UST's

[jim baird]

Maybe topical here, since underground storage tanks are associated with many existing buildings.

A parcel that fronts a state highway east of our town is said to include a UST. Parcel contains an old wood frame building that was once a service station.

No plat exists on county records. An owner of this parcel wants to sell it. As a condition of the sale he has hired a surveyor to create a plat. The plat uses centerline distances to the state highway and to an intersecting local road to establish points, which the surveyor set.

My review of the parcel found that the new property line is for all purposes contiguous with the front edge of the building.

It appears to me that the new plat, if approved, will leave the suspected UST's off the property and remaining in the state's right of way.

Does this plat appear to relieve a new owner of responsibility for removal of the old UST's?

I have been asked to approve this plat for recording at the Clerk of Court. Should my approval only be contingent on the tanks' removal?

 

[cda]

Re: UST's

ug tanks are not nice things, but I understand, maybe not right, that it can go back to previous owners to get rid of.

No provisons around you to require they be removed after so long????

Also, if they go to sell the property site assesment will hopefuly pick up the tansk, and may kill the sell.

as far as plating ; I don't know

have you asked the state if they want the tanks??? more than likely NOT

with plat intended is there access problem to the building?? set back problems if they want to build on the property, etc.....................

sounds like they are creating more problems then they are trying to get out of????????????

 

[pyrguy]

Re: UST's

A former AHJ had the state highway widened from 2 lanes to 4 + turning lanes. One existing building is now inside the state right-of-way by about 6 feet on one front corner and the other is outside the ROW.

Another had the same situation with a former gas station. The tanks ended up under the right of way and the city had to remediate the situation. (city ROW, Former owner dead) current owner did own the tanks as the ROW was increased before the sale, in another time before UST were such a big deal.

Things happen.

 

[jim baird]

Re: UST's

State EPD official told me on the phone that I probably should not OK the plat.

Onus of remedy is on the current owner and has been since 1980.

Don't know when he inherited the parcel, but the liability goes right along with it, unless, I suppose, he can show that the state owns it with its ROW. (EPD wouldn't touch question of ROW defs)

I have pitched the ball back into the owner's lap.

BTW, I have noticed that e-mail is great with most people, but when you get something serious enough, lots of officials prefer the phone. I am just the opposite. Writing gives me time to think about what I have to say. Trouble is, it makes a record of each word.

 

[JBI]

Re: UST's

Let your municipal attorney review it. This is ultimately a legal matter moreso than a code matter. It will be helpful to determine if the highway is a 'highway-by-use' (easement) or owned outright by the State...

 

[jim baird]

Re: UST's

I got an e-mail from plat submitter, who said sale was made w/understanding that tanks were in place....in other words someone got took....

I won't bother City attorney unless his attorney takes a swing. No plat approval. Maybe it will kill the deal. Owner appears to plead ignorance but...

 

[peach]

Re: UST's

The reason the state official told you not to approve the plat (I suspect), is that under EPA RCRA laws, the state would then have the legal responsibility to remediate the hazard... it's a cradle to grave thing.

The same reason under BRAC, the military has been unable to flip the properties... it's too costly to clean the earth.

(Better to leave it under federal jurisdiction and keep the soil poisoned, I suppose).