|
February 21, 192?
<br />
<br />1. The Total ho'I~er capacity of the City Gas Works is 2,qO0,000 cu. ft.
<br />
<br />'This capacity is distributed as follows:
<br />
<br />No. 0apacity ~Locatio% ~ear built
<br />
<br />1 300,000 ft. Norfolk (relief) 1895.
<br />2 l, 000,000 " " 1911
<br />~ l, 000,000 " " 1923
<br /> lO0~000 " Berkley 1920
<br /> 2, ~00,000 "' Total
<br />
<br /> ~. Due to the fact that the first three holders named are built on the edge of what
<br />was formerly a salt water creek (since filled up) they are built on concreze foundations
<br />s~upported by piles and protected by concrete retaining walls. It is Mr. Holtzer's recollection
<br />·hat the holder b~Lilt in 1923 required 1032 piles in its foundation.
<br />
<br /> The Berkley holder is on high ground and merely rests ena conoreme slab without
<br />piling or retainingwali.
<br />
<br /> ~. The Berkley holder is ~upplled from the
<br />line ($3~) al~d redistributed to consumers at the
<br />approximately 2 lbs.
<br />
<br />central ptan~ in Norfolk by a high pressure
<br />usual low pressure of approximately 5" pres2~re-
<br />
<br />In general conversation with Mr. Holtzer, the following was learned:
<br />
<br /> That it is considered good practice in gas engineering to have holder capacity at least
<br />equal to one day's demand.
<br />
<br /> That the City gas works will have to erect additional holders but will never erect
<br />any more at the central plant, due to the fact that they are reserving all available space for
<br />possible future coa~ gas plants. All additional holders will be built in outlying districts
<br />and be supplied ~rom the Norfolk plant. This is considered good practice. However, item ay
<br />not apply to the Portsmouth Gas Works inasmuch as the Portsmouth maim ~ay~mt may not be such
<br />as to make it economical.
<br />
<br /> Have learned since that the Oity Gas works of Norfolk have not noticed any excessive
<br />deterioration on the l~ll one million gallon tank which was placed in a pit.
<br />
<br /> The above information together with the general outlay of th~ Portsmouth Gas Company's
<br />plant and the property adjoining same, which is shown on mad attached, shows the location of
<br />the various holders and the distances and possible location o£ holders of the same size ~z
<br />smaller and other information which may be of use to you.
<br />
<br /> I havetoday looked at the large number of tanks owned by the Sinclair 0il 0ompany,
<br />which a~e located back of the Na~y Yard and many of them are erected on low~ n~rshy land."
<br />
<br />~rank O. Hanrah~u, Oity ~anager."
<br />
<br />The following is the enclosure from the City Attorney:
<br />
<br />Mr. ~. O. H~nmahan,
<br />City Msm~ger,
<br />City.
<br />
<br />"Portsmouth, V~., Feb. l?, 1927.
<br />
<br />Dear Sir:
<br /> 0oncerning the ~oplication of the Aetna Realty Company to close Elizabeth Place,
<br />west of Washington Street, I beg to say:
<br />
<br /> Section 23 cf the City Charter, relating to the powers of the City Oouncil, provides:
<br />It shall likewise have the power to make such ordin~uce, by-laws, orders,and regulations as
<br />it may deem desirable to carry out the roi±owing powers which are hereby vested in it:
<br />
<br /> Seventh: To close or extend, widen or narrow, lay out or grade~ pave and otherwise
<br />improve, streets and public alleys in the City, and have them properly lighted and kept in order;
<br />and it may make or construct sewers or ducts through the streets or public grounds of the City,
<br />a~d through any place or places whatsoever; it shall have over any street or alley in the City,
<br />which has been or may be ceded to the 0ity, like authority as over other streets and alleys, lc.
<br />
<br /> Section 5220 of the Code of 1919 provides that 0ity 0ounciis may close streets in
<br />the ~same manner that the Board of Supervisors may close county roads, but such power shall be
<br />in addition to that conferred by city charters:
<br />
<br /> The case of City of Lynchburg v. Peters, 133 ~. E. 67~, decided in 1926, held the
<br />word 'close, in the Lynchburg Charter was e~uivalen~ to the word ~vacate,' and that the 0ity
<br />of Lynchburg could close 0curt Street, which had existed over one hundred ~ears, and which
<br />was laid off on a plat, Where the public necessity and convenience demanded it. This oa~e
<br />also held that ~ oerson whose lot did not front on that portion of the street to be closed
<br />had no propermy r~ghts in the streets as distinguished from the rights ~the public ~eld Eeneral-
<br />ly, and tha~ they could not claim compensation for the closing of the street. This street
<br />was closed to provide for an athletic field and playground.
<br />
<br /> -On the other hand %he courts have held that a street can not be closed for the bene-
<br />flt'~o~ a private interest only. The Lynchburg case lays down this ~octrine and cites a number
<br />
<br />
<br />
|