Underground storage tanks

[fringe]

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?

[Cardinal]

For liability purposes, the party responsible for creating the contamination is considered liable for its clean-up. This is true even if it has created off-site contamination, such as when a UST leaks and creates a plume under adjacent properties. As far as the survey goes, you might refer it to the DOT or whoever owns that particular section of ROW. It could be a case where the DOT acquired part of the original gas station property for ROW, in which it would be the owner of the land with the tanks on it. They may also have a survey of the ROW, which you could compare to the one submitted. Then you could require that discrepencies be corrected prior to approval.

[fringe]

State environmental has told me much the same, cardinal, tho they wouldn't touch ROW questions, but did copy our e-mails to DOT.

I have tossed the ball back into the owners court asking him to address tankage questions.

[Bim]

If I understand your description correctly, it sounds like referring it to DOT might well be a good idea. They probably know where there ROW is and isn’t. I don’t know surveying/real estate law in your state (or mine) but it seems to me that you can’t “divorce” yourself from land that you own simply by platting it as land you don’t own, or leaving it off of a description of land you do own on a new plat. From your description, it sounds like he will still own the land with the UST’s.

[shell_waster]

The area engineer for GDOT should be able to email you a .pdf or .tif of their recorded ROW since it is along a state hwy.

Your suggestion about not approving until the tanks are removed is a good one, although I doubt your code allows you to condition the approval of a final plat. You may recall during the 90's many of the old gas stations were required by EPD through consent orders to remove their USTs if they were metal and replace with plastic. This one you're referencing must have just closed down instead of complying.

[fringe]

Waster you are right I will not approve on conditions.

State EPD told me the law was passed in 1980. Burden of compliance falls on who put or had them put there.

Station is so old that none of those people is still alive, and parcel is in estate.

Survey appears to mark ROW, but does not note it. State told me ROW is sometimes owned by state, sometimes not.

I agree with bim that my approval or lack thereof is moot in regard to where responsibility lies. Estate (owner) tells me they knew about them but thought they could leave them alone. They are not located on plat because surveyor works on top of the ground only.

[shell_waster]

Fringe,

When revising/recording a final plat of property with existing structures (such as a combination or subdivsion plat) do you require the surveyor to to provide an as-built or just boundary survey? If you require an as-built then it should show the location of the USTs as well as any septic tank and field lines, utilities (both above and below ground), wells, etc.