ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
October 18, 1973
IN TIlE MATTER OF:
THE PETITION FOR VARIANCE OF:
)
PCB 73—273
RONALD H. AND CAROLYN BOWER
)
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Seaman):
On July 25, 1973, Petitioners, Ronald H.. Bower
and Carolyn Bower, filed their Petition for Variance,
seeking permission to connect a sewer extension to
the sanitary sewer system of the City of Carthage,
County of Hancock, Illinois. Petitioners seek such
relief to enable development of 31 residential housing
units on a 27 acre subdivided tract located in
Carthage (R.90). The sewage treatment plant of the
City of Carthage is hydraulically overloaded and the
Agency has imposed a ban on construction and operation
of sanitary sewer extensions. A public hearing was
held on this cause on August 21, 1973.
On June 26, 1970, the Sanitary Water Board,
predecessor of the Environmental Protection Agency,
notified the City of Carthage that future extensions
to its sanitary sewers would be restricted until
progress toward providing adequate treatment facilities
was well advanced. On October 9, 1969, the City of
Carthage submitted plans to the SWB for a new sewage
treatment plant. The Agency approved the plans on
March 8, 1971.
General obligation bonds totalling $200,000.00
have been approved to defray the cost of the new facility
(R.ll). However, various
new
Agency requirements
resulted in additional plans having to be submitted,
each set resulting in additional costs (R.ll). A final
permit to construct was obtained from the Agency on
March 30, 1973 (R.12). The lowest bid for the proposed
plant, submitted on May 15, 1973, was $527,837.30 (R.13).
9—
557
—2-
No estimate can be made as to when the City’s
upgraded facilities will be completed and operational
since construction is dependent upon the availability
of federal and/or state funding. The Priority Number
of the City of Carthage on the Illinois Priority List
for Federal Grant Applications for Municipal Waste
Treatment Works for Fiscal Year 1974 cannot be
ascertained, since the 1974 List has not yet been
approved by the U.S.E.P.A.
The property purchased by Petitioner is wholly
within the corporate limits of the City of Carthage.
Petitioners allege that prior to the purchase of the
subject property they telephoned the Permit Section
of the Springfield office of the Environmental Protection
Agency and indicated their intent to purchase the subject
property and develop it as a residential subdivision
(R.73). The identity of the person to whom Petitioners
allegedly spoke is unknown. Of this alleged conversation,
Petitioner, Ronald H. Bower, testified as follows
(R.73)
0. What, if anything, did you learn as
a result of this conversation?
A.
I talked about where the ground was,
that
it was in the city limits, how many lots
were in it, and he said
--
told me what I had
to
(10
to pet a cormit and I asked him
specifically
if he thought there was any
reason
why it ~iou1d be denied, and he said no,
none that he knew of.
ç~. As a result of this conversation, was
there anything said that would indicate that
the person
you contacted was aware of the sewer
ban problem that the city had at this time?
A.
I told him that I was asking because
I had understood there was
some problems in this
area, and he said he didn’t know, they had
just granted one and it didn’t appear there would
be any problem. lIe also said something about
——
I don’t know, I think he said something about
the city of Carthage was going along pretty good
on their plans.
Q. Approximately when did this conversation
take place?
9— 558
—3—
A. June of 1971.
Q. Now, as a result of that conversation,
did you do anything toward the purchase of this
property?
A. Well, I signed the contracts for an
option to buy and deposited $500.00.
Petitioner further testified that he made a
subsequent, personal visit to the Agency Permit
Section in Springfield in order to obtain the
necessary forms for permit application. On that
occasion an Agency employee, again unknown, allegedly
indicated that “he thought there would be no problem”
in obtaining a permit to connect to the existing sewer
system (R.75). Petitioners thereafter, purchased
the subject property for a total consideration of
$18,000.00. Since acquisition, Petitioners have
expended approximately $20,000.00 for improvements
(R. 82)
Petit~Loners contend, therefore
that prior to the
above—mentioned purchase and acidi tional expenditure
of
$20,000, they received an oral assurance from
the Agency that due to the City’s progress toward
construction of sewage treatment facilities, sewer
system permits would be available when the sibdivision
required such connections. Petitioners imply that
the purchase and expenditures were made in reliance
on this alleged Agency assurance. The Agency has
no record of any such assurance nor has it been able
to corroborate that claim. Assuming arcjuendo such
an assurance was made to Petitioners, it would be
inoperative since no Agency employee has the authority
to make such a statement short of the issuance of a
construction or operating permit.
Petitioner, Ronald Bower, earns approximately
$13,000 per year as a construction foreman (R.104).
Petitioners’ $40,000 expenditure has been financed through
a mortgage and certain other loans. Mr~ Bower
testified that he cannot borrow any more money unless
a variance is granted (R.104). Petitioners are making
mortgage payments of $246.00 per month, plus taxes,
insurance, etc. (R.103). Other sizable obligations
remain outstanding and unfinanced.
9— 559
—4—
The Board is disposed to grant relief
under this
particular set of circumstances, though not to the
extent Petitioners have requested. We cannot find
from the facts presented that Petitioners’ actions
in alleged reliance were justifiable or even prudent.
However, we have sympathy for lètitioners’ plight.
It appears that if Petitioners cannot begin at once to
construct and sell homes, they will suffer a severe
financial loss. Petitioners have limited means and
cannot continue to meet their obligations without
income from the sale of sites.
We will, therefore, grant a variance
which
will
enable Petitioners to connect five houses to the City
of Carthage sewer system. This will not add sienifi—
cantly to the overload and will help Petitioners to
retain their property until the sewer ban is lifted.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact
and conclusions of law of the Board.
ORDER
IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board
that Petitioners, Ronald II. and Carolyn Bower, be
granted a variance from the subject sewer ban
to connect five houses located upon the above—described
property to the sewer system of the City of Carthage.
I, Christan L. Moffett1 Clerk of the Illinois
Pollution Control Board, certify
that the above
Opinion and Order
as adopted by the Board on the
j~1t
day of
__________________,
1973 by a vote
of
..5
to
_____________
A
-~ ~
/~, 1’~:
9— 560