Building over underground storage tanks

[mgalleshaw]

Lot is waterfront, has marina adjacent with fuel sales. Fuel is stored in usts in parking lot. Can't find public official with answer for H&BE and zoning ordinance does not appear to address. The question: can the surface over the ust's be used for permanent building or would (could) the tanks be moved?

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

I would not want to site a dwelling over a UST because a UST becomes a LUST eventually. And if you knowingly bought and built it, the liablilty accrues to you as "joint and several" parties because you cannot claim to be an "innocent landowner" to the UST. You know it is there. Remove it.

 

[George Hatch]

I would not want to site a dwelling over a UST because a UST becomes a LUST eventually

+1

I appraised a site for a lender a long time ago that had an old UST onsite. They already had a loan on the property and were thinking about taking the property back in foreclosure because the borrower wasn't paying. My discovery of the UST was the first they heard of it.

Against better advice they followed through on the foreclosure only to be hit with the notice to remove within 72 hours. It only cost them $75k (in 1990 dollars) so they got off easy because it could have been a lot worse.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

A friend on my brothers lost his gas station due to what was thought to be LUST, and he was insured but when new tanks were installed the monitoring wells alarm rang again. He lost the place for being down over a year. Months later the bank that inherited traced the contamination to a city service yard about 400 yd away...do you think Max got the station back? No way.

 

[Walter Kirk]

I appraised a unit in a condo complex which had fuel oil tanks buried next to the concrete slab foundations. The tanks , of course, leaked and the clean up required excavation under the concrete slabs. The cost of this clean up almost equaled the market value of the units.

My conclusion is that although it may be legal to build over or next to tanks its pretty stupid.

 

[mgalleshaw]

I agree that it is not smart to build over underground storage tanks. This site is along a major navigable waterfront in a resort area and problably the surface could be used for a mid rise mixed use property. But putting something like that on underground storage tanks seems contradicted. It would seem to me to be legally prohibited at some level to avoid the horror scenarios that can be envisioned. After all, most cities won't allow construction over a community storm sewer easement. But I can't find an ordinance about usts in this community. The land is very valuable and the tanks disturb the potential layout of improvements.

 

[Terrel L. Shields]

If the value of the land for something else exceeds the value as a site for tanks and the cost to remove same, then HBU comes into play. And I would check long and hard with the state environmental quality folks and the fire marshall about whether you could legally build atop them.

 

[Tim The Enchanter]

Whatever you build above the tanks is likely to have to be removed some years down the road. A parking lot seems about right. Easy to dig up if needed.

 

[Restrain]

From an environmental point, I don't see that a building permit would be issued in this instance. Tanks would have to be removed and should be removed before any other work done.

 

[George Hatch]

In my state if/when an unused UST is found the property owner is required to remove it immediately. It turns into a circus because they have to hire a qualified contractor, arrange for disposal, pay for the fire department and environmental agency inspectors to take soils tests as the UST is being removed, etc.

I had one lending client that required a review of the environmental screen report and comments in the appraisal report when the screening report noted nearby hazards.