ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

18,

1977

MICHAEL STEVEN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER,

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

 PCB 77-40

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent

JOHN McGUIRE OF WALKER,

 GENDE, HAKDER, BERZ

 & GRAMMACO,

SPRINGFIELD,

 represented Petitioner,

JOSEPH SVOBODA, OF

THE AGENCY, represented Respondent.

OPINION OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr. Dumelle):

This Opinion is in support

of an Order entered

by

the

Bqard

on

August ~4,1977.

On February

2,

1977

Petitioner

filed

for

a Variance requesting

relief to allow the Michael

Steven Plaza

 (Plaza)

 to remain connected

to the City of Carlinvill&s

presently

restricted sewer system.

An

amended Petition was

filed on May

5,

1977

seeking a Variance from

Rule 962(a)

 of Chapter

3:

 Water

Pollution of

the

Board~sRules

&

Regulations.

 The Agency~sRecommendation to deny

the

variance was

 filed on March 28,

 1977.

 The Agency re-submitted its

Recommendation

with some modification on June 9,

 1977,

in

response to the Amended

Petition.

 A hearing was held on June 19,

1977

at

the Methodist Church

Hall

 in Carlinvilie; no

members of the general public

testified.

John Schien owns a 32 acre tract

in

northeast Carlinville

and

constructs buildings

as

the need

arises~

(R.

6).

 In 1974 he

constructed an eight inch sewer connecting the

Plaza

Truck Service

on the northeast part of his tract

to the

City~ssewer

 system,

(R.

7)

which is currently on restricted status until completion of its

proposed facility scheduled

 for September,

 1978.

Since the sewer

 line was installed, Mr. Schien has constructed

a shopping center and

has

connected

the individual

stores to his

sewer.

(R.

15)

 All of these

connections and

installations were

performed without Agency

permits because Mr. Schien

believed he didn’t

need to apply for them,

 This variance request arises because

~7~~?3

once

the corncc’~.

er

~

Schien

had be~

3

required Agency

pero

restricted statu~ t~? g~

oo

permits

 to al)~owthase

r

Board,

 This ~variunce

and 1egal~ze t1ac ~

Section

 35 of

 tire

~

unless the Petitiorer da c~ct

Rules

and Regulations w

6.

hardship.

 In th~s as~.

of $18,600.00,

 ‘R

16

construct indivicua~ ~ew

icc

center to the city

 ~ c~c

~a

line.

 These individ

~i

 -ir~

permits.

 This hardsci~

therefore insufficienc

~x

ju~.

:~t

how this unfortunate

s~t.a

.-~

 6~scoveredthat Mr.

necions

and

installation

a city sewer system

was

on

-~vebeen able to issue

o

 a variance from the

uc en for his past mistake

r~nces cannot be granted

--‘~r’iancewith the Board~s

 -iary

 or unreasonable

n would be the

expense

•

-a

~o be spent to

hailding in the

shopping

o his own eight inch

sewer

at require

Agency

-~e self-imposed and

~anae without

analyzing

In January t9~4Mr

 w~sadvised by the

Agency that no permit va~

Lea~c

 ~f~ht inch

sewer

 if it

was designed to serve o~

o e

‘

 -r wauld

eventually

transport sewage of

15

 a pic ~

 ~t. Ex.

1)

 Armed with this

information Mr. S~hier

 ~ould go

ahead and

install

the sewer

line because

 o.it

~a

be

connected

only ~o his

service station,

Mr

 5~oien~

a

 a sewer

in such

a

way that

future connections to

it

ou

p

 ~ce.

 The line

was routed

around

his property to prcuidc

~a

 cc -~or~r~ent.When the

shopping

center

was built, Mr.

 ~cs en

~

 isef that individual

connections that ~erven ~o

J

 andled no more than 1500

gallons

of wastewater e~cha

~‘

 ~L’~

 ~eqrire

 Agency

permits.

 (Pet.

Ex,

 2,4,6,7)

 Since e~cla

t

 co ~a~ara

 ~o the eight

inch

line

fit this speciticatio3

 ~6.c

 a atfons w~rtecompleted.

 The Agency had

apparently been ind~co

-t

~

 -s correspondence that

Mr.

Schien~sconclusions w~r

t

e.

cc.

ar~e

Agency

was

finally

apprised

of

the complete si~ia~

cof

ui

rat

t.~atan eight

inch

line

with a nunber of comxaerc~ corecti~s was being

connected

without any perrrits

 to Carlini

e

 a r~vcr~oadedsewer system,

it

stated

quite plaicly

~ut

th

 oonccti~onshad

in

fact been

illegal.

 (Pet

tx

t(~

The Agency co~en6ea ~

~

~

a

 cr6.

 in its recommendation

that Mr. Schior~ieichc

ar.

~

 oaf beer~intended all

along

for future connec ion~arc

t

a

 y harcsi.ip suffered in this

case

was the Petiticre~ a

w.

-IL

ur

 Schien admitted

that

he

had intended futcre de~loaa~c

a

 tar ha installed

the sewer.

His argument was tI~ata~each a~p ~f

 ~re way,

he believed that

he was justified in proceediTIc

 ancrr

 a cermit.

~R,

18)

 The size of

the sewer was ~xp1ainei

 ~tsnecEm-~rvb-muse

 of the

slope

involved,

(R,

8)

 The Agency correspoaderi~e

 nt its misinformed

conclusions

/1/

formed the

 basis for

Mr.

Schien~s

decision to connect the

individual

stores.

The Board finds

 that construction of additional individual

 sewer

lines that would

parallel the present eight inch line would

impose

an arbitrary or

 unreasonable

hardship on the Petitioner.

The

 confusing correspondence in

 the record adequately explains

Petitioner’s errors

 in judgment.

 :~tshould be noted

that

neither

granting nor

 denying this variance would result in any significant

adverse environmental

 impact on the

city~s sewer system.

The

same volume of sewage

will flow whether it goes

 through new

individual

lines or the existing

eight inch line,

No further connections,

other than those

 for existing

buildings,

may be made.

This Opini~i

constitutes

the Board~sfindings of fact

and

conclusions of law in

 this matter.

I, Christan L.

 Moffett, Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution

CoI)troi

Board,

 certify

the above Opinion was adopt~ on theJ~~

day of

 1977 by a vote of

~p~333

Illinois Pol1ution~

 Board