its

facilities

until

the

District

can

demonstrate

the

 Board

that it can

adequately treat the wastes from those new sources

 so as not

to violate the Environmental Protection Act or the Rules and

Regulations promulgated thereunder.

2

—

291

Each of the cases considered

in this opinion present similar facts,

and

 a short recitation of the facts is

in order here.

In the Weinstein case

 (PCB71-l07),

 the petitioners bought

a

lot

in

Highland Park on March 30,

 1971,

 Prior to that they had

had plans and specifications drawn for

 a home to be built, and

although they thought it would be on the present lot,

 they did not

have title

 in hand until the day before the Board~sorder from

which they seek

 a variance was

 issued.

 In their petition, they

stated that they had entered into

 a binding contract to sell their

house, but at the hearing,

 the purchasers

 in that transaction

agreed

that the Weinsteins would not have to sell their house.

 There

is also an allegation that Mrs.

 Weinstein has

 a chronic knee prob—

1cm and they seek to move

 into

 a ranch-type home, which

the

new one

was supposed to be.

 The present home

 in which they live has

multi-levels.

In Charles case

 (PCB7I-122),

 the lot was purchased in Knoll-

wood in

late

1968.

 Mr. Charles did nothing between the time he

bought and paid for the

 lot until now, except for negotiating

a

construction loan which was done after March

31,

 1971.

He

 says

that the hardship imposed on him will be

the

loss of the commit-

ment of

the construction loan and the

lack of

 a place to live,

since he believes that his present house, being

 in an area which

is zoned commercial, will be torn down

 in the near future.

In

the Biondi

case

 (PCB71-l92),

the

lot

was acquired in April

of 1970,

 and according

 to the Petition for Variance, nothing was

done toward constructing the building, or even planning it,

 except

to get a letter in January,

 1971 from the City of Highwood that

committed

the

City of Highwood to allow

the

connection of the

Biondi home, when built.

 No other hardship is alleged.

In

deciding~any variance case,

the

Board must determine from

the evidence in the record whether compliance with the law or the

regulations or orders of the Board will impose an “arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship.”

 In making this determination, the Board

employs a balancing process that is the harm done to the environ-

ment

if

the variance

is

granted versus the benefit received if the

variance is denied.

 Merely proving an inconvenience or a slight

hardship

is

not enough to be granted

 a variance by this Board.

In

fact, the hardship must be substantial for it to outweigh the damage

to be caused by its allowance.

 In the three cases to be decided

in this opinion, the facts are relatively the same.

 A person buys

a lot,

does virtually nothing to begin consttuction, then hears

 of the sewer ban and seeks a variance.

 These cases are governed

by

the

 rule

 set forth in

the

______

 case which denied a variance

to

an

individual who wanted to

build a home in the District~s

area.

 There the Board properly reasoned that the test of whether

variances should be granted

 is as follows:

—

292

“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 none of these cases,

 has there been,

 in the opinion of the Board,

“substantial steps taken toward completion”.

 Just holding the

lot

is not enough to give

 a person the right to build in opposition

to the sewer

 ban.

This Board has granted some variances because, notwithstanding

the fact that substantial steps.had not been taken, the petitioner

showed

an individual hardship which substantially outweighed

the

harm to be caused by allowing the sewer connection.

 But such

 is not the case here.

 All of the people here

 are required to

delay the construction of their home for a time.

 This

 is not

hardship enough to allow the degradation of Lake Michigan and the

Skokie River to continue.

One other point should be made,

 The Board has scheduled in-

quiry hearings into the entire question of “sewer bans”.

The

petitioners should participate in those hearings to further express

their views,

 if they so desire.

 It may be that the hearings will

produce regulations which,

 in fact,

 lift sewer bans,

and

 if they

do,

 the decision of the Board at this time will not prejudice

the later granting to the petitioners of the right to connect

to

the District~ssewers.

The vaL’iances in the following cases

 are hereby d~nied:

1.

 Howard Weinstein and Barbara Weinstein,

 his wife

v.

Environmental Protection Agency;

 #PCB71-l07;

2.

 Robert

D.

 Charles

 v. Environmental Protection Agency;

 #PCB71-l22;

3.

 Bartolomeo Biondi and Caroline Biondi, his wife,

Environmental Protection Agency;

 #PCB71-l92.

This Opinion constitutes

 the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board.

I, Regina E.

 Ryan, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Contro~Board,

certif

 that

t

 e Board adopted the above Opinion on the /~day

of

 1971.

—

293