ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    19,
    1984
    BOB EVANS FARMS
    INC.
    an Ohio Corporation,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 83—65
    ILLINOIS ENVIKONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY;
    THE
    COUNTY OF DUPAGE,
    )
    Respondents.
    hR. MARK KOWALCZYK (KOWALCZYK AND STOCSDILL) APPEARED ON BEHALF
    OF BOB EVANS, INC.;
    MS. MARY DRAKE
    (ATTORNEY AT LAW) APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;
    MESSRS. ALLEN SCHUERING AND MARK ENRIGHT (ASSISTANT STATE’S
    ATTORNEYS) APPEARED ON BEHALF
    OF THE COUNTY OF DUPAGE.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J.
    D. Dumelle):
    This matter cones before the Board upon a May
    13,
    1983
    petition,
    a June
    6,
    1983 first amended petition and a July 21,
    1983 second amended petition for variance filed on
    behalf
    of Bob
    Evans Farms,
    Inc. requesting relief from 35 Ill. Mm. Code
    309.202,
    309.241 and 306.105 to allow the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency (Agency) to issue construction and operating
    permits for a sanitary sewer system connection to a sewage
    treatment facility which is on Restricted Status.
    On July 5,
    1983, the Agency filed a recommendation that variance be denied.
    Hearing was held on December
    1,
    1983 at which all
    parties
    appeared.
    Bob Evans
    filed a memorandum on February 14,
    1984 and
    the Agency filed its brief in lieu of closing argument on
    ?larch
    2,
    1984.
    Bob Evans, an Ohio corporation,
    intends to construct a 5,000
    square foot restaurant with seating
    for 149 customers.
    The
    restaurant
    is proposed to be located on a parcel of land of
    approximately 1.5 acres
    in the Village of Wi.lowbrook,
    DuPage
    County,
    near the intersection of Interstate Rt.
    55 and Illinois
    Rt.
    83.
    Although vacant land exists in the area,
    the vicinity is
    rapidly growing with commercial and office development
    immediately to the east and south
    (Ex. Bi).
    West of Rt.
    83,
    development is residential.
    57-411

    2
    Bob Evans’ restaurant is proposed to be open 363 days per
    year,
    16 hours per day,
    and will employ 60 to 70 people.
    Wastewater from the restaurant is proposed to be discharged into
    a sewer designed and constructed according to the Standard
    Specifications promulgated by the Illinois Society of Professional
    Engineers.
    Daily wastewater flows are estimated at 5500
    6600
    gallons per day based upon a survey of actual water usage at five
    local installations
    (Ex.
    C).
    BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) and TSS
    (total suspended
    solids) will be controlled by a triple basin grease separator and
    garbage grinders will be prohibited.
    Wastewater discharged from
    the restaurant is proposed to enter the adjacent County-owned
    sewer system and flows will be conducted into the Marionbrook
    Wastewater Treatment Plant which discharges into the west branch
    of Sawmill Creek,
    a tributary of the Des Plaines river system
    (Ex. B2).
    A larger wastewater treatment facility, the Knol.wood
    plant,
    which is in the design phase, will ultimately treat the
    bulk of the raw sewage now fed to the Marionbrook plant.
    The Agency placed the Marionbrook facility on Restricted
    Status
    in April,
    1979 due to hydraulic overloading caused by
    inflow/infiltration
    (I/I) and poor plant effluent quality
    (EX.
    A2).
    The facility was also the subject of People v. County
    of DuPage,
    80 MR 432
    (December 4,
    1980; modified on January
    7,
    1982)
    and April
    14,
    1982).
    In its modified order, the Eighteenth
    Judicial Circuit Court of DuPage allowed the County of DuPage a
    90
    credit of the wastewater diverted from the Marionbrook
    facility to an interim package plant,
    known as the interim
    Knoliwood plant, to allow for new connections.
    For those not
    holding permits from the Agency as of the date of the original
    order
    (December
    4,
    1980), the Court required that they be allowed
    to connect only if they received a variance from the Board
    “allowing the Agency to issue a sewer permit”
    (See Ex. Al).
    The
    Board notes that it was not a party to the People v.
    County of DuPage,
    id., and that meeting all conditions
    of that
    order other than the obtaining of variance does not assure that
    variance will be granted.
    For variance to be granted, Bob Evans
    must adequately prove that,
    due to the imposition of Restricted
    Status,
    arbitrary or unreasonable hardship has resulted
    (Ill.
    Rev. Stat,
    1981,
    ch.
    111½, par.
    1035).
    To evaluate the potential
    hardships involved in this matter,
    it
    is necessary to examine the
    purchase of this land and the efforts to develop it as well as
    the environmental impact which would result from the granting of
    variance.
    Bob Evans argues that it would be unreasonable to deny the
    requested variance in that the additional wastewater flows
    57-412

    generated by the proposed restaurant are insignificant
    in
    terms
    of total Marionbrook flows and that compensating flow
    diversion
    (offloading) which
    is required under the Court Order results
    in a
    net decrease in wastewater flows to Marionbrook~ Bob Evans
    further states that denial
    of the variance
    will
    result
    in the
    loss of over $17,000 spent to date for legal,
    engineering,
    architectural, municipal and other fees and costs incurred in
    meeting the many requirements of the local building and zoning
    authorities
    (P11.
    30~~31)*;the loss of annual
    sales
    tax revenues
    to the Village of Willowbrook, the State and the RTA of $63,000;
    the loss of
    an approximately $57,000 fee to DuPage County for
    the
    space necessary permits
    (Rh.
    37—38); the loss of
    60 to 70
    potential restaurant employees (Rh,
    36);
    and the
    loss of
    revenues accruing
    to the various contractors and professions
    involved in the design and construction of the project.
    The Agency,
    on the other hand,
    states that “any hardship in
    the expenditure of funds
    for legal,
    engineering,
    architectural
    and municipal requirements after the imposition of restricted
    status
    is clearly self—imposed,” and that it certainly was
    “not
    the intent of the Modified Court Order for developers to spend
    money after the entry of the order so as to create a hardship
    to
    meet the criteria of the order”
    (Rec.
    p.
    3).
    Bob Evans has not demonstrated arbitrary or unreasonable
    hardship distinguishable
    from that incurred by the
    petitioners
    in
    ~y~en~r~
    v.
    IEPA, PCB 80—175
    (December 15,
    1983),
    Willowbrook Motel Partnership~
    V.
    IEPA,
    PCB 81—149,
    53 PCB 05
    ~
    io~1Bank of çhicao v.
    IEPA, ~
    al.,
    PCB 83—106
    (February 22,
    1984).
    Petitioners
    in each of
    those cases were denied variances because the hardship they
    experienced was no different than that which is
    intended by the
    imposition of Restricted Status which creates
    a moratorium
    on
    development until adequate sewage treatment
    is available.
    Arbitrary or unreasonable economic hardship can generally
    only be
    found where the costs incurred prior to the imposition of
    Restricted Status outweigh the environmental harm which would be
    caused by the granting
    of variance.
    An exception to this
    is that
    costs incurred subsequent to the imposition of Restricted
    Status
    may be considered as hardship if such costs resulted from
    firm
    commitments made prior to the imposition of Restricted Status
    or
    were incurred based upon
    a reasonable belief that the area
    was
    not under Restricted Status,
    *
    The hearing transcript consists of
    a morning and afternoon
    session separately numbered.
    References to the afternoon session
    are (Rh. pp).
    57-413

    In this case the
    funds
    to construct
    the
    restaurant
    were
    admittedly expended after Bob Evans knew of the Restricted
    Status.
    Bob Evans
    argues,
    however, that its expenditures
    “were
    made subsequent to the Court Order in No,
    80 MR 432,” and
    that it
    “should not he penalized for relying upon a valid Court
    Order and
    the denial of the request for a variance would certainly be
    unreasonable and arbitrary”
    (Pet.
    Memo.
    p.7).
    That
    argument
    ignores the fact that the valid Court Order upon which Bob Evans
    supposedly
    relied
    required
    Bob
    Evans
    to obtain a variance
    from
    the
    Board.
    To argue that reliance upon meeting all
    conditions
    of
    that
    Order
    other than obtaining a variance
    is
    sufficient
    to
    support
    variance
    relief
    is to read the requirement of a variance
    out
    of
    the
    Order:
    the
    granting
    of variance
    would
    become
    a
    purely
    ministerial,
    and
    therefore useless,
    act.
    The
    only
    other hardship asserted by Bob Evans
    is the
    adverse
    impact of Restricted Status upon Wiilowbrook due to the loss of
    potential employment opportunities,
    taxes and consumer
    spending
    (see Rh.
    49—51).
    However,
    the large majority of proposed
    projects can make these same claims,
    and these are the
    types of
    hardship
    which
    arc
    expected
    consequences
    of
    the
    imposition of
    Restricted Status,
    Restricted
    Status
    serves to minimize
    the
    adverse environmental
    impacts
    of
    an overloaded or
    improperly
    operated sewage treatment system.
    It also provides an incentive
    to remedy the system’s shortcomings.
    Little
    or
    no
    hardship
    has
    been
    proven in this case
    which
    has
    not been self-imposed
    or
    which
    is
    not
    an
    expected
    consequence of
    Restricted
    Status,
    The
    granting
    of
    variance
    might
    still
    be
    appropriate
    where
    proof
    of
    hardship
    is
    minimal
    if
    a
    substantial
    environmental
    benefit
    were
    proven
    to
    result
    from
    the
    granting
    of
    variance,
    However,
    such
    is
    not
    the case here.
    While the
    benefit
    of
    off-loading
    is
    discussed
    at
    length,
    such off—loading
    is
    not
    the result of Bob Evans’ activities
    (P11,
    11-12)
    and the benefit
    would in fact be comewhat diminished by allowing Bob Evans’
    discharge to
    offset
    part
    of
    the
    diverted
    flows.
    Finally,
    while
    there
    is
    some
    testimony
    regarding
    the
    ineffectiveness
    of
    the
    interim
    Knoliwood
    pant
    due
    to
    insufficient
    flcws
    being
    directed
    to
    it,
    that
    reeul~c:
    f corn
    an
    incomplete
    interceptor rather
    than an
    insufficiency
    of
    f1cw~ which
    could
    be
    diverted.
    The
    Board,
    th~rcfore,
    finds
    that
    Bob
    Evans
    has
    failed
    to
    demonstrate
    an
    arbitrary
    or
    unreasonable
    hardship
    and
    concludes
    that
    the
    requected
    variance
    should
    he
    denied.
    This
    Opinion
    constitutes
    the
    Board’s
    findings
    of
    fact
    and
    conclusions
    of
    law
    in
    this
    matter.
    57-414

    ORDER
    Bob
    Evans
    Farms,
    Inc.
    is hereby denied variance from 35
    Ill.
    Adm, Code 309,202, 309.241 and 306.105 as they apply
    to its
    proposed
    restaurant
    development
    near
    the intersection
    of
    Interstate
    lIt,
    55
    and
    Ill.
    lIt.
    83 in
    the
    Village of
    Willowbrook,
    DuPage
    County.
    IT
    IS SO
    ORDERED.
    I,
    Christan
    L,
    Moffett,
    Clerk of
    the
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board hereby
    certify
    that
    the
    above
    Opi,~nion
    and Order was
    adopted
    on the
    _____day
    of
    ~
    1984 by a
    vote
    of
    ~
    —a
    Christan
    L.
    Moffe~OClerk
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control Board
    57-415

    Back to top