ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Novemter

28, 1972

RARE B. COOK

#72—430

v.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OPINION OF TIrE BOARD (DY SV1UI~

~

s~.,

On Auqust 29, 1972, in

2—173,

denied a ~etitic’n

For variance filed dv hark IL. i’cok ~:oich

recuestecl vernission

to connoc L a

Lnqle-fanJ:-siancua

trecture

to acli itleS

tr:butar

to the Waukucan. F:a~iee Tr~tnenL Pant of the North

Shore Saoitar~i District .A::’

~cih ;e

hod

cranted a cersiel

iii tinq oi our organol

order wita res’eeo’: to the

Waukeqan elant,

the sewer

cwhicn coanec tto:. was ercoosed dad

been classified

as overloa:Iai

u.~ the Env:rorc-ental

Protect~en

Aaencv

arab the original

r~1e~~ a:corfinelv

We refus~ to grant the vrr:L inca on the qround that r~eti don-

er s hardship was self—anoosed and not of the magnitude to jus tafy

the variance allowance based on crevious decisions,

as set forth

in our August 29, 1972 oninion,

(La October 3, 1972 in Jo:~ UR

Bender v. Environnontal

Protection

Agency, #72—324, we ranted

a varlance to the netitioner

under circumstances

not unlike

those mainta ininc ira eke present case.

The rationale

of ocr

allowance in lender was that although the nenitioner

micrht have

constructed

hi~ ms thence in the fec:: ‘if the se-our ban, gambitag

that it would be ter:thnetd•J or varuef La cine oem hire to connect,

he did not have reason to oonten:h~ete at that time that once the

sewer ban was nert1a1l~: Li~tie, t...o soecue ac sewer to wnecn con-

nection was Sought would c

:a

class tfiei as overloaded

In each

case, the petitioner

tone a es trial-: te:1 risk when he began

con-

struction

with knowledge thee

La; coar;’;rtion could be

made until

the ban was

lifted,

but that the ned. sri initially

imoosed on

toe basis of inadequate

facil:L ties to tno sow-ego treatment plant

and not on the character

of

the

sower to which connection was

sought.

While our drcision ot ‘larch 2, 1972’did authorize

addi-

tional connectoons on trio nasus of tree toont plant improvements,

neither ILender nor Cooh coate fome:ee e:e-at when

construction

be-

gan, our later decision would 11th tr::lin-f

iron

the ban on the

ground that certain sewers later designa ted by the

Agency were

inadequate to transport

their present waste loads to the

plant

for treatment.

In both cases,

the

risk petitioners

assume was

the risk that treatment plant improvenierats would be

delayed and

1North Shore

Sanitary District v. Environnenta

Protection

Agency,

~71--343,

5 PCB

6—

345

---

not that an unforeseen and unrelated problem

with the adequacies

of

the

sewer

itself might intervene. In both cases, a single

house with

limited waste is involved.

While

we feel that Cook’s reliance on statements of municipal

officers

to

ignore

the

ban would not be justification for allowing

the

variance, Cook has made a demonstration of financial hardship

and need

for disposal of

the

property that are sufficient, in our

judgenient,

to call for a reversal of our previous position, par—

ticularlv in consideration of the Bender rationale.

We do

not

find persuasive

the

Agency’s distinction between the construction

of Bender’s home for Iris own use and Cook’s for ultimate disoosal.

The hardship

on

Cook is manifest and the burden

on

the public in

allowing

the

variance is minimal. Accordingly, we rescind our

order of August 29, 1972 denying Cook’s petition for variance,

and

by

this order grant a variance to Cook allowing

him

to

connect to facilities tributary to the Waukegan Sewage Treatment

plant

of the

North Shore Sanitary District as requested in his

petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

certify

that

the above Opinion was adopted on the ~~~day of

________________

1972, by a vote of

_____

to ~

—2—

6

—