ILLINOIS POLLUTIOF~CONTROL BOARD

June

16,

1983

VILLAGE OF LOMBARD,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 82—152

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.~

MS. RITA FLSNER, VILLAGE ATTORNEY, APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF THE VILLAGE

OF LOMBARD.

MS. MARY

E. DRAKE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ENVIRONMENETAL

PROTECTION AGENCY.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.D.

Dumelle):

This matter comes before the Board upon

a December 30,

1982 petition for variance

arid an April

1,

1983 amended petition

filed by the Village of Lombard

(Village)

requesting relief

from 35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 309.241(a)

(old Rule 962(a)

of Chapter

3:

Water Pollution).

On March 28,

1982 the Illinois Environmental

Protection Agency

(Agency)

tiled

a recommendation that variance he

granted subject

to certain conditions, and on May

6,

1983 it

reaffirmed that position.

Hearing was held on March

30,

1983 at

which both parties presented witnesses and several members of the

public testified,

The Village owns certain

property

located

in the downtown

area of the Village and has been authorized to act as

an agent for

School District

#44 which

is the beneficial

owner of nearby

land held

in trust by the DuPage County Board of Supervisors.

These

properties are partially vacant parcels of land on which

a school

and the former Village Hall are located.

Surrounding properties

are residential and business,

The Village proposes that these

properties be privately developed

to aid in revitalization of the

downtown area.

The proposed development consists of a 145—unit

apartment complex and two retail stores.

This development, however,

cannot occur absent the granting of the requested relief since the

properties

are located in a portion of

the Village which is

currently on Restricted Status,

precluding Agency issuance of

construction

or operating permits.

52-361

---

—2—

The Village has a present population of approximately 38,800

persons.

Existing sewer facilities within the Village are both

combined and separate sewers and consist basically of four

interceptor sewers:

a 30—inch serving northern areas,

a 54—inch

serving west central areas,

a 108-inch serving southern and east

central areas,

and a new interceptor serving separate sanitary

sewers

in the southern-most areas.

The proposed development will

be tributary to the 54—inch combined interceptor sewer.

Currently,

the Village

is participating

in a multi—phase

state grant project for sewer system rehabilitation with Phases

I,

II and III aimed at the 30—inch,

54—inch and 108—inch

interceptors, respectively.

Phase

I

is near completion and Phase

II will begin soon with completion on or before December

31,

1984.

Upon completion of Phase

II the section tributary to the

54—inch interceptor, which includes the Village’s proposed sewer

extension,

can probably be removed from Restricted Status.

Some windows of the former Village Hall and the school

are

presently boarded up as a result of vandalism and not used for

any purposes.

They, therefore, do not contribute any sewage load

to the Village’s sewer system.

Storm water from those sites

does, however, currently run into combined lines which merge at

the 54—inch interceptor.

If the proposed residential and

commercial development

is allowed to proceed,

483 population

equivalents

(48,300 gallons per day)

of domestic wastewater and

effluent from a single grocery store would be added to the system

(R.15 and App.

D of Petition).

The Village proposes that the storm water from those sites

would be

removed from the line which runs into the 54-inch combined

sewer interceptor and instead routed into a separate

storm sewer

line.

The Village estimates that 16.9 cfs

(cubic feet per second)

will be removed from the interceptor as a result.

The Village

also proposes to remove nine storm structures from the 54—inch

combined line which would allegedly remove and additional

11 cfs.

Finally,

an additional

2.1 cfs would allegedly be removed from

the line due to the rebuilding of

forty-two manholes.

Thus,

30.0

cfs would allegedly be removed from the line while only 0.3 cfs

would be added.

The

Agency points out, however, that these removal values

are based on rainfall intensities of 5.3 inches per hour,

not

total rainfall, which can be misleading when comparing this to

the continuous discharge that will occur

from the proposed devel-

opment.

The 5.3 inches per hour figure

is actually based upon a

total rainfall of 0.88 inches occurring over a 10—minute period.

As a result,

the actual quantities of water that will be eliminated

or restricted from entering the system on a day of average rainfall

is much less than these amounts.

Regarding the removal

of 16.9 cfs,

the Agency states that it

cannot determine whether the run—off coefficient used to obtain

this value is based upon existing conditions or conditions after

the proposed development is constructed.

52-362

---

—3—

All that is not to say that these projects will not have any

benefit.

These modifications will help relieve sudden surges

in the

sewer system resulting from direct inflow during

a rainfall event

and should eliminate some stormwater from the combined system,

thus having a positive overall effect upon the 54-inch combined

interceptor service area.

In short,

Lombard proposes to reduce

potential overflows from the 54-inch combined sewer caused by

peak storm flows while increasing domestic sewage flow at a steady

rate

in the 54—inch combined sewer from the two parcels of land.

The overall environmental impact of these changes is unclear.

At present, several locations within the 54 inch interceptor service

area are subject to back-ups and flooding.

Several citizen witnesses

appeared at the hearing to describe these problems which form the

basis

for the imposition of Restricted Status.

Mr.

George W.

Fyler

described an area approximately 1,000 feet downstream from the

proposed connections which surcharged during heavy rainfall on

August 7,

1982.

That location is at the intersection of

a 48-inch

sewer

line with 36—inch and 12-inch lines which merge into the

54—inch

line, apparently causing a bottleneck which results

in

surcharging conditions.

While the Village has demonstrated a reduction

in flows to the

54—inch line during storm events,

it has not demonstrated that the

reduction

is sufficient to eliminate such surcharging, and if

surcharging continues,

the problem could be aggravated in that

the domestic sewage component of the flows will be greater.

However, the Agency notes that any net environmental harm resulting

from the granting of this variance will he of limited duration in that

Lombard is under a court order to complete improvements to its

sewer system by December 31,

1984 which should be sufficient to

avoid future surcharging problems.

On that basis, the Agency recommends that variance be granted but

that a condition should be imposed requiring that the Glenview

and St. Charles Storm Sewer Project

(involving the removal of the

nine storm structures and required by the above court order to

be completed by December 31,

1983) and the Sanitary Manhole Project

(involving the repair of the forty-two manholes and required by

the above court order to be completed by June

30,

1983)

be completed

prior to occupancy of any building built on the sites which are

subject to this variance petition.

The Agency states that these conditions, along with the diversion

of the storm water from the 54—inch combined sewer line to the separate

storm

sewer as agreed

to by the Village (Agency Ex.

1), would be

helpful because they will allow additional capacity in the 54—inch

combined sewer line and thus reduce the

likelihood of overflows

in the vicinity of the objectors.

52-363

---

—4—

Finally, the Agency recommends that a condition should be

imposed requiring that the development of the sites in question

be restricted to a total design population equivalent of 483

(Petition,

Ex.

D), divided between domestic and commercial

use,

that the effluent from the sites be limited to domestic wastewater

and effluent from a single grocery store,

and that on-site storm

water detention on the two parcels be

required as approved by the

Agency.

In reaching those conclusions the Agency considered the

continued deterioration of downtown Lombard and the loss of tax

revenue which would result from denial

of the variance and balanced

that against the uncertain,

and possibly beneficial, environmental

impact of granting variance and the Village’s good—faith effort

to correct its sewer system problems in the past few years.

At hearing there was much support for and little opposition

to the proposed project,

so long as the surcharging conditions

are improved prior to occupancy.

On the other hand,

several

witnesses testified regarding serious problems.

“Water would

shoot a good three

feet” out of toilets in the old Village Hall

when it rained,

damaging township papers

(R.228).

Charles Gaul,

who has lived

in Lombard for 20 years,

“can’t recall a year” that

he did not have back-ups

in his basement

(R.234).

He lives one

block west of the school

(R.235). His neighbors also have flooding

(R.235).

Larry Resinsma, who

lives just south of Mr.

Gaul testi-

fied that sewage backed up into his basement at least four times

in 1982 causing increased sickness such that he will not allow

his children to play in the basement

(R.241—242).

Linda Sullivan,

who lives two blocks from the site,

testified that she has had

raw sewage two feet deep in her basement and

“a crust an inch

thick”

on her lawn composed of “toilet paper and cigarette butts”

(R.88—89).

Her six year old son has developed an allergy to

yeast and mold and cannot go

in the basement

(R.89).

She further

testified that he missed 37 days

of school

last year “and the

allergist feels

it

is directly a result of the yeast and mold”

caused by the flooding.

The Board has always taken testimony of basement flooding

very seriously and will not allow new sewer connections which

could aggravate such problems.

In this case the Village has not

made a sufficient showing that such aggravation will not occur.

Arthur Allen, an engineer, submitted suggested variance conditions

alternative to the Agency’s recommendation to insure that no such

aggravation would occur, which would disallow any construction

prior to completion of all presently proposed sewer modifications

and construction.

Since the record indicates that Restricted

Status will likely be terminated upon completion of all these

projects, Mr.

Allen’s condition would render the variance nearly

meaningless.

52-364

---

—5—

The Board finds both these alternatives to be unacceptable.

The stated hardhip is not great and is poorly documented.

There

are certainly some costs associated with the upkeep of the two

vacant buildings and there is some lost revenue.

However, these

costs are not quantified and the reason the old Village Hall

became unusable appears

to be the same as the reasons for the

imposition of Restricted Status,

and to that extent

is self—imposed.

The loss of tax revenues

is only prospective

in that it has not

previously been on the tax rolls.

For the most part, Restricted

Status has simply caused an opportunity to be deferred, which is

the very basis for its imposition.

However, there

is evidence

supporting a need for housing,

and the deterioration of the

downtown area is not an expected consequence of Restricted Status,

such that some hardship has been shown.

On the other hand, the environmental harm from basement flooding

is of serious consequence and outweighs the hardship.

Therefore,

the Board cannot grant a variance which allows that possibility, and

connection to the sewer system cannot be allowed prior to the

termination of Restricted Status.

However, the sewer system

rehabilitation program upon which the Village has embarked appears

adequate to assure compliance by December 31,

1985,

and construction

should be allowed to proceed prior to that date.

Thus, the Board finds that denial

of variance to allow the

construction of the proposed facilities constitutes

an arbitrary

or unreasonable hardship.

The Board will grant variance to allow

the Agency to issue a construction permit, but will not allow the

issuance of an operating permit prior to the termination of

Restricted Status.

It is possible that an a1ternative proposal could bc developed

by the Village

to assure that sewage back-ups would not be aggravated

due to connection of the proposed facilities

to the sewer system

(e.g. use of holding tanks for the waste water to be discharged

only under low flow conditions).

However,

the present record

does not support such a finding.

The Village is,

of course,

free

to bring a modified proposal before the Board if it so chooses.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and

conclusions of

law

in this matter.

ORDER

The Village of Lombard

is hereby granted

a variance from

35

Ill. Adm. Code 309.241(a)

-—

Standards for Issuance,

until

December 31,

1985 in order to allow the construction of connections

to the sanitary sewer system of the Village for certain developments

subject to the following conditions:

52-365

---

—6—

1.

The developments shall he restricted to two parcels of

land as described in Exhibits A and B of the Variance Petition, which

consist of approximately one-half of the area bounded by the

Lombard streets of

Lincoln,

Grove,

Park and St.

Charles;

2.

Operating permits shall not be issued prior to termination

of Restricted Status on the applicable portion of the sewer

system.

3.

The development of the two parcels of land shall be

restricted to a total design population equivalent of 483,

divided as follows:

a)

the residential development would be limited to 474

P.E.,

and

b)

the retail development limited to

900 gallons per day

total

for all

of the retail stores to

be built on the

sites subject to this variance petition;

4.

The effluent from the two parcels

in question shall

consist only of domestic wastewater and effluent from a single

grocery store;

5.

There

shall be on—site detention of storm water on the two

parcels of land as approved by the Agency;

6.

Within 45 days of the date of this Order, the Village of

Lombard shall execute a Certification of Acceptance and Agreement

to be bound to all terms and conditions

of this variance.

Said

Certification shall

be submitted to the Agency at 2200 Churchill

Road, Springfield,

Illinois

62706.

The 45—day period shall he

held

in abeyance during any period that this matter is being

appealed.

The form of said Certification shall be

as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I,

(We)

_________________—

—_____________

_______

hereby accepts and agrees to be bound by all terms and conditions

of the Order of the Pollution Control Board in PCB 82-152,

June 16,

1983.

Petitioner

Authorized Agent

Title

Date

52-366

---

—7—

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Christan

L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby ce~rtifythat the above Opinion and Order

was adopted on the

~

day of

~

—,

1983 by

a vote of

______________

Christan L.

Mofff

Clerk

Illinois Polluti

Control Board

52-367