The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutYALE BLK 2 LT 14~, .) II LoT' 2_- February 24, 1977 T¢)= Wiiot~, :{t }.fay Concern l~ot 3,4 Block 2 Yale l~division l"eri]lission to p~'o~,eed ~ith an on-site sew8r sysi;~m on the above {fired property is hereby ~ranted. ~t will be nacsssa~;'y to obtain a soils analysis on introdu~led into thr) soil. A listing of tllose authorized to perfo~ soi],~ tasting is attached. R~aults of tile soils analysis must be submitt--ed to thia office so that an adequate on-~it~ s¢~wer system ~an be designed by this offic~ for the subject property. Connection MUS~' be mad,~ to pt~lic sewe:~ when available. A public ~.?ater syst~a is available to this property. If there ara any further questions, please contact this office at 279-251].~ axteRsion 220. Sincerely, Environmental S¢lrviGes Manager JSn/ljn DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: unicipality of Anchorage MEMORANDUM February 22, 1977 Joe Blair, Health & Environmental Protection Anchorage Sewer Utility YALE SUBDIVISION I have looked into the problem at Yale Subdivision. This line was constructed in 1972. This project at the time was to dump into a septic system temporarily until the C-4 line was constructed. In 1974 the C-4 line was constructed and Yale Subdivision was tied in. This subdivision is presently under litigation as there is some major repair work needed to make this line acceptable to our maintenance department and a subdivision agreement that was never signed. Wertzbauer in Legal has the details. The Yale Subdivision line is not being maintained by the Municipality of Anchorage; it was permitted to discharge into the Municipal System to avoid health problems, however the maintenance of the system will require eventual acceptance by the Municipality. Acceptance will be granted once the needed ropair work has been satisfactorily completed and the developer enters into a subdivision agreement with the Municipality. C.W. Rainer, P.E. Chief of Sewer Operations /James G.' Toews , ~ Chief Engineering ~echnician JGT/cl 91-010 (4/76) FROM: TO: GREATER ANCHORAGE AREABOROUGH DEPARTMENT, Fg ~) J Jd ~.J~.L) REQUESTED RECEIVER: REQUESTED ACTION SCHEDULE FOR INFORMATION ONLY L:i: PREPARE BACK-UP INFORMATION FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION CALL ME BEFORE YOU ANSWER FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION NEED YOUR RECOMMENDATION OTHER MUNI[CIPAL; TY elf ANCHORAGE POST OFFICE t~Ol 400 AIICHOllAOE , ALASI4A 09510 December 9, 1975 Mr. Albert Maffei Mallei, Inc. ].026 West Fourth Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 Re: Yale Subdivision Dear Mr. Maffei: During the summer of 1974,.the former Greater Anchorage Area Borough received numerous complaints regarding the sewer situation at Yale Subdivision. In investigating the matter, it was discovered that through oversight the subdivider, Mr. Nicholas Yale, never executed necessary subdivision agreements for required public improvements. Mr. Yale was contacted and requested to sign a sewer agreement, however, none has been executed. I began investigating the matter early this Spring at the request of the Department of Environmental Quality and Public Works Assessment. Unfortunately, until recently I was unaware of the April correspondence between yourself and Mr. Thurlow regarding the subdivision. I must at once state that'Gary's letter is incorrect and should not be relied upon as our position on the matter. In fact, we are taking the position that Mr. Yale as subdivider is liable for trunk assessment charges as well as certain minor repairs necessary to bring the system to Municipal specifications prior to connection to the Municipal sanitary sewer system. A brief history of the matter 'is crucial in understanding our position. At the time Mr. Yale sought subdivision approval, 'the Borough had plans for the construction of a new sewer trunk near Diamond Boulevard although none was then available for connection to the proposed subdivision. The Platting Authority therefore permitted Mr. Yale the opportunity to construct a public sewer system which would be temporaily served by on-site disposal until such time as the subdivision could be connected to the Borough sewer system. It is quite clear from the records of the proceedings that the construction of a public sewer facility was a requirement of plat approval and that 'the provision for temporary on-site disposal would be permitted only until the availability of a Borough trunk. While it is unfortunate that a sewer agreement r. -Albert, Maffei-' ~ ;~ ~ ~,~ ~ ' ~ ?~' ~:3-~' ? /9/75 -. · ... ~r~,~..~. , .~ ~, ,~-,,~.,~ .~ J . : ?~.~ ,.' , .. _a~ . ~..-.. _~ . · ~., . .... ~ :,. ~ ~ .~ .. .,.. : was not signed prior.to/the :recording of~:the final plat the ,execution ,of such an' agreement/ils not.a ~u~u~ u~. our - nforcement 6f' the subdivider"s~obligation.-. We, of ':course,?rely on ~6.5'of~the Sewer.Tariff.which p~ovides that the' subdivider ~ h ~.~s~a~-cons'~ruct sewer-laterals.within-the subdivision in conf( Ahance' with~app~oved specifications~ and,will.~pay a perisq~are, foot': ?~ar~e -~nE~ieu .of assessmen~ for. the .use of down stream sewers. whichWe~addi'ti°nally'~re'ly °n subdivision records and oth~r evidence show · obligation to be ;a condition of plat~approval In referen6e.~to ~your'/correspondencewith~' '.Gary'" ~;~:~ Thurtow,~.'' ~%'~" I gh~ ' '~observe':'that~the. factual.~premise Upon which Gary' s-reply based.:has":,not, been borne .out,:by e~r .investigation. 'Your left '-Of ~Apr~ilS,¢th ~states/ tha~ '~Ho installed his own..wate ~system.~ j~'~.~'~yi:he ~sold:. lots ;" he 'advised~ his buyers, that 'they we~.e.: purchasi~g'!~,~o'c~'I syster~';and th'at',if public sewer became .they woul~:be~liable for their',own assessment..!' With respect:~,~6~¢'.~;: ~.~ -the' sewer~s~stem, ' the., subdivision records clearly was to,provide:,public sewer ser~ ~ ~h~ =,~q,,q~^~ L, only way Mr. Yale s s~-tuat:~.on varied from the typical subdi~iki~ is that~a~. ~ih~erim period of on-site disposal was all.owed unt.[1 .;~,; the trunk was construened. Our factual .research has h .... ~" S own Mr Yale did nor advise all purchasers they were. buy:~ng/a ±ocaJ:;,~:.,,..:f~,~ system, nor..d±d.he inform them of a future assessment:. In an.v,.,~;~,, case, such representations would.not sh~ft the responsibil±ty~: :~',i!i~:~~ [.~ from ~r. Yale ~n the absence of an express transfer of o~'~a~cn~'<~~'~-u ,--~ '~?m approved by the Borough. We ars now renewing 'the ;demand that Mr. Yale execute a sewer agreement providing for the payment o~ ~runk charges in lieu :Of.!~ assessment and for certain repazrs needed to bring ~he system"to an acceptable level-for connection to the Municipal tr,unk. .In the absence ot5 Mr..Yale's execution of such an agreement, have to take legal action to enforce the obligation.'~ I..fee. that this will not be necessary when you 'review the demands. ~ . Attached are memoranda prepa~ed.,.by~our Sincerely, ry Wertzbaugher ' " Assistant Municipal Attorney . ' ~' '. . JW:]se Attachments . · ~.. · investigator. Municipality 'of Anchorage DATE: MEMORANDUM December 6, 1975 TO: FROM' Jerry Wertzbaugher SUBJECT: Supplement to N,ick Yale Memo - Since the October 13th memo, Z have had the opportunity to :' interview several more property owners ~egarding Yale Subdivision. Two of the people contacted were original purchasers. The .- i '- -- ' others are current owners 'though they have some knowledge of previous events. ' .~.., '.' - - - -" " The original purchasers indicate unequivocally that they purchased wi'th the understanding that 'the sewer system was to be a public system provided with the lot and covered by the purchase price with.no future assessments. One of the original purchasers indicates that he made special inguiry on this matter including inquiries with the Borough regarding possible assessments. That party has kept records including the earnest money agreement and can provide them upon request. Current owners substantiate the above although %his is largely based on hearsay. It may be useful in tracking down admissible evidence on 'the issue. As an aside but circumstantially related to the utility development, Mr. Yale also developed a water system for the subdivision. He required the original purchasers of the lots Lo sign a water use agreement providing for periodic water service charges on a billing system. There was no purchase arrangement in the contract and Yale retained ownership of the system. Yale had these agreements drawn up by his attorney, Mr. Albert Maffei, and had them duly recorded. The absence of similar agreements for the sewer system I feel is significant. He obviously did non intend to sell the system or operate it as a private utility. Attached are synopses of the interviews with each of 'the parties.