Laserfiche WebLink
� � � <br /> A�5 <br /> C 1-� <br /> >H[n <br /> � <br /> H��-�+ <br /> ht f] <br /> H x! <br /> �M'� <br /> fA H <br /> � Xp <br /> HC <br /> O i-+ <br /> ��g <br /> �. � <br /> zy�� H y May 8, 1989 <br /> �y <br /> H <br /> �y <br /> � cirv or <br /> y o y Larry Jel si ng everett <br /> Carlson, Hopkins & Jelsing <br /> 1001 Mall Street Building �,�°"°"1vS0'�"E <br /> �r,,.n��.,,r�� <br /> 2930 Wetmore Avenue „�„:..,- ,�,.A.,.�.,, <br /> Everett, MA 98201-4044 ��• �� �.a°�:�� <br /> -:.M i F'}y;�0 <br /> IFv ::15�2'_V91:9 <br /> Dear Larry: <br /> :t is not withouL some empathy that I respond to your May 2 and 4, 1989, <br /> letters requesting my viewpoint as to the problem of the unQerground tanks <br /> discovered under the public right-of-wayitSdJaredecessorEinrinterestustrThe <br /> Supply which tanks were installed by P <br /> characterization of hydrocarbon fuel as a hazardous material has placed a <br /> great cost burden to the public and private sector which the Congress <br /> � blandly disregarded in the regulations regarAina undcrgrcund tanks. It <br /> � � would appear to me that inexpensive, on-site remediation pracedures should <br /> � ' have been developed and available before launching a regulator,y program with <br /> � such vast financial impacts. I hope that the remediation suggested by DOE <br /> � will prove to be less costly than the original 56,500 estimate. At this <br /> � � time, the Everett City Council has not developed any progr Tlus, thisioffice <br /> � ' derelict fuel storage tanks discovered on City property. <br /> � must approach this case under existing public property management law and <br /> ' policies. <br /> � To date, a+e have not found a Pe�a�r clientestpred cessorsin�interest t It <br /> admitted that it was installed by y <br /> '� daes not belonredecessorClnyinterest,anthe5eusualf form ewould havermrequired <br /> ��� indemnification of the City and restoration of the property to as good or <br /> � better condition as before. In any event, I do not believe that the lack of <br /> � a permit improves your client's situation, because, without a permit, the <br /> � tank is an obstruction of the public right-of-way (its existence does <br /> �—� "obstruct" the street improvements) and is subject to abatrment as a <br /> � nuisar�ce. State ex rel .uRe nolds 9 aysl � 4368 uLiability for Conditio�s <br /> � (1925); see a so <br /> � ' Created by Predecessor n e ; Seattle v Pu eg t Sound Improvement Co., <br /> � Wash. 2Y5, 91 Pac. 255 (19071• <br /> I s!:ould point out that having discovered the tank, it is my opinion that <br /> the City now has an affirmative duty to insist upon its abatement in some <br /> manner. I hope that the Fire Department's suggestion is also acceptable to <br /> the right-of-way management people. <br />