ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    May 3,
    1984
    AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 83—106
    )
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    )
    AGENCY, COUNTY OF DUPAGE; AND
    CITY OF DARIEN,
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.
    D.
    Dumelle):
    This matter comes before the Board upon a March 13,
    1984
    filing submitted on behalf of the American National Bank of
    Chicago which is encaptioned “Petition For Rehearing” but which
    appears
    to be a motion for reconsideration.
    On April
    11,
    1984
    American National filed a motion to file supplemental affidavit,
    which motion
    is hereby denied
    in that so far as any
    new
    evidence
    is presented, there
    is no showing that such evidence was un-
    available prior to the Board’s decision in this matter.
    Further,
    such new evidence merely quantifies expenses which the Board has
    held ~iereself—imposed or irrelevant
    (e.g. were expended on a
    project other than that for which variance is now requested).
    No
    new evidence which is inconsistent with the February 9, 1984
    Opinion and Order in this matter is presented, and the Board has
    fully considered the arguments advanced in the motion to reconsider
    except to the extenL thaL American National argues that variance
    should,
    at a minimum, have been granted for the first 20 units of
    Phase
    I.
    Therefore,
    reconsideration is denied except as to that
    issue.
    It is not “a worshiping of form over substance”
    to deny
    variance as to those units.*
    On November 18,
    1983 the Board
    amended 35
    Ill. Adm. Code 309.202(b) (2) to insure that the exemp-
    tion under that section applies only to single buildings
    (See
    R82—5,-10,
    cons. pp.
    4—5).
    Using American National’s reasoning,
    variances would have to be granted to entire subdivisions consisting
    of units which discharge less than 1500 gallons per day so long
    as they are capable of each being connected to a public sewer
    system “since the flowage would be identical” if they were all
    The Board notes that while American National attributes
    the
    quoted language to the hearing officer, the remark was actually
    made by American National’s attorney (R.98, but cf.R115).
    58-03
    interconnected prior
    to
    connection to the public system.
    Such
    an
    argument runs counter
    to the intent of the exemption which is
    based upon administrative convenience where the discharges are so
    small that the potential for environmental harm fails to justify
    the expense of permitting.
    For the most part,
    the exemption
    is
    directed toward single family homes.
    Finally, while the record
    is somewhat vague,
    the second amended petition does not request
    relief for the Phase
    I units.
    However, American National,
    at
    hearing,
    did suggest that the Board consider including
    3 of the
    5
    Phase
    I buildings
    (12 units)
    for variance
    (R.100—101).
    The motion to supplement
    is denied.
    The motion to reconsider
    is granted
    in part and denied in part,
    and the Board’s Order of
    February
    9,
    1984,
    is affirmed.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    Board Members J.
    T. Meyer and W. Nega dissented.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control ~o~rd hereby certify that the above Order was adopted on
    the _________________day of ________________________,
    1984 by a
    vote o~
    g.-~~k
    .
    L1~-t-~-~
    c~-~
    ~
    Christan L. Moffe~,~J(~lerk
    Illinois Pollution’~ontrolBoard
    58-04

    Back to top