Resolution 1995-56 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Subdivider was notified by Gerrity that Gerrity had no intention of plugging the gas well and had found nothing in their files that would obligate Gerrity to do so. Gerrity went on to state that, as an alternative, it might consider the possible sale of its leasehold rights under the gas well; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 1995, the City sent notice (see attached) to the Subdivider identifying various areas of non-compliance with the Subdivision Agreement. Included in the letter was notice that Paragraph 8.2 of the Subdivision Agreement regarding removal of the gas well from Outlot L had not been complied with and stating: As you know, the City has offered to provide reasonable authority as may be needed to achieve compliance, since the City now owns a portion of the surface. I must receive a plan with specific time deadlines for achieving full compliance by the date set out in the last paragraph of this letter (written response in 14 days and full compliance within 30 days). . WHEREAS, in a June 21, 1995 letter to the City Attorney (see attached), the attorney for the Subdivider proposed bringing various legal actions to cause Gerrity to vacate Outlot L and its gas well therein; and WHEREAS, in a July 28, 1995, letter (see attached) to the attorney for the Subdivider, the Louisville City Attorney notified the attorney for the Subdivider that it would be preferable for the City not to be a party to any litigation between the Subdivider and Gerrity regarding the wellsite and, if the Subdivider needed some interest in Outlot L to pursue any claim it might have against Gerrity, the Subdivider's attorney should advise the City Attorney of the nature of the interest needed; and WHEREAS, on September 18, 1995, the City again sent notice to the Subdivider (see attached) regarding the lack of compliance with Paragraph 8.2 of the Subdivision Agreement, and requested that the Subdivider inform the City, in writing, by October 2, 1995, what plans the Subdivider has for fulfilling its obligations under paragraph 8.2 of the Subdivision Agreement; and WHEREAS, the Subdivider claimed not to have received the September 18, 1995 letter, causing another copy of that letter to be sent to the Subdivider on October 4, 1995; and WHEREAS, on September 20, 1995, the City again sent notice (see attached) to the Subdivider of the principal areas of non- compliance with the Subdivision Agreement; and WHEREAS, on October 12, 1995, the attorney for the Subdivider sent a letter to the City (see attached) stating that the City will need to deed back to Subdivider Outlot L, before the Subdivider can 2 [O.d ~c9T 86c [O[ .J.d '3nON~1 ~ SH1I~~I~8 rT:rT S66T-[T-1JO