ILLINQIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 13,

1971

SCOTT VOLKSWAGEN,

INC.

v.

)

#

PCB71—112

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Donald Flannery of Libertyville,

for Scott Volkswagen

Delbert Haschemeyer of Springfield,

for

the Environmental Protection

Agency

Opinion of the

Board

(by Mr. Currie):

Scott Volkswagen requested a variance from our order in

League of Women Voters v. North Shore Sanitary District,

#

70-7

(March 31,

1971), to permit connection of a proposed

new automobile

sales and service facility to a sewer serving

an overloaded treatment plant.

We denied the petition after

hearing August

9;

this opinion gives our reasons.

Theban on new connections was imposed

in

recognition

M

the fact that new wastes added to an already overloaded system

would worsen the already severe pollution of water and air

due tolill—treated sewage

in

this

area.

There can be no exception

for small sources;

it

was the accumulation of such sources,

individually too small to be noticed, that largely brought

about the present sorry situation.

Nor can we

grant this variance

on

the

ground ~thatthe new facility will replace an existing

one that is now discharging a comparable amount of wastes;

apart

from other arguments, there

is nothing to prevent the owner of

the old building from putting

it to another use.

The Board has granted variances in cases

of this nature

in which the building in question has been built, or substantial

steps taken toward its completion, before the date the connection

ban was imposed,

E.g.., Wachta

v,

EPA,

#71-77 (Au~y5, 1971).

We have, however, held the hardship of complying with the ban

insufficient when,

as here, the only significant step taken

before the ban was the pu~chaseof a lot.

Monyek

v.

EPA,

#71-80

(July

19,

1971).

In such cases the hardship

is that

incurred by every owner of undeveloped property in the District,

namely,

the postponement of the ability to build.

To

allow a

variance in

these cases

would be to

repeal

the sewer

bab

lb

its entirety.

2

295

---

It was alleged that the denial of the variance might

jeopardize the continued existence of the franchise, since the

operator’s arrangement with the parent company requires it to

build a new and more satisfactory facility

(R.

22,

28).

But the

proof falls fall short of convincing us that. the franchise will

be lost unless we allow more ill—treated sewage to be discharged

to the waters.

The president Of the operating company testified

that he had not discussed with the parent company the question

whether

the

impossibility of building as soon as required would

result in cancellation

(R.

55-57); he indicated that theeparent

company was “aware by now that

the. October 1 date cannot be

lived up to” and that there was “a high degree of interest that

I get something in brick and mortar, and in soon”

(R.

57).

A

representative of the parent company was unable to indicate

what his company would do if the variance.was denied

(R,

109).

We cannot believe that the manufacturer would cut out its only

existing outlet in the Waukegan area because of an inability

to build that is shared by everyone in the entire Sanitary District.

The testimony does includ; speculation that an e~istingdealer

with better building and a franchise from another manufacturer

might apply for the position

(R. 96), but we cannot find the

fact of unreasonable hardship on the basis of a mere possibility.

In short we believe

the

result of denying this variance

will

be

that the dealer must put up

a little longer with rather

cramped quarters.

We think that a rather

small price to pay to

avoid further degradation of the environment pending completion

of adequate sewage

treatment facilities.

The petition for variance

is denied.

conclusions of law.

I, Regina E. Ryan,

Clerk of the Pollution Contro

Board, ce~4.i~y

that the Board adopted the above Opinion this~~d~y

2

—

296