ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August

29,

1972

MARKE.

COOK

v.

)

PCB

72-178

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

COMMUNITY

UNIT

SCHOOL

DISTRICT

NO.

60

LAKE

COUNTY,

ILLINOIS

v.

)

PCB

72-223

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

DISSENTING

OPINION

(by Mr.

Dumelle)

My reason

for dissenting

in the

4-1

decision

to

deny this

variance

is

the

extreme

hardship

now

inflicted

upon

Mr.

Cook.

He

has

a

$30,

000 house

which

he

cannot

sell

(R. 13);

he

has

debts

of

$13, 550

to

subcontractors (H. 15, 22, 26); he has a wife with malignant cancer

(H. 23);

he

has

had to

sell his own home and move into one of his model homes

(H. 40).

What

the denial of this varianèe may well do is to bankrupt this

small

businessman.

The

variance

procedure

involves

the

weighing

of

costs

to the

public

versus

the

costs

to

the

individual.

I

do

not

think the variance

procedure

contemplates

financial

bankruptcy

except

when absolutely

necessary

in extreme

cases

of

pollutional

hazards.

Since

the

Board

itself

in

similar

cases

of

single

house

discharges

(also

to overloaded

sewers

in Waukegan)

has

granted

them

(PCB

72-223,

PCB

72-202,

cited

in

majority

Board

opinion

of this

case)

it

would

appear

that

‘extreme

pollutional

hazardt

does

not

~xist.

The

Board

has opted

not

to bankrupt

a

congregation

of a rabbi’s

services

nor

to bankrupt

high school youths of a vocational education.

Why then

should

it

bankrupt

a small

businessman?

What we

must

realize

in these

three

related

cases

is

that

the

effect

of

e~

grant

is

the

same.

Because

in

the

Cook

case

the

overflow

is

graphicaUv

---

—2—

described

(H. 82,

99)

does

not

mean that

similar

or

worse

conditions

do

not

exist

in

the

other

two cases.

We

must

assume

that

an

erloded

sewer’

is

lust

that.

And

since

grants

have

been

made

in two other

cases

with

presumably

the

same

or

worse

consequences

it seems

to

me that

Mr.

Cook

should

have

also

received

a variance.

In

future

cases

involving

Waukegan

sewers

it

is

apparent

that

the

City

of

Waukegan

ought

to

be joined

as

a party.

The

Board

would

then receive

information

regarding

the

speed

at

which these

overloaded

sewers

will

be

corrected

and

could enter

such

orders

as

are

appropriate.

The

present

indirect

way

of

speeding

up

City

of

Waukegan

sewer

correction

work

by occa-

sional

variance

denials

is

most

unsatisfactory

and unfair

to the

individual

concerned.

\

/

-

1/

Jacob

B.

Dumelle

Board

Member

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

hereby

certify

the

above

Dissenting

Opinion

was

submitted

on the~~~day

of

August,

1972.

~

~

:~

Christan

L.

Moffett,

~~C~rk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

5

—