Loading...
19 HOWLEY STREET - ZBA Q u e�Qp CITY OF 5aL ';,i4ASo. SUBSURFACE HAZARDOUS WASTE INVESTIGATIONS AT Larrabee & Hingston 19 Howley Street Peabody , Massachusetts 01960 Prepared by : Leo T. Keefe , P. E. Georce Olson SP, Inc. 29 Congress Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 ( 617 ) 745-4569 November 1987 P%'NEFMAr �o LEO T. -KEEFE MECHANICAL No. 31446 p A9��675TEpbr�`�� �Sd/ONAL T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Pa_ I. Introduction 1 II . Assessment Rationale I Figures: 1. Locus Plan 2. Site Plan III. Methods 4 IV. Surficial Geology 5 V. Site Use & History 5 VI. Soil and Water Analysis Summary y VII . Conclusions 7 Figures : 3. Soil Logs 4. Soil Logs 5. - Soil Logs Tables : 1. Metals Analysis 2. E. P. Toxicity Tests 3. Volatile Organics 4. Pesticides and PCB 's • I. Introduction The site is located at 19 Howley Street , Peabody, Massachusetts as shown on the Locus Plan ( Figure 1) . The site is commercial consisting of approximately 167, 770 square feet with five wood frame buildings . The property is abutted on the west by Howley Street , on the north by B & M Railroad, on the south partially by Peabody Cemetery and residential property and on the east by other residential property. This site has been a wood working shop since approximately the mid 1940 ' s . The present owner purchased the property 17 years ago. There were no oil stains or any other indications that the property contained hazardous waste. The site does not border wetlands . The intent of the purchaser is to demolish the present • buildings and construct condominiums . II . Assessment Rationale The building and surrounding property has been subjected to a comprehensive investigation to determine whether hazardous waste materials and/or oils have been released or are contained or located ; on the site or in the soil or groundwater. This report summarizes the conditions encountered on the existing buildings, grounds and subsurface soils , and groundwater. The certification of materials and soils sampled involves the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations for analysis of reactivity, corrosivity, ignitability and extraction procedure toxicity. The • hazardous material investigations required tests for eight heavy metals in the soil and volatile organics (VOA) , pH and conductivity in groundwater. Tle t �,`aEe r anh.. ' Bnave .y /� G ,.�^ o sxn ^ _ htt r, .��( e' / ."IFkJ '� xtfRh xh F. ��1 NrERCt+aN.Gc '�: ^ > -.� � "•, �� .Yl y \Jc,�g/('s 1 G r 4j�.s � (llt� ¢w�-y� i-�o" �', 23 f[ T am: i .- \. ,'1 �-- �'a ✓ 1 a.,�r-`�'-�_ � r,:f��- :I�-�G le i%6/ -'• 1 sp_ d. a / N �l O T ! `��"�I t� �/_".` _.,'�, / +`Y� _y\�y\Schr�J� � �. ;� HI C ) V' •' ;�/ ne f C•. 1 t\' 7 f INTERCHA �' O1LC'LQ7)p 1 !r . } B 4s1�4 :3'.� mss.Fo.'o/� �` �4n r bs o �"• �/'�s. s E,t / 1 Q i �( /{ r o✓ 0.e^_ .a ✓. d✓ - \ - 1 `� •,�� - LFosters Pt _ [: rTl`(� v0 -- _ tj � ^BnaiW'2 � -_ ver , 13� t _ * o telsEa Cem _ ZIA 8e+zo �_. M36 Q': eters Point I %ernwwo _ I Bim'- s^ Lodste God Course r-' - _ Tuck ot" Pt fi .>;•a. g v�^ = _ rl �`_-.- _ to _ -..� o- -a kr BEVEPB' rStJdaP ��` V� r .st'�ra ea ; -\�� Q HAP.BOR Sib Fill F v°rtF� p f Gre n .� Cwreiep,[e I :� ec � �w s .. •• • 5 hnW�.. '6J r' \ ,.'? } �-s - G '.•!2a F°:['_, L� /:�=� rPrfi6Tach 4 Fie Adrenehe Sheridan a rr - "" % '� - '� .4 a° ,-�`r sch� .� c Sch :'.:,C - 9 - .w fi' •.��,a' v..erfa: Ss' e1 ^ �' C` \ Fse EA 4t. " ",<s - f•7 --" Fat' \ate• t ti- -T c �\sr ,� �v- "� S o. i 0� `7) ✓- 67 .'P0 �S S[Jo¢s �y II Gz r �/ r4 - PO --. 4 / LYm� F k� ✓/ P1 2N i d Led e / / '/ K• • `C.,� . ,* - �s_Cem \E/a .. �. Park °Q ./ \ h 'IW 4 �V V o/ wmru 7 ` ! .<"_-� a�" hz st • Wnad'. O �,M VF rime ' etiSdv '. sr larvae w �"^' F7Nerys.tia: ..., - aM9 .rt - ... _ T SCP a. '-x - _ V _ {r., ` ✓ \ t e:v nitc'` 'E_Sv q0 PC Ga7o �p11��{{ °'a 6'°v l� :/�2(; �l •��� - / NSta SAi,IEA st l-Dn C .=� `c ) f L` a s.��i � y: ecn 4 \e < [uvaufr li�,A Long Pt "r / Palmer x; �� - Salem r✓ .1, � %✓ / k :y .. SUCStd , si ,I n` .'Palmer -�-bt • /_ "- J 3 f �- '.: � —"° f D '• •tom '-y�� -� z �._:- ^ _�L.�ara _ / a z IY 91Rsv`m �j=�' © ,l ,, •'e' FIGURE 1 +•.Pickerung Ft �,�" St q• v1� a6 SALtM / E' . .'� '; t, I�' Sck ja .y+r.{c'rel , y 166 ."' AT E ICO Golf Cwrrse', BARK. �•_1 �+ rw �� t✓' - .... w _ . N W Sam RR W1 ir s2 •3 04 5° >-- o , - Lel —� J 1 06 -- - - --�-- og 10® 0 II°a -- Bldg. (Typ.) Property Line 012 (Typical) O E .o y O Q a MAIN ST a ®ST®N ST Property at* HOWLEY STREET PEABODY, MA Not to Scale SITE l4 • FIGURE 2 SP, INC. Since many sites have been developed only to discover that wastes stored below the ground continue to leach heavy metals or carcinogenic solvent fumes that affect human health, the importance of complete site studies is a financial necessity . Many construction techniques and treatment programs can eliminate the risk in industrial site development , but the problems have to be discovered by chemical analysis. Documentation of the size, character and constituents of any previous landfill activity is essential to the determination of future impacts . The combination of test cores , soil characterization, soil EP toxicity tests , and surface and groundwater chemical analysis ( if groundwater is encountered ) reveals the extent of site contamination, if any . The enclosed discussion and engineering report presents the results of previous industrial activity on the site and how it relates to future development potential. All applicable sites must be certified free of hazardous wastes and contaminated groundwater in order to obtain title insurance for the sale, remortgages or building addition to the property . This site survey is conducted by a professional engineer who has had extensive experience handling the hazardous materials from tanneries , electroplaters , and other industries as well as the design of wastewater treatment systems , sludge disposal facilities and landfills . This experience includes a variety of remedial site clean-up actions . All soils and groundwater are sampled according to EPA protocol and analyzed at SP, Inc. 's in-house chemistry laboratory in Salem, Massachusetts . All sites are subjected to corings and 2 grounds survey to determine natural conditions and any areas of man-made fill or disposal. A material is considered hazardous if it shows: 1. Ignitability - Having a flashpoint of less than 140oF; a nonliquid liable to cause fires through friction, absorption of. moisture , spontaneous chemical change or retained heat from manufacturing or liable when ignited to burn so vigorously and persistently as to create a hazard; ignitable compressed gases ; oxidizers. 2. Corrosivity - Aqueous wastes exhibiting a pH of less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to 12. 5 and liquid wastes capable of corroding steel at a rate of greater than 0. 25 inches per year. 3. Reactivity - Readily undergo violent chemical change ; react violently or form potentially explosive mixtures with water ; generate toxic fumes when mixed with water (or when exposed to mild acidic or basic conditions for sulfide or cyanide bearing wastes ) ,, explode when subjected to a strong initiating force ; explode at normal temperatures and pressures ; or classified as Class A or B explosives . 4 . Fail the EP Toxicity Tests - The Extraction Procedure (EP ) Toxicity Test is designed to simulate the physical processes which would occur in a landfill . To simulate the acidic leaching medium which occur in actively decomposing landfills , EPA chose to employ acetic acid. To simulate the leaching process, EPA specified a procedure requiring the mixing of the solid component • of the wastes (soil in this instance ) with the acidic leaching 3 I I • medium for a period of 24 hours . To duplicate the attenuation in concentration expected to occur between the point of leachate generation and the point of human or environmental exposure , EPA applied a dilution factor of 100 to the concentration of toxic constituents observed in the test extract. 5. Identified as a Priority Pollutant - The RCRA legislation has classified a minimum of 126 organic and metallic compounds as acutely hazardous to human health . As such, only extremely low levels are tolerated in the environment and non-existence required for drinking water sources . These compounds are detected by gas chromatograph and regulated according to their level , mode of toxicity ( i .e . oral, dermal , inhalation) and health effect (carcinogen, irritant or mutagen ) . In all cases , there are • chronic (long-term) concerns as well as acute (single-exposure ) toxicities that have to be evaluated . III . Methods An 6-inch diameter auger coring device is normally used to penetrate asphalt or soil to refusal or several feet below the groundwater table or the limits of the auger. A minimum of 4 cores per acre is used when the area appears natural . An engineer on site during excavation characterizes soil strata type , depth, unnatural material quantities and groundwater levels . This data is presented in the Soil Logs (Figure 3) . Any organic material, colored soil or landfill refuse is sampled as a worst case and . subjected to the EP Toxicity Test . All analyses are performed according to Standard Methods 15th edition 1980, RCRA Regulations 4 • E. P. Toxicity Extraction Procedures 1978, 'or_ the EPA Method 602 for gas chromatographic analysis of petroleum hydrocarbons . Quality assurance and sample identification protocols are in accordance with federal requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES ) , and Clean Water Act of 1976. At all times, hazardous materials must be stored on sealed and bermed bituminous or concrete pads with no conditions that would endanger human health or contaminate the environment . The results of sampling and locations of potentially hazardous materials are identified in this report to facilitate proper disposal and strict adherance to the Hazardous Waste Regulations . IV. Surficial Geology • The site location of this investigation lies within an area classified as Urban Land. The Urban Land Unit consists of nearly level to moderately steep areas where soils have been altered or obscured by urban works and structures . The property has scrap metal items ( i .e . Motorcycle ) distributed along the northwestern portion. The buildings cover 15 percent of the property, 80 percent is natural vegetation and the remaining 5 percent is paved streetway. V. Site Use & History The present owner purchased the property from Samuel R. Hingston in 1970. In 1953, Samuel R. Hingston purchased the • property from John D. and Harold S. Jeffers . The property has been a wood manufacturing shop since the mid 1940 's . The only 5 • waste generated was non-hazardous . Presently, two of the wood frame buildings are being used by the company, the others are inactive. The purchaser proposes to destroy the existing buildings and construct new condominiums . VI . Soil and Water Analysis Summar Composite soil sampling and well drilling were conducted simultaneously in order to minimize air contact time. This sampling method prevents the contaminant from diffusing into the surrounding atmosphere and allows for more accurate laboratory analysis and results . Groundwater was discovered at a depth of approximately 4 feet for Test Well Nos . 2-9. Groundwater was not present in any of the other Test Wells . • Soil from Test Well Nos . 4 and 11 and a composite of Well Nos . 7-9 was extracted and tested for EP Toxicity Metals . All metal values reported are well below Toxicity Limits indicating natural soils . The property did not contain discolored soil . The basic site soil composition consisted of a variety of mixtures of clay, soil , sand and gravel . Volatile Organic Analyses (VOA's ) were performed on the soil from Test Well Nos . 2, 3, 5, 6 and 10. All results were less than 1 part per billion, detection limit of the gas chromatograph used for analysis . This substantiates that spillage of gasoline , solvents or organics has not occurred on the site . Organochlorine pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB 's) testing was performed on Test Well No. 1 and did not indicate the presence of these substances in detectable 6 • quantities . This verifies that the area tested does not present a hazard to the environment or human health. Testing for Oil and Grease was conducted on soil samples from Test Well Nos . 1, 4 and 12. Levels were considerably below limits indicated for natural soil. All testing procedures follow EPA approved analytical techniques as specified by the EPA's Code of Federal Regulations . VII . Conclusions From interpretation of the analytical data and soil profiles, it is concluded that the property can be certified free of hazardous material. The results of the Extraction Procedure Toxicity Testing , PCB 's and Pesticides , VOA and Oil and Grease • Analysis confirm that the property has not been exposed to accidental or deliberate discharges of hazardous materials , and is free of contamination. In summary, the conditions of the subsurface soils and present activities would not cause the Massachusetts DEQE to place a superfund lien on the property pursuant to the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 21E and its amendments . i - 7 DEPTH ( Feet) 1 2 3 4 0 Topsoil / Soil Soil and Rocks Topsoil Moist Soil/Rocks • Clay and Rocks Soil and Rocks 2 3 4 Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hole • Wet Soil Wet Soil 5 Water/Soil 6 Bottom of Hole No Water Found 7 Bottom of Hole SOIL - LOGS • Property at: HOWLEY STREET PEABODY, MA FIGURE 3 SP INC. DEPTH ( Feet) 5 6 7 g D Topsoil Rocks Soil /Sand/Rocks Sail and Rocks Soil and Rocks Wet Sand Medium Sand Wet Medium Sand i. 2 I i. 3 4 1 Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hole • Damp Soil Wet Sand Wet Sand Wet Sand 5 6 7 t I I I SOIL LOGS • Property at: HOWLEY STREET PEABODY, MA FIGURE 4 _sp_iKir ucrin ( Feet) 9 10 II 12 Soil and Sand Soil and Sand Soil Sand Sand/Soil • I I Sand Sand and Rocks i I i 2 i I I 3 r i i 4 Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hole • Damp Soil Dry Sand No Water Found No Water Found 5 6 7 SOIL LOGS • Property at: HOWLEY STREET PEABODY, MA FIGURE 5 SP INC. . Mr. Michael Harrington 59 Federal Street DATE: 10/30/87 Salem, MA 01970_ PROJ. NO. : Chapter 21E Site Assessment on Larrabee & Hingston site LABORATORY REPORT 8 Total E. .P. Oil :. pH Solids Toxicity Bulk & PCB VOA Comment - Grease 710047 7 . 64 91 X X 0 . 12% X Hole 1 Soil 710048 7 . 10 X X X X X Hole 2 Soil 710050 6 . 54 X X X X X Hole 3 Soil 710052 5 . 68 80 . 1 0 . 10% X X Hole 4 Soil 710053 5 . 33 X X X X X Hole 5 Soil 710054 5 . 74 X X X X X Hole 6 So '1 710056 5 . 95 X X X Hole 7 Soil 0058 5 . 53 90 . 5 X X X Hole 8 Soil 710060 5 . 97 X X X Hole 9 Soil 710064 5 . 98 X X X X X Hole 10 Soil 710066 5 . 43 90 . 3 X X X Hole 11 Soil 710068 5 . 48 93. 6 X X 0 . 11% X X Hole 12 Soil am Sampled on: 10/9/87 Sample Rc ' d: 10/9/87 Sampling Info: DATE LABORATORY DIRECTOR I • Mr. Michael Harrington DATE: 10/30/87 59n Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 PROJ. NO. : E. P. .Toxicity Soil Analysis on Larrabee & Hingston site LABORATORY REPORT Hole #4 Composite Hole #11 Hole #7-9 710052 710056 710066 PH units 5. 68 5 . 95 5 . 43 % Total Solids 80 . 1% 90 . 5% 90 . 3% E. P. Tox. Extraction: E.P. Tox . Limit Arsenic m /l 0 . 037 0.. 027 0 . 027 5. 0 Barium mg/1 <0 . 2 <0 . 2 <0 . 2 100 . 0 Cadmium mg/l <9 . 01 <0 .01 0 . 02 1 . 0 iromium mg/1 0 .02 <0 . 02 <0 . 02 5 . 0 Lead mg/l <0 . 02 <0 . 02 <0 . 02 5 . 0 Mercury mg/1 <0 .001 0 . 013 0 .012 0. 2 Selenium mg/l <0 . 001 <0 . 001 <0 . 001 1 . 0 Silver m9/1 <0 . 005 <0 . 005 <0 . 005 5 . 0 Bulk Metals : Barium mg/kg <0 . 2 <0 . 2 <0 . 2 Chromium mg/kg 8 . 87 6 . 05 10 . 39- Lead mg/kg 40 . 9 31 . 9 92 . 0- Sampled by: G. Olson/L. Keefe, P.E. Sampled on: 10/9/87 Sample Rc 'd: 10/9/87 Sample Info: • DATE LABORATORY D RECTOR } 8. SP , INC . 29 Congress Street Salem , Massachusetts 01970 Client : Michael Harrington Larrabee & Hingston Site Sample Received : 10/9/87 , Sample Analyzed : 10/ Sampled by : G. Olson/L. Keefe, P.E. EPA 601 & 602 Volatile Organics Hole #2 Hole #3 Hole #5 Parameter 710048 710050 710053 (Soil) (Soil) (Soil) -- -- --- --- ------- -------- ---------- --------- -— -- Benzene ND ND ND Bromodichloromethane ND ND ND Bromoform ND ND ND Bromomethane ND ND ND Carbon tetrachloride ND ND ND Chlorobenzene ND ND ND Chloroethane ND ND ND 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether ND ND ND Chloroform ND ND ND Chloromethane ND ND ND • Dibroiiochloromethane ND ND ND 1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND 1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND 1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND Oichlorodifluoromethane ND ND ND 1 , 1-Dichloroethane ND ND ND 1 , 2 -Dichloroethane ND ND ND 1 , 1 -Dichloroethene ND ND ND trans -1 , 2-Dichloroethene ND ND ND 1 ,2-Dichloropropane ND ND ND cis -1 , 3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND trans - 1 , 3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND Ethylbenzene ND ND ND Methylene Chloride ND ND ND 1 , 1 , 2 , 2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND Tetrachloroethene ND ND ND Toluene ND ND ND 1 , 1 , 1-Trichloroethane ND ND ND 1 , 1 , 2-Trichloroethane ND ND ND Trichloroethene ND ND ND Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND ND Vinyl chloride ND ND ND Total Xylenes ND D ND • Date Lab Directo N NO = Non detectable Method Detection Limit = 25 .ug/kg i SP , INC . 29 Congress Street Salem , Massachusetts 01970 • Client : Michael Harrington Larrabee & Hingston Site Sample Received : 10/9/87 Sample Analyzed : Sampled by : G.. Olson/L. Keefe, P.E. EPA 601 & 602 Volatile Organics Hole #6 Hole #10 710054 710064 Parameter (Soil) (Soil) --------- --- ------------- ---------- --------- Benzene ND ND Bromodichloromethane ND ND Bromoform ND ND Bromomethane ND ND Carbon tetrachloride ND ND Chlorobenzene ND ND Chloroethane ND ND 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether ND ND Chloroform ND ND Chloromethane ND ND • Dibromochloromethane ND ND 1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene ND ND 1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND 1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND 1 , 1-Dichloroethane ND ND 1 , 2-Dichloroethane ND ND 1 , 1 -Dichloroethene ND ND trans -1 , 2-Dichloroethene ND ND 1 ,2-Dichloropropane ND ND cis - 1 , 3-Dichloropropene ND ND trans - 1 , 3-Dichloropropene ND ND Ethylbenzene ND ND Methylene chloride ND ND 1 , 1 , 2 , 2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND Tetrachioroethene ND ND Toluene ND ND 1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroethane ND ND 1 , 1 , 2-Trichloroethane ND ND Trichloroethene ND ND Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND Vinyl chloride ND ND Total Xylenes ND ND 140 • Date Lab Dire NO = Non detectable Method Detection Limit = 25 jag/kg EPA 608 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCBS Mr. Michael Harrington SAMPLE ID: #710047 59 Federal Street Sample Date: Salem, MA 01970 PARAMETER Re: Larrabee & Hingston RESULTS Site Hole #1 - Soil #710047 Aldrin ND A-BHC ND B-BHC G-BHC ND ND D-BHC ND Chlordane ND 4.4' - DDD ND 4.4' - DDE ND 4.4 ' - DDT ND Dieldrin ND Endosulfan I ND Endosulfan II ND Endosulfan Sulfate ND Endrin ND • Endrin Aldehyde ND Heptachlor ND He Epoxide ND Toxaphene ND PCB- 1016 ND PCB-1221 ND PCB- 1232 ND PCB-1242 ND PC5- 1248 ND PCB-1254 ND PCB- 1260 ND I,?ethod Detection Limit = 1 ug/kg ND = Non detectable Date Laboratory Director I 'Eitv 9i a i r m, J 7 arminit LOrnmian ci's 481!afantu -t--trrrt zMcm. !+Ia. 01970 -Joseph F. Sullivan Cli ief P. La Xa April 21, 1989 r City of Salem Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, Ma 01970 Dear Sirs: In response to the discussion relative to the conditions of approval of the petition of Michael J. Harrington for a Comprehensive Permit Under Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40B, Section 21, the Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of relief subject to the • following conditions: 1. The proposed building be provided with a residential fire sprinkler system, installed in accordance with the provisions of NFiPA Standard 13R, and Article 12 of the Massachusetts State Building Code. 2. Access to the building for fire fighting purposes be acceptable to the Salem Fire Department, and shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of 527 Code of Massachusetts Regulations 25.00. 3. A right of way from Boston Street, on the Salem side, be maintained as a second means of access to the property for use in emergency response. Dimensions of said right of way shall be acceptable to the Salem Fire Department. 4. Connection of the fire alarm system within the proposed building shall be by means of a master fire alarm box connected to city fire alarm circuits. Such fire alarm box shall be capable of serving as a "street box" for use from outside of the building. 5. The primary response to fire 'related emergencies shall be made by the Salem Fire Department as4.per current departmental policy. Mutual or outside aid respbn 4 t , o s9 the site shall be in accordance with present or future agreements between heads of fire departments in the. Cities of Salem and Peabody. 4 Page 2 / V 6. Fire supply to the site, including type and location of fire hydrants, shall be acceptable to both the Salem Fire Department and the Director of Public Services for the City of Salem. I feel strongly that the above conditions are in the best interests of public safety, and represent a reasonable effort to secure support for this proposal. Signed, Robert W. Turner, Fire Marshal :a 73 9 7 C N O o o c^c� i r- ¢ N v� o9 N Ca - t v_ �1 COf *aiem, p ,41a.5$aLbU!5Ptt!5 JFire Jeparhnent lbeaDnuarter5 q. 487-afavette s�)trert talent, f�Ia.01970 Joseph F. Sullivan Chief April 8, 1989 Mr. Michael J. Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, Ma 01970 Dear Mr. Harrington: I have reviewed your request for a Comprehensive Permit, which is in accordance with Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws, and in response to your willingness to work with both the Board of Appeal and other interested parties, and to demonstrate a good faith effort in securing the support of local officials, I wish to propose the • incorporation of residential fire sprinklers in the building plans for this development. The primary benefit of residential fire sprinklers is the enhancement of life safety. Your request to vary density requirements of front, side, and rear yard depths, and maximum blinding height, thus reducing the separation between the buildings, diminishes the margin of safety which prevents fire From spreading from one building to another. It should be pointed out that this parcel is on the city line, isolated from the center of the city, and lacks, an adequate looped system of water mains. According to research conducted by the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control, the United States suffers from one of the world's highest death rates due to fire. As the result of such research, specially designed residential sprinkler systems were designed to answer the need for safer housing. Installation costs of residential fire sprinkler systems are lower than commercial systems, as water is supplied from the domestic water source, Insurance industry studies have concluded that residential sprinkler systems contribute substantially to the reduction of property loss due to fires. As a result, reductions in premiums for properties protected throughout by residential sprinklers and smoke detectors can be realized. The installation of residential fire sprinkler systems in multi-family housing with three or more units of three stories or less (commonly known as "cluster housing") may accomplish several timely objectives. The first, and most important of these, is to reduce deaths from residential fires. The second objective is to reduce the amount of property damage f Page 2 resulting from such fires. Finally, since residential fire sprinkler systems provide a substantial degree of on site fire protection, Salem's resources required to fight fire in sprinkler protected dwellings may be stabilized. This may allow the Fire Department to hold the line on capital expenditures necessary to meet expanded growth if residential fire sprinklers were not installed. The City of Salem takes pride in the accomplishments of the Fire Department in it's effort to protect the lives and property of those who inhabit our city. Your efforts to further enhance the quality of life by the incorporation of the most far-reaching innovation in sprinkler technology, may well address some of the concerns of both the public and Salem city officials. Signed, 7 • Robert W. Turner, Fire Marshal DOLBEN is pleased at this time to submit a management proposal for the residential apartments owned by in , Massachusetts. It is our understanding that the property consists of residential units in # buildings. We think that DOLBEN can provide the expert service and personal attention that this management assignment needs. What follows is a general outline of the management agreement that DOLBEN would propose as part of a comprehensive plan for the above properties. We will tailor this plan to meet the specifics needs of the owner. I PROPERTY OPERATIONS DOLBEN has a team of management professionals who will handle all aspects of the operations of this residential property. We will assign a property manager from our staff who will work with the owner to establish guidelines for maintaining, renting and upgrading the property. Our property manager will provide you with expertise on physical maintenance of the property. As part of our fee we will handle the negotiation of contracts, the bidding of property insurance and all routine management functions on site. The property manager from DOLBEN will hire, train and supervise all necessary employees to maintain, operate and repair the property. We propose to have an on-site manager at the expense of the owner, plus additional maintenance and office staff. As we get to know the property we will evaluate the current personnel and recommend a staffing level that will give you the most cost-effective service. Any employees who are currently working on the site will be retained by DOLBEN and will become DOLBEN employees. The combination of management and maintenance people will provide coverage for all types of physical and fiscal problems which might occur at your property. DOLBEN staff are on call 24 hours a day to handle any emergency. II ANNUAL BUDGETS DOLBEN will submit to the owner a proposed income and expense statement for each fiscal year. Included will be our recommendations for capital improvements and preventative maintenance expenditures that are appropriate for the property. The budget will be submitted to the owner for approval and our staff will meet to discuss any changes requested. • DOLBEN's management staff will work to stay within the annual budget and will advise the owner of any substantial variation. The annual budget will be used for budget-to-actual comparisons in the monthly financial reports. William H. Dollen & Suns. III(. I(.xrhangr Ph(, 'liivlrhune Realtors Rasion, \Ia vsai 6na us 02100 617367-0100 III ACCOUNTING & FINANCIAL REPORTING DOLBEN will handle all receivables of the property including billing and collection of rents, damage and late charges and other incomes. Receivables will be processed daily with tenants mailing their payments either directly to the site office, or to a lock-box at our bank. Their payments are credited directly into the owner's account. DOLBEN will handle all payables including utilities and maintenance billings, insurance premiums and payroll expenses. The owner will receive a financial report 20 days after the close of each month. This report includes the following information: a. A month-by-month spreadsheet of income and expenses. b. A budget-to-actual comparison report. C. A detailed general ledger for receivables and payables. d. A tenant status report which lists all tenant monthly charges and their current account balance. e. A copy of all invoices paid during the month. This report will allow the owner to account for all money spent by DOLBEN in its capacity as agent and also to track how the property is performing as compared to budget. A sample copy of this report is enclosed. IV BANKING & CASH MANAGEMENT DOLBEN will establish a commercial deposit account for these properties at a Boston-based commercial bank. All incomes will be deposited into this account. With the owner's approval, excess checkbook balances will be included in DOLBEN's cash management program. Checking account balances are rolled into a redeposit purchase account for interest rates 1% - 2% below the current T-bill rate. Revenues generated from the cash management program will be credited to the owner's account monthly. At the end of each month, revenues that are in excess of disbursements will be remitted to the owner. V COLLECTIONS DOLBEN has an in-house collections manager who monitors the receipt of all rents and charges. Delinquent rental accounts are sent a 14-day notice to quit by the 10th of the month. Further collection procedures are taken as the need arises. The presence of a DOLBEN employee at housing, district or small claims court, for the purpose of collection, is included within the management fee. Only those outside fees associated with the collection, such as filing, or attorney's fees will be paid for by the owner. William H. Dulbcn & Suns, Inc'. Pla'' "li Ir Pbonr Rcal(urs Bunini. AIa�.:u hu,, 11,(1!111'1 617 ;h7-0100 VI CONTRACT TERMS DOLBEN proposes a Management Agreement of one year. The contract would renew for one year periods and would enable the owner to cancel at anytime, without penalty. For the services outlined in this proposal we would charge a management fee of of gross receipts. We look forward to the opportunity of managing this residential apartment property and designing a management agreement which encompasses the owner's specific needs. After you have had an opportunity to review this proposal, we would like to meet with you to fine tune the management agreement to meet your needs. Again, we look forward to the opportunity to managing this property. We hope to hear from you in the very near future. Very truly yours, WILLIAM H. DOLBEN & SONS, INC. • Thomas D. Beaton, CPM Vice President Property Management William H. Dolhen & Sons. Inc'. IS.rrhanQr Pla<-� l-1cphnne Realtors linsn It. %I;I s;I,Im sells Win') 1117367-0 100 WILLIAM H. D OLBEN & SONS INC. Banking References United States Trust Co. Alan R. Morse, Jr. 40 Court Street Chairman of the Board Boston, MA 02108 617/726-7000 Bank of New Engla,id Michael L. Prakken 28 State Street Asst. Vice President Boston, MA 02109 617/973-1930 First Mutual of Boston Oscar Wasserman 800 Boylston Street Senior Vice President Boston, MA 02199 617/247-6500 BayBank/Middlesex William Wiggins 7 New England Executive Park Senior Vice President Burlington, MA 01803 617/273-1700 Mortgage Investors Corporation Mark Goldweitz 200 Clarendon Street President . Boston, MA 02116 617/267-8000 B. F. Saul Mortgage Co. , Inc. Richard L. Bernardi 8401 Connecticut Ave. Vice President Chevy Chase, MD 20815 301/986-7151 Home Federal Savings & Loan William McLennan 625 Broadway Major Loan Officer San Diego, CA 92185 800/821-9992 Massbank for Savings John Wood 123 Haven Street Chairman of the Board Reading, MA 01867 617/662-0110 WILLIAM H. DOLBEN & SONS INC. Client List United States Trust Company Alan R. Morse Jr. 40 Court Street Chairman of the Board Boston, MA 02108 617/726-7000 Farmers & Traders Life Insurance Frank D'Onofrio 960 James Street Vice President Syracuse, NY 315/471-5656 Longfellow Properties James Moriarty 11 Red Roof Lane Vice President of Finance Salem, NH 03079 603/894-5300 Atlantic Financial Associates Robert Jesson 480 Adams Street 617/698-3950 Milton, MA 02185 Retals Trust Alvin Slater . 220 Boylston Street, Suite 210 617/338-2265 Boston, MA 02110 First Winthrop Carol Mills International Place Assist. Vice President Boston, MA 02110 617/330-8600 John Hancock Mutual William G. Galanes Life Insurance Company Sr. Real Estate John Hancock Place Investment Officer Boston, MA 02116 617/421-6000 Ferraro & Walsh Dennis Cargill 954 Cambridge Street 617/354-3366 Cambridge, MA 02141 Goldweitz & Company Mark Goldweitz 200 Clarendon Street Chairman Boston, MA 02116 617/267-8000 EXHIBIT A REAL ESTATE PURCHASED BY PRIOR DOLBEN PARTNERSHIPS I - Number of Number Units Square Feet Multi-Family Residential Housing Camelot Village Apts., Amesbury, MA 126 Crofton Village Apts., Crofton, MD 258 Fairlawn Cameo Apts., Mattapan, MA 347 Great Road Apts., Acton, MA 168 Honeytree Apts., Canton, MI 744 Oxford Green Apts., Laurel, MD 245 Parker Hill Apts., Boston, MA 92 Riverpark Apts., Columbus, OH 216 Summit Towers Apts., Reading, MA 156 The Sycamores Apts., Reston, VA 185 Whitehall Village Apts., Amesbury, MA 120 Condominium Units Harborside Lane, Beverly, MA' 15 T Condominium Developments The Gables on Tuckerman, Rockville, MD 408 Webster Green, Merrimack, NH 145 Office Buildings 181 Wells Avenue, Newton, MA 30,000 Warehouse & Distribution Facility 1400 Imperial Way, Thorofare, N) 128,000 Total 3,225 158,000 o; Total Currently Owned (at 12131187) 2,382 -0- I= ' Includes 3 units purchased by Southstone Limited Partners r. TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ACCESS STUDY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL AND COHMERCIAL DEVELOPnENT PEABODY, MASSACHUSETTS PREPARED FOR CITY OF PEABODY • SEPTEMBER , 1937 BY SCHOENFELD ASSOCIATES 12 FARNSWORTH STREET BOSTON , MASSACHUSETTS 02210 ( 617) 42;-5541 i i j INTRODUCTION This report provides an analysis of the traffic impacts , area i circulation and the access-egress characteristics associated :iith i I a proposed residential and retail/office development to be located on the southerly side of Clain Street between Caller i Street and Howley Street in the City of Peabody, flassachusetts . This study includes analysis and evaluation of traffic volumes , roadway/driveway interface , traffic circulation and safety considerations. It is assumed that the proposed improvements to [lain Street under the Urban Systems Program of the State will • take place in 1933 . I l 1 1 l SU14MARY This study has been conducted to determine the impacts :_nd evaluate the access requirements of a proposed residential and retail/office development , located on the southerly side of ?fain Street between Caller Street and Howley Street in the City of Peabody , Massachusetts. The site is bordered by ifain Street to the north , Caller Street to the west and Howley Street to the east . This report analyzes the impacts of the traffic generated by the proposed development and evaluates it with regard to capacity and safety. t Analysis revealed that no appreciable capacity, safety or access impacts will result with the development of tlris project. { Existing traffic volumes on ;fain Street are approximately 29000 vehicles on an average weekday . Peak hour volumes at the site approximate 1974 and 1945 during the A .I+. and P .[f. peal: hours , respectively. At full development , the proposed project will Generate approximately 1118 daily vehicle trips, split evenly between entering and exiting vehicles . During the peak hours, tale development will generate 69 vehicle trips during the morning and 1111 vehicle trips during the evening peak hour. • -0- Safety aspects of the proposed development have boon determined to be acceptable . Stoppin;; site distance is adequate along Caller Street and Howley Street in the vicinity of the site . In summary, it has been determined that no significant impact upon the surrounding roadway network will be encountered from the development . i I � 1 I PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT • iA joint use development is proposed for a parcel of land on the southerly side of Main Street between Caller Street and Howley 1 Street in the City of Peabody, 11assachusetts . The sit:, is bordered by stain Street to the north, Caller SLreet to tho west and Howley Street to the east. The proposed development will contain 136 condominium units and approxinately 8 ,000 square feet of commercial space . At this time , the commercial space is being referred to as retail space, however it is equally likely that it will serve as office space . For this reason , it is reforrod to as either commercial space or retail/office space in this report . In later chapters when the site ' s future trip generation character- istics are discussed, the higher potential trip generation 1 figures are used so as to be conservative in the analysis and impact assessment . The retail/office space will be located on the ;round floor of 1 building "C" with residential units above . 1"hother retail or office use is realized , the hours of operation will probably be fairly normal business hours betsic:en .8 :00 A .11. and 6 :00 P .1i. on the weekdays, with the retail use having extended hours to include saturday operations. Given that most of the retail establishments in the area of Main Street are closed on Sundays , it is assumed that there ,fill be no Sunday activity for the retail space in the proposed building. Land use in the vicinity of the site is varied. On the adjacent parcels to the northeast and northwest , there are commercial uses . To the southeast and southwest directions there is a mixture of commercial and residential uses. The site is located in a business district of Peabody , Kassachu- setts. Public transportation in the vicinity eras not evident . • -5- • EXISTING CONDITIONS A . GEOMETRICS 1 . RAIN STREET Main Street in the vicinityof the e t• site is a two lane ,,.ro ;ray arterial roadway, approximately 55 feet aide frith an cast/west alignment , presently being utilized as two travel lanes and two parallel parking lanes . Main Street serves as an arterial providing connection from collector roadways to other major arterials as well as access to land parcels alone its length. • The roadway consists of bituminous concrete pavement in good condition. Vertical granite curbing and sidewalks are provided on both sides of the roadway. Lateral obstructions in the forra of signs and utility poles are set back sufficiently from the roadway and , consequently , do no'.- impede otimpede traffic flow. Horizontal and vertical alignments are acceptable with fain street passing the site on a relatively flat straight section in the vicinity of the site. Limited regulatory signing is posted to control parking and travel speeds. • -6- I • ,Iain Street is scheduled for major reconstruction under, the Urban Systems Program of the State . This reconstruction is anticipated to take place in 1908 . The proposed improvements include widening I of ;lain Street to provide four travel lanes , two in each direct- ion. Those improvements will substantially increase the capacity of the roadway and have significant impacts on decreasing congestion. 2 . Caller Street Caller street in the vicinity of the site is a two lane two way collector roadway approximately 28 feet wide with a north-south alignment . Caller Street has two travel lanes and two parallal parking lanes except between the site drive and Hain Street where only one parallel parking lane is provided on the site driva side . The roadway consists of bituminous concrete pavement in good condition . Vertical Granite curbing and sidewalks are provided on the side opposite the proposed site drive. Lateral obstructions in the form of signs and utility poles are set back sufficiently from the roadway and , consequently, dot impede traffic flow. Horizontal and vertical alignments are acceptable uith Caller street passing the site on a sliGhtly positive Grade towards !lain • -7- • Street . Limited regulatory signin Jr posted to control parkins. Howley Street Howley Street in the vicinity of the site is a two lane t!ao !ray collector roadway, approximately �0 feet wide With a north-south alignment. Howley Street has two travel lanes and one parallel parking lane . The roadway consists of bituminous concrete pavement in good condition. Vertical granite curbing and cidc- !calks are provided on both sides of the roadway . Lateral obstructions in the form of signs Lnd utility poles are • set bac.: sufficiently from the roadway and, consequently, do not impede traffic flow. Horizontal and vertical alignments are acceptable tiith Howley Street passing the Site on a small positive grade towards ,Iain Street . Limited regulatory signing is posted . I • -S- B . TRAFFIC VOLUMES i The existing traffic volumes werc manually counted at ho mayor intersections which might potentially be effocted by tho site generated traffic, the intersection of Main Street at Howley Street and the intersection of !fain Street at Caller Street . The I 1. existing traffic volumes at the intersection of !lain Stroet at Washington Street was obtained from the City of Peabody 'traffic Study which was provided for the Community Development Department of the City of Peabody and prepared by Fay, Spofford & Thorndike, Inc. The observed traffic was adjusted to reflect average weekday conditions for 1987 . The average weekday traffic floras within the study area are presented in Table 1 . • TABLE 1 1987 AVERAGE VEERDAY TRAFFIC VOLUMES Average ;feel: Day Total Main Street West of Park Street 29 , 900 East of Washington Street 23 , 000 At Salem-Peabody Line 29 , 500 The average 1987 weekday morning and evening traffic flog networks are shown on Figures 1 and 2 respectively . • -9- SCHOENFELD ASSOCIATES INC. JO, MILLYARD GREEN Consulting Engineers 12 Farnsworth St. SHEET so. of • BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 423.5541 CHECKED BY DATE_ SCALE None 47 966 �— 71 12 CALLER m STREET 890 22 E W W a E y PIERPONT Right of Way STREET 105 849 z pz — 12 3 X61 HOWLEY -7 STREET 722 38 , TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ACCESS STUDY PEABODY, MA FIGURE 1 1987 AVERAGE AM PEAK HOUR -10- SCHOENFELD ASSOCIATES INC. Joe MILLYARD GREEN Consulting Engineers SHEET NO. OF 12 Farnsworth St. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210 CALCULATED By DATE • (617) 423-5541 CHECKED By DATE_ SCALE None I i I 96 882 �— 112 I -1 -42 CALLER m STREET 855 30 1 E W W a F j PIERPONT Right of Way STREET I 9 714,1 z W 3 ?�Z-126 �— 67 HOWLEY STREET 693 99 C TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ACCESS STUDY PEABODY , MA. FIGURE 2 1987 AVERAGE PM PEAK HOUR –11– C. ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE The historical accident incidence in the Study Area has been researched to determine if there are any accident trends which can be identified. Computerized Accident records complied by the Commonwealth of Plassachusetts Registry of Motor Vehicles and The Department of Public Norks were evaluated for the major inter- sections in the study areas and were addressed in the January, 1987 City of Peabody Traffic Study Report for the Community Development Department of the City of Peabody and prepared by Fay, Spofford & Thorndike , Inc. . This accident research is presented in Table 2 of this report and indicates the two nearby intersections with more than 20 reported accidents during a study period of 1979 , 1980 & 1983 . TABLE 2 ACCIDENT EXPERIENCE Intersection Location Property Damage Injury or Fatal Total !lain Street @ llashington Street 54 3 57 llain Street Q Howley Street 24 11 23 *Based on statewide data for 1980 , fatal accidents account for about 1 in every 20 injury accidents along minor arterials . -12- with the proposed improvements to Hain Strect under the Urban Systems Program of the State , it is expected that the number o£ accidents at these two locations would decrease . The intersection of Iain Street and Washington Street will be reconstructed with new traffic signals . although the intersection of "lain Strect at Howley Street is not expected to be reconstructed with any new traffic signals, improvement's should help decrease the number of accidents . With or without the proposed devclopnent the City should continue to monitor the accident data at Howley Street , after the Urban Systems improvements are made , for possible I traffic sibnal installation if the accident experience at this location continues its present trend. • i i D. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION "lain Street is a major arterial within the regional public transportation network . There are no regularly scheduled bus routes travelling along Ilain Street . E . BACKGROUND TRAFFIC GROWTH The study area has been experiencing steady traffic growth for many years and this trend is expected to contiriue hell into tine future . Traffic Zrowth is the rasult of the combination o.` all land developments in the region. The Commonwealth of iSassa- chusetts Department of Public Works, Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development maintains traffic volume counting i stations throughout the St'ata to identify seasonal varictions and historical traffic growth rates. Based upon the data obs^rvcd at local counting stations and information obtained from the January , 1987 City of Peabody Traffic Study, a background traffic growth rate of approximately ; percent per year has been cal- culated and is being used in this study. The 1989 morning and afternoon No-Build traffic flow networks are Shown on Figures and 4 respectively . 1 I 1 -tt4- • SCHOENFELD ASSOCIATES INC. roe MILLYARD GREEN Consulting Engineers SHEET NO. OF 12 Farnsworth St. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210 CALCULATED BY DATE • (617) 423-5541 DATE_ CHECKED BY SCALE None 50. 1024 �— 75 �— 13 CALLER I T STREET 943 23 E W W A» E En PIERPONT Ri ht of Way STREET 111 939 z �—130 —65 HOWLEY STREET 7 5 4 TRAFFIC IMPACT. AND ACCESS STUDY PEABODY, MA. 1989 AVERAGE AM PEAK HOUR NO BUILD FIGURE 3 -15- SCHOENFELD ASSOCIATES INC. roe MILLYARD GREEN Consulting Engineers SHEET NO. OF 12 Farnsworth St. BOSTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02210 CALCULATED BY DATE . (617) 423-5541 DATE_ CHECKED By None SCALE IN 102 935 �— 119 4�5 CALLER Aj STREET 906 32 E W W a E N PIERPONT Ri ht of Way STREET 101 786 z 13 4 �—71 HOWLEY STREET 735 105 TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ACCESS STUDY PEABODY, MA. FIGURE 4 1989 AVERAGE PJA PEAK HOUR NO BUILD –16– i • SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES j I Traffic venerated by residential grid commercial activities normally follow well established patt(2rns 1:ith respect to magnitude, duration and temporal distribution . flcasurement:s of numerous such developments conducted by the Institute of Trans- portation Engineers ( I.T.E . ) have established trip generation rates which have been standardized for analysis purposes At this time, it is unknown whether the ultimate tenants of the commercial space will be retail or office users . The trip generation characteristics for both land uses have been in- vestigated to determine which of the two should be used in the analysis . In order to have an conservative analysis , the higher trip generator has been assumed for analysis purposes only. For the approximately 3 ,000 square feet of commercial space avail- able, the retail use mould generate nearly three times more trips than the office space . although lower during the morning peak hour, the trip production uould be twice as large with the: retail use than the office use during the afternoon peak hour. Given the significantly more intense trip generation of the retail land use, the retail use has been used in all further analysis . Accordingly, it is estimated that the proposed condominium and commercial development will generate, on an average day at full development , approximately 111 ') vehicle trips daily. ' his value -l7- I) it does not represent 1113 vehicles because each driver will make several trips in the same automobile over, the course of a 244 hour day . This 1113 vehicle trip figure Mould be evenly split between entering and exiting vehicles each. The peak hour distribution of these vehicle trips results in approximately 69 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and 114 vehicle trips during the afternoon peak hour. The remaining 935 vehicle trips will occur during the off peak periods . A summary of the trip veneration characteristics of the proposed development is provided on Table q TABLE 3 TRIP GENERATION CHARACTERISTICS Residential Commercial Total Trips Trips Trips Daily Total 703 4110 1113 Enterin; 354 205 559 Exiting 35'I 205 559 Al. Peak flour Total 60 9 69 Entering 10 5 15 Exiting 50 41 541 PH Peal: Hour Total 75 39 114 Entering 50 17 67 Exiting 25 22 417 -13- Directional distribution of generated trip:; to and from the, site is expected to follow exiting traffic patterns ,:hich , in turn , are a function of population densities , shopping opportunities , areas of employment and recreational activities . ; trip generation reflects the new trips anticipated for the site in estimating the true effects of the proposed ;tevelopmcnt . In order to take a conservative approach to the impact: we have assumed that all vehicles entering or exiting the Site will proceed to or from Caller Street or Howley Street to or from iSain Street since i the site is expected to generate little impacts to !!alnut Street . The new site generated traffic has boon added to the 19;9 morning and afternoon peak hour traffic flow netuor!cs to produce the 1 morning and evening BUILD Traffic Flou Notworks uhich are shoran ion Figures 5 and u , respectively. -19- SCHOENFELD ASSOCIATES INC. ,OB MILLYARD GREEN Consulting Engineers 12 Farnsworth St. SHEET NO. or BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 423-5541 CHECKED DV DATE_ SCALE None 53 1031 / k-89 CALLER m STREET 968 25 E w w x H S I T E PIERPONT Ri ht of Way STREET IN 15 OUT 54 TOTAL 69 118 9 1 z ~ it i -15 5 �— 77 HOWLEY STREET 767 43 . • TRAFFIC IMPACT AND ACCESS STUDY PEABODY, MA. . 1989 AVERAGE AM PEAK HOUR BUILD FIGURE 5 –20- i �L �I SCHOENFELD ASSOCIATES INC. JOB MILLYARD GREEN Consulting Engineers SHEET NO. OF 12 Farnsworth St. BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02210 CALCULATED BY DATE (617) 423-5541 CHECKED BY DATE_ SCALE None �T NON 1\ 122 954 —13 4 —tl CALLER Al STREET 923 ]_jLqht i S I T E PIERPONT of Way IN 67 OUT 47 STREET TOTAL 114 120 792 z Q �— 151 -80 HOWLEY STREET 742 126 TRAFFIC IMPACT. AND ACCESS STUDY PEABODY, MA. FIGURE 6 1989 AVERAGE Pf1 PEAK HOUR BUILD –21– ANALYSIS - RESULTS Previous sections of this report I:avc summarized existing traffic patterns, expected traffic generation and expected trip dist- ribution/assignments for the proposed project . The next step in the process is to determine the inpact of the proposed develop- ment . This assumes the roadway inprovenents in the study area along Bain Street will be accomplished. A . TRAFFIC INCREASES The expected generated traffic will result in only minor in- creases to peak hour and daily totals of the traffic volumes on the study area roadways. The largest effect of the Site gcnerat::d traffic will be on the unsignalized intersections of Nain Street and Caller Street and the intersection of (lain Strcet, and S{oul.!y Street . Peak hour traffic increases on Nain Strcct due to vehicles travelling to and from the site using Caller Street and Ilotrley Street will be 69 vehicles during the morning peak hour and 111" vehicles during the evaning peak hour. These traffic volume increases represent less than six percent increase during each of the peak hours. -2C- I_ I. • B . CAPACITY ANALYSIS �I The study area has been examined .rith re;;ard to capacity , delays and safety characteristics to determine the L^vel of Sorvice it (LOS) provided under existing, and anticipated future loadings. "Level of Service" is an indicator of the operatin„ conditions which occur on a given roadway .cher. accommodatin.r, various traffic volumes . It is a qualitative measure wiiich accounts for a number of operational factors including roaduay -comotrics , speed, travel delay , freedom to maneuver and safety. ';hen the, criteria are assessed and a Level of Service is assigned to a roadway or intersection, it is equivalent to presenting an "index" to the operational qualities of the section under study. In practice, any given roadway may operate at a wide Level of Service range depending upon time of day , day of neck or period of year . Level of Service "C" , a condition of stable flow, is considered desirable for peak or desi.,n flow in rural ar-= . LOS I'D" (more significant delays than "C" ) is considered acceptable in urban areas. LOS "A" is the optimum condition of free flow. Level of Service "E" represents unstabl,; flow conditions , but indicates maximum utilization of a roadway facility under less than ideal conditions. In suburban and urbanized areas and more particularly in high 1� density districts like the study ar.:a, the critical locations for I capacity considerations are tiie intersections . The intersections • nearest to the traffic generator are Che key locations since , in this area, the site traffic Will disperse rapidly onto the cIany available corridors. Using the physical street inventory and the traffic flow net- works, the Level of Service has been determined at the I:ey study area intersections . The signalized intersections have been evaluated using the methods outlined in the 1935 Highway Capacity Manual, distributed by the Transportation Research 3oard . The unsignalized intersections were evaluated using a math- erratical model which calculates the number of gaps in the traffic • stream which will be available for each minor moveiilent at the intersection. The minor movements consist of all side street movements plus the left turns from the major street . A basic assumption of this technique is that the major street movements are not hindered by the minor street movements . Tris assumption is valid unless severe congestion is experiencad on the side streets . This procedure is published in the 1935 Highway Capacity Hanual, distributed by the Transportation Research Board . The study area intersections have been evaluated and a Level of Service determined for both the Ho-Build and 3uild conditions . In addition, the volume-to-capacity ratios , a numerical indicator of operational quality has been calculated . The results of the i -`4- capacity analysis arc presented on Table 6 . • The information provided on Tabic 6 indicates that , generally , the study area ' s intersections are operating at unacceptable levels at this time and with the proposed improvements will b•.: operating at more effectively however the delays being experi - enced on the minor approaches at the unsignalized intersections uill continue to exist . This situation is common with side streets intersecting a major arterial. The intersection of slain Street and Washington Street is also operating at unacceptable levels of service at this time but with the proposed improvements will be operating at acceptable levels of service . It is notable that the effect of the site generated • traffic is limited to increasing the volume-to-capacity ratio at the intersection however the levels of service will remain unchanged. The introduction of the site generated traffic is not expected to exacerbate the situation. _Tn general, the traffic which is anticipated to result from this development is not expected to hove e significant effect on the traffic flow within the study area ; however, it should be noted that the existing problems will be rectified with the proposed improvement project for ,lain Street under the Urban Systems Program of the State. • -25- i li • TABLE 6 IUTERSECTIOr CAPACITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY LEVELS OF SERVICE Location/MOVEHENT Existing A .M. Existing P .A. Bain Street at Caller Street (lain Street Left Turns 3 3 Caller Street Turns E E Main Street at Howley Street main Street Left Turns B 3 Howley Street Turns E E A.M. P .M. 1939 No Build 1939 No Build I� Main Street at Caller Street (lain Street Left Turns C C Caller Street Turns E E I Clain Street at Howley Street Main Street Left Turns C C Howley Street Turns E E 1939 BUILD N 1939 BUILD P:I Main Street at Caller Street Clain Street Left Turns C Caller Street Turns E E Main Street at Howley Street slain Street Left Turns C C Howley Street Turns E E -26- C . SAFETY ANALYSIS To substantiate the capacity analysis , saf-,ty considerations ucr� investigated . Most important anuul­ safety considerations is stopping sight distance. I In the vicinity of the site drives , on Caller Street and on Howley Street , the horizontal and vertical alignments are good. Nevertheless , a detailed stopping si;;ht distance was conducted to insure that traffic will be able to enter and exit the site safely. Stopping sight distance considerations arc basically divided into two categories ; Approach SSD and ;:;;icing SSD. Appro,_ ui: is the distance required for an approachiaZ driver to pare=i ;,e and react accordingly to an exiting vehicle . The values _re based on a perception and reaction ti!-13 of 2 .5 seconds �,nd breaking distance for wet , level pavements. When the ro;.:d,iz-y is either on upgrade or downgrade , grade correction factors are applied. i Exiting SSD is based upon the time required for pereaption , reaction and completion of the desired exiting maneuver once the driver decides to execute the maneuver. Values for the exiting SSD represent the time to ( 1 ) turn left or, right , to accelerata -27- to the operating speed :rithout causing approaching vehicles to reduce speed by more than 10 miles per hour, and ( 2 ) upon turning left , to clear the near half of the intersection without con- flicting with the vehicles approaching from t:ie left . 511rcn grade exists on a roadway or when larger speed reduction values aro acceptable, correction factors are applied . Exiting SSD is very applicable to rural roadways or suburban arterials with limited i curbcuts but not so for busy arterials with unlimited access such as !fain Street . Approach SSD is more important as it represents the miniuum distance required for safe stopping, while Exiting SSD is basod only upon acceptable speed reductions to the approaching traffic stream. In the study area which is a higher density business district with short blocks and slow operating spoeds, stopping sight distance requirements are loo-: at appro;.ira;,tely 230 feet . Even with the on street parking present , sufficient sight distanc: is available on Caller Street and Howley .Street to allow safe entering and exiting of the side streets. -20- 1 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Review of the proposed development with regard to safety , capacity and traffic upon tare surrounding roadway network with the proposed Urban System Programmed improvements revealed no appreciable problems or difficulties will be encountered . TRAFFIC AND CAPACITY ANALYSIS The traffic expected to be generated by the proposed development is estimated at 1118 vehicle trips daily. 7cekday peak hour traffic volumes are estimated at 69 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour and 114 vehicle trips during the evening peak hour. This traffic will be easily absorbed by the existing traffic stream and will have uinimal effect of the surrounding roadway network . The traffic which will be generated fall well within the range of normal [lain Street daily fluctuations . The traffic carrying capacity of the study area intersections will not be adversely effected after th•e improvements are made. SAFETY A detailed safety analysis revealed that the stopping sight distance considerations at the site driveways arc satisfactory . -29- IPI SUMMARY It is assumed that the proposed improvements scheduled for 7938 under the Urban Systems Program of the State will take place . The proposed development will have minimal impact and will not create any new safety or capacity problems on the abuttin„ roadway network . The traffic generated by the residential/ Mcommercial development is not expected to exacerbate the current or future capacity restrictions . Safe ingress and egress can be provided to the site with the development constructed as Nplanned . 1 -30- i • APPENDIX • i I� J i'I I[�I k II I TRIP GENERATION i �l I I TRAFFIC GENERATION WORKSHEET AVERAGE TRIP GENERATION RESIDENTIAL AND COHNERCIAL CONDINED Job : P9illyard Green Condominium Units : 136 Location: Main Street between Commercial Space : QSF Caller St. A Hawley St. Peabody , MA . I' AVERAGE TRIP GENERATION - TOTAL TOTAL ENTER E7.IT i DAILY 1113 559 559 A .M. PEAK 69 , 15 54 P .M. PEAK 114 67 47 i REMAINDER OF DAY 935 477 453 i I i TRAFFIC GENERATION WORKSHEET i LAND USE : Residential Condominium LAND USE CODE : 230 Indcpendant Variable Trips per : Duelling Unit Job : Aillyard Green Number of Units : 136 Location : Blain St. between Caller St . & Hawley St . Peabody , PA . i .T.E . TRIP GENERATION PAHUAL - .AVERAGE TRIP RATE TOTAL ENTER EXIT DAILY 5 .2 2 .6 2 . 6 A .M. PEAK 0 .41 0 . 07 0 . 37 P .M. PEAK 0 .51 0 . 37 0 . 113 BALANCED AVERAGE TRIP RATE DAILY 5 .2 2 . 6 2 . 6 A .A. PEAK 0 .44 0 .07 0 . 37 P .A. PEAK 0 .55 0 . 37 0 . 18 Job : Aillyard Green Number of Units : 136 AVERAGE TRIP GENERATION TOTAL ENTER EXIT DAILY 708 354 3511 A .M. PEAK 60 10 50 P .M. PEAK 75 50 25 . REPAINDER OF DAY 573 294 279 j i' TRAFFIC GENERATION IIORKSHEET LAND USE : Retail - Hardwaro/Paint Store LAND USE CODE : 316 Indcpcndaut Variable i t Trips per : KSF - Gross i I t ' Job : M llyard Green Store Area KSF : 8 .0 I Location : iIain St. between Caller St . U Hawley Peabody , :!A . I I .T .E . T^IP GENERATION MANUAL - AVERAGE TRIP RATE j TOTAL ENTER EXIT I DAILY 51 . 3 25 .65 25 .65 I A .M. PEAL: 1 . 1 0 .91 0 .8 P .H. PEAK 4 .9 1 .4 1 .9 3ALANCED AVERAGE TRIP ROTE ' DAILY 51 . 3 25 .65 25 .65 A .M. PEAK 1 . 1 0 . 585 0 .515 P . 1. PEAK. 4 .9 2 .079 2 .321 Job : ,tillyard Green Store Area in KSF : 3 .0 ' AVERAGE TRIP GENERATION TOTAL ENTER EXIT DPI ILY 410 205 205 A .H. PEAK 9 5 4 P .11. PEAK 39 17 22 1 RE11AI11DER OF DAY 362 133 179 • ti "orning cnt,>rir.G/exiting split frota code 920 . Evening entoring/c:citin,r, split .`rota code 315 . S T R A F P I O C 0 U 4! T S I i INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT CITY � �� �'� �a4 DATE L2"'_/DAY OF WEEK -f-L"L. INTERSECTION 65 �q L N V i! X ;2 y' l ) ZZ 9� 9rz S: to/3 1 1 i 1 STREET ENTERING PERCENT LENGTH OF COUNT VOLUME OF FLOW TIME PERIOD: 73L 3J A M VEHICLES COUNTED ALL XXX TRUCKS (XX) TnTA1 PERCENT TRUCKS = $ i I' INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT CITY ' ✓�� DATE > L/ a/7DAY OF WEEK INTERSECTION 121 v Q, N /z3X // 7 4- 38 �y5 772� z 70 x gas i ENTERING PERCENT STREET LENGTH OF COUNT VOLUME OF FLOW TIME PERIOD: VEHICLES COUNTED ALL XXX TRUCKS (XX) i r., PERCENT TRUCKS = INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT 8 � CITY ��"'" `fir �" DATE r��y�DAY OF WEEK �U s . INTERSECTION v ,-0 Ai N � N X � ~ 30 tor' 355 g�.. X 960 9?8 862- 9Zy X i I STREET ENTERING PERCENT LENGTH OF COUNT VOLUME OF FLOW TIME PERIOD: VEHICLES COUNTED ALL XXX TRUCKS (XX) TOTAL 1 F;'f:ENT TRUCKS = X INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT e CITY . , > , DATE 2`l DAY OF WEEK `" INTERSECTION.L""' r 3 ` N I X �9 LL 99 1013 - 53b 013 53b 7y/ 90 x iL i STREET ENTERING PERCENT LENGTH OF COUNT VOLUME OF FLOW I TIME PERIOD: VEHICLES COUNTED ALL XXX TRUCKS (XX) I TnTAi PERCENT TRUCKS = z V C A P A C I T Y ANALYSIS 05 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) E :09-26- 1987 TIMEi11t07i25 Main at Caller existing A .M. LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUME=M&CEAM GEOMETRICS=M&CEAM KEY : A- -B C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C: STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 2 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C: Caller Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR : NO SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) ROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C. Caller Stre TS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 'i,..cUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A: Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 890 22 47 966 0 12 0 71 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 989 24 52 1073 0 13 0 79 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 1 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 57 17 0 99 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C:Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 1001 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 349 ACTUAL CAPACITY 349 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 1013 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 ACITY 421 ACITY USED 14% EDANCE FACTOR 0 . 91 ACTUAL CAPACITY 421 . >85 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 :07 :25 Main at Caller existing A .M. STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 2127 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACITY 51 ACTUAL CAPACITY 47 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 57 421 364 B 9 .90 0 . 16 ALL MOVES FROM C: 115 180 65 E 55 .76 1 .79 . a i 85 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) E :09-26-1987 TIME : 10 :41 :04 n at Caller existing P .M. LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUME=M&CEPM GEOMETRICS=M&CEPM KEY : A- -B C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 , 000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C : STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 2 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C: Caller Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR: NO SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A: Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre TS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 US 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 :GHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A: Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 855 30 96 882 0 42 0 112 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 950 33 107 980 0 47 0 124 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 1 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 117 58 0 156 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 967 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 363 ACTUAL CAPACITY 363 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 983 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 CAPACITY 435 PACITY USED 27% EDANCE FACTOR 0 .80 .TUAL CAPACITY 435 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 10 : 41 :04 Main at Caller existing P .M. 2EP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C : Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 2053 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACITY 56 ACTUAL CAPACITY 45 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 117 435 317 B 11 . 35 0 . 37 ALL MOVES FROM C : 214 124 -90 E* INFINITE INFINITE I i I • i - - APPROACHES PAGE 1 of 2 ��85 HCM CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED 3 ( ) i ATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 :42 :43 Main Street at Howley Street existing A .M. LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUME=M&HEAM GEOMETRICS=M&HEAM KEY : A- -B C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C : STOP PREVAILING SPEED: 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 2 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N j I MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C: Howley Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR: NO OOIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) PPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Howley Stre EFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Howley Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 722 38 105 849 0 61 0 123 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 802 42 117 943 0 68 0 137 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 3 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 128 105 0 212 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 823 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 429 ACTUAL CAPACITY 429 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 844 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 APACITY 503 APACITY USED 26% I _MPEDANCE FACTOR 0 .81 ACTUAL CAPACITY 503 I )85 HCM - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 :42 :43 Main Street at Howley Street existing A .M. STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 1883 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACITY 71 ACTUAL CAPACITY 58 I SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE I LT FROM B : 128 503 375 B 9 .61 0 . 34 ALL MOVES FROM C : 317 137 -180 E* INFINITE INFINITE I 1 5 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) E :09-26-1987 TIME : 10 :55 : 48 rain Street at Howley Street existing P .M. LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUME=M&HEPM GEOMETRICS=M&HEPM KEY : A- -B i C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C : STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH ' MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 2 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C : Howley Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR: NO SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) PROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C:OHoOwOley Stre FTS 0 .00 0 .00 HRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C : Howley Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 693 99 95 741 0 670 90 0 126 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 770 110 106 823 0 74 0 140 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 3 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 116 115 0 217 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 5 .5 CRITICAL GAPS 428 CAPACITY 428 ACTUAL CAPACITY STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main StreetEa CONFLICTING FLOWS 5 .0 CRITICAL GAPS 485 CAPACITY 24% APACITY USED 0 .83 MPEDANCE FACTOR 485 ACTUAL CAPACITY 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 10 :55 : 48 Main Street at Howley Street existing P .M. STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C: Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 1754 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACITY 85 ACTUAL CAPACITY 70 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 116 485 368 B 9 .77 0 . 32 ALL MOVES FROM C: 332 155 -178 E* INFINITE INFINITE i it 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 UNSITIMEIZED12 .01APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) DATE :09-26- 1987 Main at Caller 1989 with improvements LAST DATASETS LOADED OR GEOMETRIVEDM&CNBAM VOLUME=M&CNBAM KEY : A- -B ' C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS iPOPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C : STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 4 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N j MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C: Caller Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO i RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR: NO DIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre LEFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 i RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C : Caller Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 943 23 50 1024 0 130 90 0 75 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 1048 26 56 1138 0 14 0 83 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 1 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 61 18 0 104 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 5 .5 CRITICAL GAPS 598 CAPACITY 598 ACTUAL CAPACITY _ STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main StreetEa CONFLICTING FLOWS 5 .5 CRITICAL GAPS 321 CAPACITY 19� CAPACITY USED 0 .87 IMPEDANCE FACTOR 321 ACTUAL CAPACITY HCM - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 2 of 2) :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 : 12 :01 ,,-in at Caller 1989 with improvements A. 1^1, STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 2254 CRITICAL GAPS 7 .0 CAPACITY 31 ACTUAL CAPACITY 27 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE I LT FROM B : 61 321 260 C 13 .86 0 .24 ALL MOVES FROM C: 122 146 24 E 151 .79 5 . 15 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) )AT 09-26-1987 TIME : 10 : 47 : 43 1a6at Caller P .M. 1989 after improvements ",AST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUME=M&CNBPM GEOMETRICS=M&CNBPM EY : A- -B C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS 'OPULATION GREATER THAN 250 , 000 : NO :ONTROLS : FROM C: STOP ?REVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH 4AIN STREET 11 OF LANES : 4 LANES RAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N ' 9INOR STREET LANES ;PPROACH : C: Caller Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES ,ARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO TIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR : NO SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre ',EFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 CH 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 1 S 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 --1PPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C : Caller Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 906 32 102 935 0 45 0 119 'HF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 1007 36 113 1039 0 50 0 132 ?ERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 1 .00 ?ASS CAA/HR 0 125 63 0 165 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 521 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 609 ACTUAL CAPACITY 609 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 1042 CRITICAL GAPS 5 . 5 CAPACITY 333 CAPACITY USED 37% IMEZPANCE FACTOR 0 .70 iAV L CAPACITY 333 i i •85 HCM - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 2 of 2) i)ATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 10 :47 :43 Main at Caller P .M. 1989 after improvements STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C : Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 2177 CRITICAL GAPS 7 .0 CAPACITY 35 ACTUAL CAPACITY 25 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 125 333 208 C 17 . 32 0 .60 ALL MOVES FROM C: 228 81 -147 E* INFINITE INFINITE i 085 HCH - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) ,TE :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 : 17 : 45 Main Street at Howley Street 1989 A.M. with improvements LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLU ME=M&HNBAM GEOMETRICS=M&HNBAM KEY : A- -B ,C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 , 000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C: STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 4 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C : Howley Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO i RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR: NO IGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) PROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Howley Stre .FTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 iHRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 I APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C : Howley Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 765 40 111 900 0 65 0 130 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 850 44 123 1000 0 72 0 144 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 3 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 136 112 0 224 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 447 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 663 ACTUAL CAPACITY 663 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 894 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 APACITY 395 APACITY USED 34% MPEDANCE FACTOR 0 .73 ACTUAL CAPACITY 395 i 85 HCM - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 2 of 2) D9T.E :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 : 17 :45 Main Street at Howley Street 1989 A.M. with improvements STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C: Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS CRITICAL GAPS 7 .0 CAPACITY 46 ACTUAL CAPACITY 34 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 136 395 259 C 13 .89 0 .52 ALL MOVES FROM C: 336 91 -244 E* INFINITE INFINITE i` i l WW85 HCM - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) TE :09-26-198'7 TIME : 11 :01 : 40 .ain Street at Howley Street 1949 P .M. after improvements LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLUME=M&HNBPM GEOMETRICS=M&HNBPM KEY : A- -B C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C: STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 4 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C : Howley Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR : NO SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds ) PPROACH A : Main Street B: Main Street C: Howley Stre FTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 HRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Howley Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT y VOLUME 0 735 105 101 786 0 71 0 134 ( PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 817 117 112 873 0 79 0 149 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 3 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 123 122 0 231 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 467 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 649 ACTUAL CAPACITY 649 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 933 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 377 APACITY USED 33% MPEDANCE FACTOR 0 .75 "CTUAL CAPACITY 377 r i 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2 ) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 11 :01 :40 ( Main Street at Howley Street 1989 P .M. after improvements 1 STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 1861 ICRITICAL GAPS 7 .0 CAPACITY 56 ACTUAL CAPACITY 42 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE t LT FROM B : 123 377 254 C 14 . 18 0 .49 ALL MOVES FROM C: 353 108 -245 E* INFINITE INFINITE I I 1 1 l 85 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) ` eTE :09-26-1987 TIME : 14 :53 : 47 Main St. at Caller St. 1989 with improvements and development A.M. LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED I . VOLUME=M&CBAM GEOMETRICS=M&CBAM KEY : A- -B C GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROM C: STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET # OF LANES : 4 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C : Caller Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES fLARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR: NO 6PEIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) PROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre ;FTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 1 iHRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Main Street B : Main Street C: Caller Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 968 25 53 1031 0 16 0 89 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUME 0 1076 28 59 1146 0 18 0 99 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 1 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 65 22 0 124 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 552 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 CAPACITY 588 ACTUAL CAPACITY 588 rSTEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM B :Main Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 1103 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .5 APACITY 310 APACITY USED 21% .MPEDANCE FACTOR 0 .85 r ACTUAL CAPACITY 310 1 ! 1985 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 2 of 2) DATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 14 :53 :47 Main St. at Caller St . 1989 with improvements and developmentA.M. STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROM C: Caller Street 4 CONFLICTING FLOWS 7 0 CRITICAL GAPS 30 CAPACITY 25 ACTUAL CAPACITY I SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY 140VEME14T MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 65 310 245 C 14 .69 0 .26 ALL MOVES FROM C: 146 134 -12 E* INFINITE INFINITE p 1985 IiC;; - CHAPTER 10 : UIISIGIIALI ED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2 ) DATE : 09-26- 1937 TI11E : 15 : 11 :01 ilain and Caller P .M. with improvements and development LOST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED VOLU14E=i`l&CBPI1 GEOI'1ETRICS=11&CBPI1 KEY : A- -B C GENERAL CHARACTERIS'1ICS POPUL1TI0I.1 GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : NO CONTROLS : FROH C : STOP PREVAILLIIG SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET ;t' OF LANES : 4 LANES 11AIll STREET APPROACH A - E:CLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : N MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C: Caller Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : 110 RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LANE ON MAJOR : 110 SIGHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) APPROACH A : 'i;ain Street D : Main Street C: Caller Stre -EFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH A : Main Street B : (lain Street C: Caller Stre LT 711 RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 923 39 122 954 0 51 0 134 P H F 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUi1E 0 1026 43 136 1060 0 57 0 149 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 1 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 149 71 0 186 STEP 1 RIGHT TURAS FRO11 C: Caller Street , CONFLICTING FLOWS 534 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 CAPACITY 698 ACTUAL CAPACITY 698 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FR011 3 :I1ain Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 1069 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 CAPACITY 397 CAPACITY USED 38.1 IMPEDANCE FACTOR 0 .70 ACTUAL CAPACITY 397 05 HCH - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 2 of 2 ) DATE :09-2.6- 1987 TINE : 15 : 11 : 01 ,in and Caller P .M. with improvements and development STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FROt C : Caller Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 2243 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACITY 44 ACTUAL CAPACITY 30 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVEHENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL( SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROH B : 149 397 248 C 14 .52 0 .60 ALL MOVES FROM C : 257 99 -158 E* INFINITE INFINITE i i )85 HCM - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) PATE :09-26-1987 TIME : 15 :02 : 44 I4ain Street at Howley Street A .M. with improvements and development . LAST DATASETS LOADED OF. SAVED VDLUME=M&HBAM GEOMETRICS=M&HBAM . Y : A- -B l C l HA2 1,"'P.JoT_CS POPULATIOH GRL'ATER THAN 250 , 000 : NO COHTROLi : FROII C : STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 MPH MAIN STREET !; OF LANES : 4 LANES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURN LANE : 11 MINOR STREET LANES APPROACH . C: Howley Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LA'IIE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURN RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : NO RIGHT TURN ACCELERATION LAME ON t!AJOR : NO HT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) PROACH A : [lain Street B : Main Strect C : Howley Stre LEFTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 THRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 APPROACH Hain Street 3 : Main Street C : Howley Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUME 0 767 43 1100 ^41 0 77 0 155 P11F 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUIIE 0 0052 43 131 1046 0 u6 0 172 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 3 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 144 133 0 267 STEP 1 RIGHT ':URNS FRO:! C :Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 450 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 CAPACITY 763 ACTUAL CAPACITY q63 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FROM 0 :11ain Street Ea CONFLICTING FLOWS 900 TICAL GAPS 5 .0 ACITY 474 PACITY USED 30 IMPEDANCE FACTOR 0 . 77 ACTUAL CAPACITY 474 1935 HCI; - CHAPTER 10 UNSIGNALIZED - ; APPROACHES (PAGE 2 of 2) DATE : 09-26- 1987 TIHE : 15 :02 : 44 Rain Street at Howley Street A .M. with improvements and development . STEP 3 LEFT TURNS FRO11 C : Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 2053 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACITY 56 ACTUAL CAPACITY 43 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY HOVEHENT MOVEMENT DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROH D : 144 474 330 B 10 .90 0 .44 ALL ;10VES FROM C: 400 117 -282 E INFINITE INFINITE 685 HCLI - CHAPTER 10 : UNSIGNALIZCD - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 1 of 2) IE :09-26-1937 TIPIE : 15 : 16 :02 rlain Street at How1Gy Street P .M. with improvements and development . , LAST DATASETS LOADED OR SAVED � VOLUllE=Mu7HBPll GEOMETRICS=[1&HBPII KEY : A- -B GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS CHARACTERISTICS POPULATION GREATER THAN 250 ,000 : 110 CONTROLS : F,ROl l C ; STOP PREVAILING SPEED : 30 11PH MAIN STREET v OF LANES : 4 LADIES MAIN STREET APPROACH A - EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TURA LAME : IJ rPIINOR STREET LANES APPROACH : C : Howley Street SHARED LEFT AND RIGHT TURN LANE : YES LARGE RIGHT TURA RADIUS OR SHALLOW RIGHT TURN ANGLE : 110 RIGHT TURA ACCELERATION LANE ON 11AJOR : 110 � ` GHT DISTANCE RESTRICTIONS ( in seconds) PROACH A : Clain Street B : Plain Street C: Howley Stre Ie FTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 .eRUS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 RIGHTS 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00 1 , APPROACH A : Plain Street B : [lain Street C: Howley Stre LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT VOLUIIE 0 7112 126 120 792 0 30 0 151 PHF 0 .90 0 .90 0 .90 ADJ VOLUIIE 0 3211 140 133 330 0 39 0 168 PERCENT GRADE 0 .00 0 .00 3 .00 PASS CAR/HR 0 147 138 0 260 STEP 1 RIGHT TURNS FROM C:Howley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 432 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 I CAPACITY 737 ACTUAL CAPACITY 737 STEP 2 LEFT TURNS FR019 B :11ain Street Ea MIFLICTING FLOUIS 9611 CRITICAL GAPS 5 .0 PACITY 443 PACITY USED 33 iPCDANCE FACTOR 0 .74 i ACTUAL CAPACITY 1143 1 i i 1985 iIC11 - CHAPTER 10 U1J'IG1IALI::ED - 3 APPROACHES ( PAGE 2 of 2) ,)ATE :09-26- 19137 'f IME : 15 : 16 :02 ;lain Street at Howley Strcet P .M. with improvements and development . STEP 3 LEFT ':URNS FROi1 C : Hoviley Street CONFLICTING FLOWS 1908 CRITICAL GAPS 6 .5 CAPACITY 69 ACTUAL CAPACITY j1 SUMMARY OF LEVEL OF SERVICE BY MOVEMENT MOVE11E11T DEMAND CAPACITY RESERVE LOS AVG DEL(SEC) AVG QUEUE LT FROM B : 147 4113 297 C 12 . 14 0 . 49 ALL 11OVES FROM C : 39a 131 -267 E INFINITE IIIFINITE Department of Community Development & Planning City of Peabody Janaury 24 , 1989 Michael Harrington 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 Dear Michael : Re: Housing Development at the Flynn Tannery site on Howley Street As per your request, we have evaluated the emergency service needs of your proposed housing development on Howley Street in . Peabody. As you know, projects in two communities is not uncommon. For example: Twin Rinks on Route 114 is in both Peabody and Danvers, King' s Grant Hotel is in both Danvers and Beverly, and the Ferncroft Tara Hotel is in both Middleton and Danvers. In these instances both communities work together to provide emergency services. Therefore, although the subject project is in both the Cities of Peabody and Salem, the City of Peabody can have its public safety departments include this project in their service area. Police, Fire and Ambulance services are all within a short distance from the proposed site and access to the property is on Howley Street in Peabody. When the project moves forward , we will discuss this situation with the City of Salem and prepare a mutual aid agreement relative to this project. Please feel free to contact me if you need any clarification of this commitment. Sincerely, Q Dennis DiZoglio, Di/ e� for PEABODY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MDD:mf City Hall • 24 Lowell Street • Peabody, Massachusetts 01960 • (508) 532-3000 O T- Memorandum of Understanding Between Michael J . Harrington PJ : j, and Community Development Department Acting Fbr And On Behalf of the City of Peabody Re : Zone Change Former Flynn & Sons Property at Main and Howley Streets Lots 132 , 133 and 134 , Map #86 Date : April 15 , 1988 Reference is made to your memorandum to the Peabody City Council dated April 11 , 1988, with specific reference to Page 3 of that document , outlining conditions of a contractual understanding between myself and the City of Peabody . In order to aid in the timely resolution of the pending petition for rezoning which is presently before your Planning Board and the City Council , I propose to covenant with the City of Peabody on the following terms and conditions : 1 . That the Community Development Department will have the right of review and approval of all site and land- scaping plans before a building permit is issued . 2 . That I , as developer , agree to place in all deeds relative to this project , a disclosure identifying potential inconveniences which may exist in the area due to proximate industrial uses . 3 . That I , as developer , will build no more than 197 units on the site , and will provide two ( 2 ) parking spaces for each of the units constructed . 4 . That all issues relative to property lines and rights of way will be resolved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department before a building permit issues . 5 . That I , as developer , agree to proceed with whatever land use changes are required by the City of Salem on the basis of this agreement with the City of Peabody . It is understood by the parties to this agreement , that the purpose of this Memorandum of Understanding is to : a ) Recognize and address the concerns expressed in your memorandum of April 11 , 1988 to the Peabody City Council . • Page 2 Memorandum of Understanding April 15 , 1988 b ) To provide a format for the commencement of similar initiatives with respect to the City of Salem as to any changes required by their existing zoning ordinance , and in order to address any other requirements it may impose in the course of the approval process . c ) To enable myself , as the developer , to undertake activities with respect to the "clean up " of the site , and the demolition of the existing buildings located thereon . I think we both agree that the approach taken to date ; namely treating this site as an entity notwithstanding city boundaries , is in the interest of the parties involved and lends itself to a timely resolution of the remaining issues , and the early commence- ment of the project which would inure to the benefit of the more boradly defined community interest . I want to thank both yourself and your staff for both their timely availability and helpfulness with respect to the ongoing effort , and hope that this agreement will serve as a catalyst for the resolution of the land use issue presently being addressed . is a arring on City of Peabody Community Development Department By CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ANTHONY V. SALVO MAYOR April 25, 1989 Mr. Robert L. Pyne Director of Development Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency 50 Milk Street Boston, MA 02109 Re: Howley Street Housing MHFA #89-04 Dear Mr. Pyne: I am writing in response to your letter requesting that I inform your office of any concerns regarding the proposed development of a sixty-four (64) units affordable housing development at 164R Boston Street. On March 15, 1989, the developer of the Howley Street project was denied requests for variances for a forty-eight (48) unit market rate housing development at 164R Boston Street. Such denial was as a result of a multitude of legitimate planning concerns which were raised by the neighbors of the proposed development. Of particular concern were the following issues: - the overall density of the proposed development; - the responsibility for the provision of emergency public services; - the impact which the proposed development will have on the traffic in the area, and the subsequent non-committal of the developer to prepare a traffic study regarding the development of the site; - the existing and proposed ownership of the property; - the aesthetics of the building elevations; and - the impact which the siting of the proposed development would have on the potential construction of a connector road to Route 128. Following the denial of the requested variances, the developer immediately submitted an application for a Comprehensive Special Permit under Chapter 40-B of the Massachusetts General Laws. As you know, the Comprehensive Special Permit process requires that the developer submit an application which includes several specific items, one of which • is a Site Approval letter from the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). To date, the developer has not provided the minimum required information with . Mr. Robert L. Pyne April 24, 1989 Page 2 his submittal and as a result, it is impossible for local boards and commissions to responsibly review this proposed development. Each of the neighborhood concerns outlined above were raised prior to the Howley Street development becoming an affordable housing development, therefore it is clear that the neighbors are not against this development because it contains affordable housing, but rather because of the impact which this development will have on the surrounding area. I hope and expect that MHFA's design review department will require the information from the developer which is necessary to responsibly review the building and site design, prior to making a decision on whether this site is appropriate for the proposed development. In addition, the neighbors concerns should be addressed prior to any approval being granted for this development. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, ia6�wc�v" Anthony V. Salvo Mayor M48 W P • 22 Silver Street • Salem, MA 01970 April 22, 1989 Board Of Appeals City Of Salem Salem, MA 01970 Dear: I am still opposed to this project for the following reasons: A question was asked of the developer - "Is this a possible site if an arclti aeological dig?" The answer was no" - but it is. Anotheruestion was - "Is this (The North River) a tidal river?" The answer was "no" - but it is. There was also a question on services - "Who will service this area for Police and Fire?" - the answer was "Peabody". Peabody City councillor Twomey said "no way was Peabody going to do this". There has been no mention of the railroad freight cars running alongside the property carrying Muciatic Acid and Hydrochloric acid in this permit process, or any mention of the vibrations to buildings caused by freight cars. Environmental impact for contaminates in adjacent areas, the river bank nearest the property (circa 30 feet) and the areas across Howley Street. has been totally ignored - children will explore there. This is a natural evolve- ment and cancer risk. Mr. Nutting still has no answers as to "how far down for you have to go to reach bedrock?" (This is where the Mill Pond was filled.) The residents from Boston Street have recieved no answer as to the actual height of the building withs8pect to the banking along this property - how high will this building rise above banking? The residents of Abom, Bow, Rawlins, Safford, Watson Street's (the lat- tors are exiters and enterers for Beaver and Silver Streets) have shown concern for the present heavy traffic in that area of Boston Street at peak hours. The children must cross there to attend school. We are duly con- cemed about the impact that another 200-300 cars could have on an al- ready serious commuter problem. A traffic study in Peabody does not necessarily address Salem needs. • The areas given to be flooded at times, are minimijzd. Cars will be parked in that area under the stilted building to accomodate the anticipated water. A tenant might find this displeasing. r The area in it's present state is aesthetically unappealing. With federal, state, and municipal funds in crisis stages, it is unrealistic that the Salem river, road and railbeds can be improved for the developer's intent nor maintainej. The developer's actual proppertyty lines in Salem should be clearly defined on his plan - a correction shou]d be made for rear 72 Beaver Street and a parcel on Silver Street adjacent to 30 Silver Street where parking has been eliminated in his revised plan (of 4-19-89). What is to Peabody an aesthetic benefit may reasonably turn out to be a Salem liability. Sincerely Joan M. Sweeney 22 Silver Street Salem, MA 01970 • L TEL 1d13 .617-745-122- Fere 1i5 ,3t1 11 : 55 hIo . 001 P .02 02,,18/89 10:37 V617 451 0962 COAST. PROP, MGMT. IZO02 LJL11.j1/lJ 11 V L OFFICE OF COMMUNITIES & DEvEwpMFNr M1dkad S. Dukakis,Govanor f Amy S.And ony,Serrem 12/1/88 PRELIMINARY NP,N1 EDCD TNVWMRY OF SUDSIDILLD HOUSING Attached. per your request, is a Preliminary new list of the number of low and moderate income housing units and the percentage of housing units that are subsidized within each Massachusetts community. This preliminary data is based upon detailed project lists that are being sent to local officials in each city and town for verification. Once this review is complete, the revised data will be released in early 1989 as an official housing inventory by the Executive Office of Communities and Development (EOCD) . In general, this data includes all housing units developed through state and federal low and moderate-income housing programs. The list specifically excludes units that are subsidized only by rental assistance vouchers. Housing developed with federal subsidies since January 1985 is not reflected in this preliminary list but will be included in EOCD's final report. Please note., Ibis preliminary data does not constitute an official 1=13 Housing Inventory Tor purposes of N.O.L. Ch. 4013. 100 Cambddee Street. Rom 1404 TEL Nn 617-715-1 Fa_ h 16 , +2''a 115 Ho . 001 F . r]3 02/18/89 1038 '5817 451 0862 COAST. PROP. MGMT. Q003 EXECUTIVE OrTICE OE COWNITIES AND DEVELOPMENT PERCENT SUBSIDIZW Preliminary Litt 12-020 TOTAL COI4AIITY PROMAM SUBSIDY FnNILY ELWJY CHAP774 PERCENT (Yeer•Aored Housing Units) UNITS UNITS... UNITS UNITS UNITS SMSIDIZW cWCORD ( 51m) 144 144 44 OR 144 2.70 CONWIY ( 481) 6D 0 6 1.04 0.00 C"IMMON ( 205) 0 DALTON ( 2,331) 180 179 48 132 180 7.72 DIAIM ( 8.234) 294 294 67 207 294 3.51 DW11dJ(li ( 8.073) 640 646 200 447 648 8.09 W DO ( 8,400) 935 335 130 205 335 3.98 OEEAFIELD ( 1.106) 24 24 24 0 24 LU OppiS ( 6,99f) 220 220 40 180 220 3.14 D19NIDN ( 1,r66AA)) 72 72 6 64 12 4.07 OOIIMA9 ( 1,360) 6 6 6 0 6 0.44 T(� )ai10 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 204 204 32 172 204 2.95 OUDIET 3,071 118 118 13 105 118 3.84 OUISTAOLE ( 481) 0 0 0 0 O 0.00 C6RBUIlY ( 31821) 170 170 10 IOD 170 4.45 E.<4100151ELD ( 653) 0 0 0 0 O 0.00 E.LON(ifJ�ON'( 4 333) 294 291 6 2188 294 6.79 ,LAST'IRIOfERAiM ( 3,124) 144 144 i6 128 144 4.61 EnISTMW ( 1628) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 FAaT1WTON ( 5.941) 159 159 39 120 159 2.60 FASTM (_ 5.135) 207 207 22 185 207 4.03 MMT0OWNNN ( 1.158) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 • EE7lEIDNF ( 545) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 PAYING ( 52)9) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 (!146662) 891 891 $62 33S 897 6.62 52 12 40 52 12 iA3R1NVEM ( 5.925) 4S4 454 20 434 454 1.66 FALL RIVER ( 37,004) 5,326 S.OZ3 2,867 2,121 5444 14.39 FAA" ( 10.57.7) SOS 499 130 206 $72 5.72 FITcWG ( 16,333) I.OD5 16002 391 513 11005 6.66 FIARtm (( 269) 0 0 0 0 0^1r^ 0.00 FOOPIK" ` 4.821) 256.1Lb 256 52 204 256- 5.31 )RANINGWW 24 603) 1.700 1,651 773 926 1,700 6.91 FRAM0.IN ( 5.06 540 503 250 253 $03 9.68 FRFFTOMI ( 2,229) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 61ROL�IFEpkpp((( 7.444 1.050 786 662 3% 1.058 14.21 GAY CEQIGEiDHN ( 1. 1) 136 136 10 126 136 7.08 011E ( 479) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 GLOUCESTER ( 11.054) 891 891 390 501 891 8.05 ((( 223) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 IYUTION ( 4,0031 218 218 42 176 218 5.45 CROY ( 1.745) 68 61 12 56 66 3.90 ( (y((LE 437) 0 0 0 0 0 0.09 y fAfAT 0A18t 0011 ( 2,864) 124 124 S5 60 124 4.33 s1MIELO ( 7 $10) 1,014 691 406 359 1.006 13.50 ORDF011 (( 2,061} 25 26 5 20 25 1.21 EigVpJUb ( 1,565) 50 60 2 0 60 3.03 Ha" ' 1,641) 52 61 12 40 52 3,37 IKIrAX ( 1,901) 33 33 0 15 33 1.74 HAMILTON ( 2,201) 06 66 IS 71 86 3.75 HANP�N ( 1.500) 66 56 0 66 W 3.73 19W000N l( 234)) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 WIAKA 31211 216 215 6 209 216 6.71 IVINSON 2.605) 88 88 12 76 88 3.98 • W41Daci 031) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 WVtVARD ( 2,105) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 IL4RN101 ( 4,066} 72 72 12 80 72 1.71 I9IITM l 1,1411) 44 44 0 44 44 3.85 NAVERNILL ( 18,618) 1,200 11226 263 962 1,290 5.91 IIAMAY ( 100) 0 O 0 0 0 0.00 IFATH ( 178) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 "mm ( 6.505) 151 166 20 141 168 2.66 HINSOALE ( 52 ) 0 0 0 0 D 0.00 MR$ This date is for review and Wren And does not constitute M offle%) EOCD Housing In rt" for the purpOtls Of TEL Nn . C,17-745-1223 Feb 15 , G9 11 : 55 PJo .001 P .04 02/16/89 10!89 '8617 451 0962 COAST• PROP. MGMT, X004 E%ECUTIVE 0Ef10E Of O"WITIES AND DEVELOPMENT PERCENT 5M6SIDIZED Prelfnlnawy_Llst 12-028 TOTAL COMITY PROM M SUBSIDY FAMILY ELDERLY CNnP774 PERCENT (Meir-Round Housing Units) ONITs umilS... UNITS UNITS UNITS SUBSIDIZED NEEOIV04 ( 91486) 3B2 362 139 223 362 4.03 NEN ASMSORD ( V7 O 0 0 0 0 0.00 NEW SEOFd1p 39,182 6,373 4,819 3,603 11410 5,351 13.61 14EWVRAIM IX ( 2 1) 0 0 0 0 0 0,00 NEW MA R.80)OM ( 467) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 wx SALEM ( 272) 0 0 0 O 0 0.00 N WAY 1,668) 70 70 0 10 70 4.20 9 432 5.91 �T 6,251) 432 431 83 34 N" ( Y9,051) ) 9B1 878 208 728 981 3.31 K ( 1(8787)am) 76 885 730 2% 391 8 54 85 12.9 NORTH .53 "MTNMNIDOVERS (( 7.041) 631 $37 304 161 537 7.53 NUITN ATTlE80ROlIQI ( 7.577) 261 261 47 234 281 3.71 NORTH BROONEff1D ( 1.900) 102 102 14 OB 102 6.80 "Mill READING ( 3.674) 44 44 4 40 44 1.20 NORTIWPTON ( 10,583) 1,226 1,130 640 531 1.226 11.60 KRTM®O%M ( 3.349) 160 150 46 114 160 4.78 NMTINUDOE ( 4.361) 2970 2970 18 129 2970 . 661 NMTWtOD ( (we3936) 292 292 162,1 130 292 7.61 NORNELL( 2.8Z 116 116 28 88 116 4.11 ROOM ( 10.604 043 570 249 406 843 7.95 OAK BUFFS ( 1 ) 4 4 4 0 4 0.30 OAKNAM ( 36 0 0 0 0 0 0.Do ORANGE 11 Z.11 357 367 139 228 367 12.86 ORLEANS ( 2, ) 2 0 2 0 30 m0 0 0 �0 0.00 0 9.11 OTIT ( 368) 0100129 3942 178 338 Z20 118 138 8.51 PKJEA (( 4,,476 204 204 68 136 20) 4.56 PMXTON ( 1,153 00 0 0 0 0.00 "A FEL�Y(( 15.14 1.209 4l� 1.102 210 877 1,149.4"; 7.44 Pp6RCHE ( 4,095) 176 176 13 153 176 4.30 PDPERRELL 2.646) 67 67 6 61 57 2.53 ppt0 ( ) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 PpNEtIENLLt414___(1 ( 3649} ) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 PMSFIEIA 20.383014 1,785 1.512 508 87Z 1.760 6.76 PLA1WiE10 182 40 40 0 9 40 1.87 PLAIMVELLE 2,134 PL13,116 S06 460 259 191 505 3.66 PLVYlPTpI" (( 617 0 0 0 . 0 0 0.00 PRINCETON ( g ) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 PROV)NCETOMN 21166) 37 31 13 24 37 1.71 Q11RA Y � ( 34,�8) 2,� 2.469 758 1,712 2.755 6.03 e60022) 366 9 374 303 3.99 1 FM 95 74 12 62 74 3.33 READn j 7'405) 297 297 24 273 297 3.97 55TH ( 71,470) 36 36 12 24 36 1.46 R6VERE ( 17,110) 1,371 1,375 497 878 1,317 8.05 Blom ( 20 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 ROCHESTER ( 1040) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 ROCf1N0 ( 5,605) 336 336 210 126 336 5.71 R000'ORi ( 2 988) 116 116 36 80 115 3.88 ROME ( 168} 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 RWM ( 1.99 54 54 12 42 54 x.97 ROYALSTON ( 3%) 0 0 0 0 0 O.DD '9'= 544) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 18651 15, 1,521 1,293 768 525 1,521 9.59 SALISBIhY ( 2.191) 80 80 0 80 80 7.66 SAIDISEIEW0 0 0 0 0 0.00 SAMMMIC4 ( 672) SAUM ( 6.301) 592 692 105 381 92 7.13 SW ( 216) SCITHAIE ( 6,765) 294 294 52 242 2% 5.11 MM This data is for review aM emmunt and dolsimt constitute 4n official 10M Housing Im,e,rtay for the purposes of MGL408. , TEL 110 .151/- 45-122- Feb 16 , 9 1155 Pdo . 001 F . 05 02/16,,89 10:39 U617 451 0962 COAST. PROP. MOMT. X005 S' EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF CllMITIE5 AND DEVELOPMENT PERCENT SUBSIDI2TD Preliminary List 12-02.86 TOTAL COMMITY FR09RAN SUBSIDY FAMILY (LP[3%LY CIM74 PERCENT (Year-ft" Nousirg Units) UNITS UNITS... UNITS UNITS UNITS SUILS1DIZED NESTKWTQI ( 369 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 NESTMINSI0I,834 4 9 9 0 9 0.49 NESTON ( 3, 261 132 132 90 42 132 3.97 NESTPQtt A.683 93 93 l6 70 93 1.99 NERil00n A,221 338 257 59 276 336 7.95 WEYMOUTH 19,876 1.472 11160 826 $11 1.472 7.41 N1V1ye 484) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 NNETMAM 4,345) 182 182 18 164 182 4.10 A ( 3,941) 221 221 44 177 221 5.61 IEILUAMSBIN6 ( 828) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 AMS NILLITONN ( 2,846) 111 111 18 93 111 3.90 NILMIM M6,091 208 200 56 152 208 4.08 NINLIEIDOFF 2,468 230 230 86 142 230 9.56 MIWASM 8,921 136 136 7 129 136 1.97 NIIOSOB ( 214)) 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 WINTHROP ( ).SBB) 584 510 238 306 Sm 7.70 iIam ( 12,719) MI 643 484 297 761 6.14 MU ( 61,315) 8,026 7,889 4,121 9,960 8,$26 14.32 ( 374) 12 12 0 12 12 3.23 W11111 AN ( 2.222) 169 169 15 154 164 7.61 YA00I M ( 10.107) 304 272 134 136 272 3.01 191,411 173,933 92,466 79,095 190.552 351 Fem, listed. NMI This data is far review and comm t end does rot Constitute an official EOCD Housing Inventory for the pogo + of Y&40B. CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS ANTHONY V. SALVO MAYOR April 26, 1989 Mr. James Fleming Chairman Salem Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Fleming: I am writing regarding the Comprehensive Special Permit application of Michael Harrington for the development of a sixty-four (64) unit affordable housing development at 164R Boston Street. On March 15, 1989, the Board of Appeal denied requests for variances for a • forty-eight (48) unit market rate housing development at 164R Boston Street. Such denial was as a result of a multitude of legitimate planning concerns which were raised by the neighbors of the proposed development. Of particular concern were the following issues: - the overall density of the proposed development; - the responsibility for the provision of emergency public services; - the impact which the proposed development will have on the traffic in the area, and the subsequent non-committal of the developer to prepare a traffic study regarding the development of the site; - the existing and proposed ownership of the property; - the aesthetics of the building elevations; and - the impact which the siting of the proposed development would have on the potential construction of a connector road to Route 128. Following the denial of the requested variances, the developer immediately submitted an application for a Comprehensive Special Permit under Chapter 40-B of the Massachusetts General Laws. As you know, the Comprehensive Special Permit process requires that the developer submit an application which includes several specific items, one of which is a Site Approval letter from the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). It is my understanding that the developer has not provided the minimum required information with his submittal and as a result, it would appear to be impossible for local boards, commissions, and residents to responsibly review this proposed development. . Mr. James Fleming April 26, 1989 Page 2 In addition, new information has been submitted which indicates that the percentage of affordable housing in Salem is above 10%. Therefore, the developer does not have an opportunity to appeal this process to the State Housing Appeals Committee. I hope and expect that the Board of Appeal will responsibly address all of the neighbors concerns prior to any decision being made on this petition. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. M ely, Anthony V. Salvo Mayor M48WP i CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS . PLANNING DEPARTMENT a ONE SALEM GREEN 01970 (508)745-9595,EXT.311 April 26, 1989 Mr. James Fleming, Chairman Salem Board of Appeal One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Fleming: On April 6, 1989, the Board of Appeal held a public hearing regarding the petition of Michael J. Harrington requesting approval of a Comprehensive Special Permit application to construct a sixty-four (64) unit residential development at 164R Boston Street. During such public hearing, the Planning Department was requested to prepare a housing inventory to determine the percentage of Salem's housing stock which was affordable to low and moderate income people. Such inventory was to be completed within the guidelines established by the Comprehensive Special Permit Process. In the time which has ensued, the Planning Department has requested and received information from the Massachusetts Executive Office of Communities and Development (EOCD) and the Salem Housing Authority to complete such a study. Chapter 774 Section 20, of Mass. General Laws requires that cities and towns utilize the latest decennial census to determine the number of total housing units within its city or town. To determine the number of affordable housing units, the Executive Office of Communities and Development's Subsidized Housing Inventory was requested and updated to include any affordable housing projects which were previously overlooked by the State, or constructed since the last inventory was completed. Following the compilation of each, the percentage of affordable housing was determined. In addition to utilizing the decennial census, the Planning Department also produced a percentage based on the 1987 local census which is the most current count available. The attached inventory indicates that the percentage of affordable housing units in Salem is as follows: Low-Mod Units utilizing 1980 Federal Census: 10.89% Low-Mod Units utilizing 1987 Local Census: 10.63% Thank you for your consideration of this information. Sincerely, • William Luster Acting City Planner M49WP 1101 CITY OF SALEM SUBSIDIZED HOUSING INVENTORY PROJECT INDENTIFICATION ADDRESS/NAME FUNDING AGENCY TOTAL UNITS Chapter 200-1 Garden Terrace EOCD 32 Chapter 200-2 Rainbow Terrace EOCD 136 Chapter 667-1 Leefort Terrace EOCD 50 Chapter 667-1 Summitt/Willow EOCD 20 Chapter 667-2 Colonial Terrace EOCD 40 Chapter 667-3 Bates/Norton EOCD 36 Chapter 667-4 Pioneer Terrace EOCD 104 Chapter 667-5 27 Charter St. EOCD 110 Chapter 667-6 Morency Manor EOCD 54 Chapter 667-7 Ruane/Dalton EOCD 51 Chapter 689-1 Phillips School EOCD 17 • Chapter 705-2 Park/Prince/Congress EOCD 14 Chapter 705-3 First St. EOCD 12 Loring Towers Loring Ave. MHFA 250 Pequot Highlands 12 First St. MHFA 250 Salem Heights Pope/Proctor St. HUD 285 Stephen Zisson Essex St. HUD 30 i Fairweather A pts. 40 Highland and Ave. EOCD 127 Lincoln Hotel Lafayette St. EOCD 63 Salem Point UDAG Salem Point HUD 49 Total Low-Mod Units 1,730 Total Housing Units 1987 Local Census 16,265 Total Housing Units 1980 Federal Census 15,879 Low-Moderate Percentage (1987 Census) 10.63% M49WP Low-Moderate Percentage (1980 Census) 10.89% ..vcasnggM (gitu of ttlem, ttssttcljuse##s .. .' Paurb of �lppPttl J r Rear 164 Boston Street 1. All requirements of the Salem Fire Department relative to this project, including sprinkling of the building and provision of emergency vehicle access via Jeffers right of way, and hydrant plan. 2. All construction comply with existing city and state building codes. 3. Dimensions of the building shall be as per plans submitted subject to the following amendments: a. Provisions of these conditions b. Provisions of the Salem Conservation Commission c. Boundaries of the parcel relative to abutter Jeffers d. Location of the footprint of the building provided said footprint shall be relocated no more than feet. 4. Proper numbering be obtained from the City Assessors. 5. Minimum of ninety six (96) legal size parking spaces be maintained on site for the exclusive use of the residents, guests and service vehicles of the building only. 6. Height of the building shall not exceed 45 feet. 7. Plan to be submitted and approved by Board of Health, City of Salem, for rodent control during and after construction. 8. Plan for drainage shall be submitted to the Salem Board of Appeal as approved by the Engineering Department, City of Salem. 9. Public safety response (police, fire, civil defense) shall be provided in accordance with mutual aid agreements determined by public safety officials of Salem and Peabody. 10. All services for, but not limited to, water, sewer and storm drains, electricity shall be the responsibility of the City of Peabody. 11. The City of Salem shall not be responsible for solid waste disposal or snow removal for this project. 12. Plan review and an Order of Conditions be done by the Salem Conservation Commission. 13. Petitioner provide South Essex Sewerage District with mitigation relative inflow and infiltration. Rear 164 Boston Street • Page 2. 14. The proponent participate with traffic mitigation by cooperation with Umpta study of traffic, including the transfer of any necessary real property to affectuate that study and improvement. 15. Enclosure of the parking area under the building shall be reviewed by the Salem Planning Department. 16. That the site contain no more than forty eight (48) units in Salem. 17. Any accessory structures placed on the roof shall be properly screened and noise contained. 18. There shall be no parking east of the Salem building. 19. The area east of the Salem building shall be cleaned and landscaped. 20. Plans for lighting and landscaping shall be submitted to the Board of Appeal and approved by the Salem Planning Department which shall also review and approve construction of same. 21. The main entrance corridor within the parcel shall be curbed with granite. i RONAN, STROME, SEGAL & HARRINGTON ATTORNEYS AT lAW • FIFTY-NINE FEDERAL STREET JAMES T.RONAN(1922 1987) SALEM.MASSACHUSETTS 01970 PHILIP STROME 53 MIDDLE STREET MICHAEL J.HARRINGTON GLOUCESTER,MA 01930 JACOB S.SEGAL (508)7"0350 (5081283-7432 MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON FAX(508)7U 7493 (508)2837435 GEORGE W.ATKINS,III MICHELE HOLOVAK HARRISON 73 WASHINGTON STREET DEBRA RAH MIN SILBERSTEIN SALEM.MA 01970 JOHN H.RONAN (508)7445230 PAUL G.C:70CHIFPE (508)7440372 BRIAN P.CASSIDY ELLEN M.WINKLER FILE NO. J.MICHAEL SMITH OF CO'UNSEIn `Mv n April 24, 1989 =� -< ry Salem Board of Appeals - One Salem Green ° Salem, MA 01970 RE: Petition of Michael J. Harrington N "' RE: R-164 Boston Street Gentlemen: As additional submittal material reference the above cited petition, • enclosed please find the following: 1. Copies of deeds evidencinq petitioner' s interest in the site. 2. Additional preliminary site development plans signed by CSS Architects to include: a. Site/landscape Plan dated December 1 , 1988. b. Typical Building Floor Plans dated April 20, 1989. c. Exterior Building Elevations dated April 20, 1989. d. Unit Plans and Wall Sections dated April 20, 1989. 3. Existing Site Plan dated April 6, 1989. 4. Salem Assessor's Map with Abutter List. 5. Report of Existing Conditions. 6. Building Tabulation and Lot Coverage Summary. 7. Subsurface Hazardous Waste Report. Very truly yours, George W. Atkins, III GWA:ph Enclosures REPORT OF EXISTING CONDITIONS The Salem site contains two dilapidated and unused storage sheds and has been subject to illegal dumping and lack of maintenance over many years as evidenced by the attached photographs. (See Existing Site Plan). The adjacent Peabody parcel on the west is the site of a small woodworking firm and buildings formerly used in the leather industry and recently subject to a fire of suspicious origins. The Salem site is abutted on the north by the B & M Railroad, and on the south and east by a lumber yard and residential property. The site is accessed by Howley Street in Peabody which has further access to Main Street, Peabody and Boston Street, Salem on the South and Walnut Street, Peabody and Harmony Grove Road, Salem on the north. The total Salem-Peabody site is bordered on the South by open area of the City of Peabody ("Olde South Buring Ground") consisting of approximately one ( 1) acre; and on the north by a B & M right of way, the North River Canal , and Harmony Grove Cemetary consisting of approximately 120 acres of open area. BUILDING TABULATION Salem Buildings - one (1) No. of Stories - five (5) No. Of units - 64 One bedroom Units - 33 Two bedroom Units - 31 Footprint - 15,500 SF Floor 1 - parking ( 15,500 SF) Floors 2-5 - residential (62,000 SF) LOT COVERAGE SUMMARY Salem Building Footprint - 15,500 SF Salem Parcel - 100,000 SF Building Coverage - 15% Paved Area - approximately 30% Open Area - approximately 55% A O H r" 4 cn r> C= -r1 n r N � Cd y co. Ilk .41 t t*R 1r ie It 1 51. 3 �• a \ -i+ar^rit'[`•./I t Ail 1114 liw `1> - \�• `� r �/ . `Q7 I � Jb r Ir �� ♦,.•�� � 1r ' � � ��% t�fr \`y 1f*.•J l�yx !� � ' Z Qtr.. •�� .4 rr i f �.• f���- '1.t` � �•�', i � . �♦ , *}�• '\ �F / wj , < f� .Y1 �[ h r `'\ <� 1.�`j , `: `y / -.� r .fes•,�W► ;y Jy'yt 1 ., rr .'' •• .f r �r� n.'yw,r � �y`.� �! '�M. 'Y^'_ .•Sj� ."ir�.i �v`' r� �S � P ,f� wf 1 - ///L— tom' /// . � -_` .y7).,i-a'�:...��.,��kL•r M r� r w � � � � � i F L l fy �... i•P ,��e.� >i!,Vt , -, `^iy6<. Y,�, ti` ,3�/_!,� • 1. a f - J �M, fw _ t..: `f- _ r' * // � a4'• �y .�.. ; .�y ✓1? '� x5 t1.44 ' (. • ' Y •_ t '�C' "Ir 3 'C' _yw1,�•-1(.lr'-K�� ;/ � � ` w. ���t�! Y����I•r' � '. •. � 'f'y .�!�`/�_ fJ �r���._�s�a?�'�,.,1 lt�`,��5. '����J ,,. �-.. ���� ���' r , �-P � t Y l�Z�.kw4:� �� 4-P11���"` '��_ ��//�!'• Y - ��. �?' yl_,.a fc�'i��'+��-.' �.¢y a.�'9�� 1� '�� �/ ���Y$�/�`,' ��� �.� •� l4.t1 F � 1':: f east 88411b fY - QUITCLAIM GELD I, Dale G. Dick, Trustee of The Howley Street Trust, u/d/t February 23, 1987, recorded herewith, for consideration pe id of 2750,000.00, grant to Michael J. Harrington, c/o 59 Federal Street, Salem, Essex County, Massachusetts, with QUITCLAIM covenants, the land in Peabody, Essex County, Massachusetts, vire Parcel 1 a A certain parcel of land with the buildings thereon situate on Howley Street in said Peabody, being shown as Lot A on a plan entitled 'Land of Samuel R. Hingston, Peabody, Mass., Scale I In*40 ft.. July, 1945, Thomas A. Appleton, C.E.,' recorded with ua Essex,:South District Registry of Deeds. Book 3418, Page 131, and N bounded and described as follows Beginning at the northeasterly corner of the granted premises on Howley Street at the location of the Boston G Main Railroad and thence running southwesterly by Horley Street two hundred eiqht and 07/100 (108.071 feet to land of John Flynn i Sons. Inc., thence running southeasterly two hundred twenty-two and 15/100 (722.15) feet to a pointy thence turning and running northeasterly two hundredsf if teen (215) feet to the lora tion of Boston a Maine Rallroad, thence turning and o running northwesterly by said location Of Boston 6 Maine Railroad two hundred sixteen (216) feet to Howley Street and point of c beginning. Containing 45,030 square feet. Subject to a thirty (30) foot right of way over the premises to Horley Street as shorn on said plan and marked 'New May, on with Samuel R. Hingscon, his heirs and assisi be used 1n cogns, and all other persoggs who may have the Like right to pass and repass with vehicle■ and otherwise, at all times and for all purposes for • which rights of ways may be used. Together with the right to construct and maintain a branch railroad track over the northwesterly corner of Lot C running ft= the location of the u'� Boston a Maine Railroad to the northeasterly corner of Lot A. 0 4 Parcel II Q A certainreel of land with the buildings nos ahs non rin the rear of Howley Street In aas Lot Peabody, end shown a Lot B on the above mentioned plan, and bounded and described as follows, I Beginning at a point which 19 two hundred nine and 32/100 (709.32) feet southwesterly by land of John Flynn a Sons, Inc., thirty-nine and 55/100 (39.55) fest to • DOintr then running southwesterly but more westerly by said land of said Flynn seventy-tor (721 feet to Cemetery lands thence running southeasterly nineteen and 67/300 (19.62) feet to a point, thence continuing in the same direction by said Cemetery land eighty-six and 17/100 (86.37) feet to Lot C as sham an said plan, thence running northeasterly by said Lot C (70) feet to a way shown on said plant thence running northwesterly by said way thirty (30) feet to a pointy theme running northwesterly sixty-tor and 37/100 (62.371 feet to a May as sham on said plan, thence running northwesterly by said way and a pOrtion of Lot A. twenty-four (261 feet to the point begun at. Containing 6563 square feet. Together with the right to use In common with others, both rights of way sham on said plan leading from said Lot B to the location of the Boston a Maine Railroad. r, m vi ri: N _ +t v en scU 4i > PARCEL III The land with the buildings and improvements eaents 'lot 8843P1116 thereon In Peabody, Essex County, Massachusetts, situated on Mein Street and Holey, Formerly orove Street, bounded and described as follows, Beginning at the corner of Main and Holey Streets thence northeasterly by Holey Street on two courses about el 0htY-tour (B�) feet to the second Parcel hereinafter described, thence southeasterly by said second parcel forty-e Sq ht and 75/100 (48.25) feet to a atone wall) thence northerly by said stone all four and 8/10 (4.81 feet to the corner of said wall, thence easterly by said wall ten (10) feet to a bolt In the .,III [hence northeasterly by IoM hereinafter described twenty-seven and 7/10 127.71 feet to a bolt In the ground, thence southeasterly sixty-two and 5/10 (67.5) feet to the cemetery, southwesterly as the fence thence stands bounded soheasterly by the cemetery fifty-eight and 1/10 (58.1) fears thence southwesterly a little more southerly as the fence no stands bounded southeasterly by the cemetery fifty-nine and 68/100 (59.681 (see � 1 to Main Street, thence northwesterly by Mal, Street thirty-six and 75/100 (76.75) feet to an angle, thence northwesterly, but more westerly, by Main Street, seventy-three 7/10 177.7) feet to a point of beginning. Containing about 10.776 square feet of land. t Meaning to convey Lot A shown on plan of 'Land of Estate of Thomas J. O'Shea, Peabody, Mass., Scale 1 inch equals 20 feet, February 1923, Thomas A. Appleton, C.E.- PARCEL IV 1 2. A parcel of land with the bu ildings thereon situated In said Peabody and adjoining the parcel above decribed. Beginning at a Point on the southeasterly line of Holey Street at the northwesterly corner of the lot above described thence northeasterly by Holey Street one hundred fifty-seven and 5/10 (157.5) feet to the third parcel hereinafter described, thence southeasterly by said third parcel of about one hundred s lxty-E ave (165) feet to the cemetery, thence southwesterly by .� the cemetery about one hundred fourteen and 6/10 1114,61 feet to Me.{ the above described parcel, thence northwesterly, nearly westerly. by the above described parcel e&1xtY-two and 5/10 (62.5) feet to a bolt in the ground, thence southwesterly twenty-seven and 7/10 (77.7) feet to s bolt in the stones wall, thence westerly by said stone wall ten (10) test V) the corner of said wall, thence southwesterly by said stone wall tour and 8/30 (4.81 feet to a point, the last four courses being by the parcel above described, thence northwesterly by said parcel above described forty-eight and 25/100 (48,15) feet to Howley Street and the Point of beginning containing about 17.400 square feet. COMMON M OF MAISACHU RM - UF. • E?Ct I9E OM AI& OF MASSACH �n t` c S 900.00 Cessna ip ...ova-- _ G S— w was: s Al o w tL O T cr:o CQ e6 f"7 I 1 {f i 'i eauf 8843F6117 �anlnp to coma Lot B as shown on said plan. Said Lot 8 is conveyed subject to the right of drainage granted in dead frau William Sutton, Jr. t0 James Buxton, dated December 21. 1881 and recorded in 200" South District Registry of Deed,, Pepe 157. Book 1072, PARCEL V A parcel of land with the buildings thereon adjoining the above described Parcel IV. Beginning on the easterly side of Howley Street at the northerly corner of the granted premises thence southeasterly by a private way about two hundred eleven (111) feet to land now or formerly of the heirs of Clarkb thence soudiwesterly by Bald Clark land about one hundred eight and 9/17 (108-9/13) feet to the second parcel above described, thence northwesterly by said second parcel one hundred sixty-seven and 6/11 (167-6/12) feet to Howley Street, thence northerly by said Hawley Street ninety-nine and 7/12 (99-7/12) feet to the point of beginning. Subject to any rights of way that may now lawfully exist over the same. Meaning and intending to convey the premises conveyed to me this day by deed of John Flynn L Sons, Inc., recorded previously this day. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and seal this 11� day of March, 1987. DALE G. DtC R, Trustee COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Essex, an. I March (�, 1987 . Then personally appeared the above-named, Dale G. Dick, Trustee of The Howley Street Trust, end acknowledged the foregoing to be her free act and deed, before me, � Note[y Pub Sc My commission expires, N c= to N Q T i ... w d Q 0- t• V W 0- GJ k•. Q G7 :J LO CD u Ll- t{t{ In m o, C:) c F f euur 9O36PG471 GEORGE R. HINGSTON of R19 Howley Street, Peabody, Csaex ('oun b. .'dnenechuretta, in mmaidenion of THREE HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($350,000.00) Rrnnts to MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON of 59 Federal Street with gutlrlah, raarsemb, Salem, Massachusetts thwitzAARx An undivided one-half interest in the land with the building. thereon situated in Peabody and Salem, Esser County, Massachu- setts, as shorn on 'plan of Land 1n Peabody and Salem, property of Estate of Samuel R. Hingaton, Scaler 1' - 60' September 26, - 1979,' said Plan recorded with the Esser South District Registry of Deeds in Book 157, Plan 31 and more particularly bounded and described as follower , Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly corner thereof at m land of the Boston s Maine Railroad and thence running •:. aMW SOUTHERLY by land now or formerly of John Flynn, Inc„ as shorn on Bald plan, 203.16 feet, thence turning :n and running wmj EASTERLY ae shown on said plan, 38.07 feet/ thence turning r and running _ vj SOUTHERLYaeand running shorn on said plan, 112.75 feeU thence turning 1u, SOUTHEASTERLY by landof Peabody Cemetery, plan, 102.50 feet, thence tu[ningha and cunning NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of Federal Machine Co., Inc, as shorts on said plan, 95.1 feed thence y turning and running ap NORTHEASTERLY by land now or formerly of Federal Machine Co., �F a m Inc. 68.21 feet, thence turning and running ytl NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brothers, 116.01 feet, thence turning and running Y6 EASTERLY by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brothers, 61.68 feed thence turning and running SOUTHEASTERLY by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brother, ..f • and a ray, an shorn on said plan, 52.0 feet, thence turning and running 4'r SOUTHERLY by land now or formerly of Jetfere Brothers, 179.0 feet, thence turning and running ?. EASTERLY by land now or Formerly Of Jeffers Brother, Thomas Brennan, Marion Dennehy, and Barbara Drebit, ae shown on said plan, 125.5 feet, 51.0 Leat, and 76.0 feet, thence turning and running `` :t;. 'SSCII'N3l"S �01.11� LL a': S113ddl:d0 GUtl�B .-r�yy .L,�r..A:lY..:..YY3a+'A.,faYS.atYpaaMMM. .aYa•!M D0397a7z ;� rl NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of George, and land nor or formerly of Robinson, 117.01 feet, thence Cu rning and running ' NORTHEASTERLY by land noror formerly of Redd I plan, 59.2 feet, y, as shorn on said EASTERLY by land no. or formerly of Reddy, an shorn on + fu.y said plan, 64.3 feet and 60.5 feet, thence turning and running NORTHEASTERLY by land now or formerly of Redd y, as shorn on said plan, 7.7 feet, thence turning and running .' a EASTERLY by land now or formerly of Reddy and land now or formerly of Galarls, as Shorn on said plan, 96.0 feet and 57.3 feet; thence turning and run- ning .r NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of %arras, as shorn on said plan, 54.0 feet, thence turning and running I ' WESTERLY by land of the Boston 6 Maine Railroad, 230.0 feet; thence turning and running SOUTINESTERLY by land now or formerly of the Boston 6 Maine Corporation, as shorn on said plan, 76.0 feet and 149.0 feet, thence turning and running NORTHWESTERLY by land now or formerly of the Boston 6 Maine 4, ,' Corporation, ae shorn on said plan, 110.0 feet fj and 81.0 feet, thence turning and running WESTERLY by land of the Boston c Maine Corporation, as shorn on said plan, to the point of beginning fi i:f 227.05 feet. Containing according to said plan, 3.6 acres more or lees. Subject to and with the benefit of all rights on said plan. of way ea shorn For my tole sea Deed dated December 31, 1979 and recorded rltb the Essex South District Registry of Deeds In Book 6671, Page � 9 i t 'SS5':L'fi3.l`.'� 30k�P3 G 12'1 s 6x4 ! a Ll Slr"rd7 J'0 C'! 909C473 l I ' ' _ Executed as a sided Iutrattvnt thin 24th. day of n July/ 19 97 Oeo[ge R. Hln ton i • lip' ` I ;i.;: 17b, efQar®oamedlhd�ehnalts ESSEX . v. July 21, 19 87 Then pnwnellyeppeund lheehaeenuved George R. Hingston a� end evknawled,ted the loreroiu[wtrummt to he h Ir e A u�� iriee dai Bgmh Llndauer w+Mfaw wa:-�2,0,ddhd m omme+pi,s Sair4ambet.2, lost ' r.i i 3 Lm.`J TA Lt1 CC NcF.' TT$ 11� •S dIVN31t 03AI_93a 6 k i;U LY ]a, S172ddV J0 O�V08 S_BSURFACE HAZARCCOS WASTE INVESTIGATICN-- AT Larrabee & Hingst--n 13 H3w!ey Street 'Iassa,.husettz 963 LEC . C' '9 Co- ._ _ ^Strae _ Etassa _.._ =tts : : i7C ( 6 : 7 ) .-4 19 ?7ovt -m 1937 CF Lam= `= L` KEEFE %ti v MECHANICAL` -��'- A �No. 31446��� ,15 N D0 CIsTE AL E� T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Pace I . Introduction 1 II . Assessment Rationale 1 Figures : 1 . Locus Plan 2. -- ite Plan III . Methods 4 IV. Surficial Geology 5 V. Site Use & History 5 VI . Soil and Water Analysis Summary 6 VII . Conclusions 7 Figures : Soil Logs 4. Soil Logs 5. Soil Logs Tablas : 1 . Metals Analysis 2. E . P. Toxicity Tas _s 3. Volatile Organics 4. Pesticides and PCB ' s I. introduction The site is located at 19 Howley Street , Peabody , Massachusetts as shown .n the Locus Plan ( Figure 1 ) . The site is commercial consisting of approximately 167, 770 square feet with five wood frame buildings . The property is abutted on the west by Howley Street , on the north by B & M Railroad , on the south partially by Peabody Cemetery and residential property and on the aast by other residential property. This site has been a wood working shoo since approximately the mid 1940 ' s . The present owner purchasec the property 17 years ago. There were no ril stains or any other indications that the property contained hazardous waste . The site does not border • wetlands . The intent of the purchaser is to demolish the present buildings and construct condominiums . II . Assessment Rationale The building and surrounding property has been subjected to a comprehensive investigation to determine whether hazardous waste materials and/or oils have been released or are contained or located ; on the site or in the soil or groundwater. This report summarizes the conditions encountered on the existing buildings , grounds and subsurface soils , and groundwater. The certification of materials and soils sampled involves the Resources Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA) re:ulations for analvsis of reactivity, corrosivity, ignitability and extraction procedure toxicity . The hazardous material investigations required tests for eight heavy metals in the soil and volatile organics (VOA ) , pH and conductivity in groundwater. • r- � � ,.. '�_ ( is "� Nan: h� r , , • N . �. 11 �— . •, r: \ . -_ . 1 ' s t.• _EEti E Y 01 el .,, -_*9a 'a ns� ~o i -•�' � 1. �ki r �� � s` ° 7l r. /^�... .� _L /l reGA i-a 'gee . YV� � YI � �t \ �.. i 1 � � \ '� k � V :Fi rll / �• _-`n. \ / .11 •• � s .,� / e.__4 , I t E.' 7 a" C �.-�� '� �34Yan5. -; a— cpCr+aairsr' _ _ anvet^_hr[ i _ /� .° / J > .1 • . L J a .�-neen,�..J • •' �Fos te.c. r• _ ;-' • .��� s'... r.-� _ 14: _n.s..^G a 16 giver HAFEi a \ ^ r t_m s, �° Fn"e r>„t..s aen r_^ r -ee•.et a �•r �, �. o J• •a• LOCUS qtr 'moi L `c I- E• - -'\ ] C ` • - � 7-9— IL 1 M It %- SALEM e Long Pt � / s s srr 4 ♦ - flzu. Coe \s Y' . : i ,- ti '.,•:-•�'; J 1 � Stiosu ♦♦ ;' .a y au:� .• ' 1 i _ E ,, s[_..%a,mer FIGURE I s - Pt 1 tll. �, ,, 1' Ckerind C r Since many sites have been developed only to discover that wastes stored below the ground continue to leach heavy metals or carcinogenic solvent fumes that affect human health , the importance of complete site studies is a financial necessity . Many construction techniques and treatment programs can eliminate the risk in industrial site development , but the problems have to be discovered by chemical analysis . Documentation of the size , character and constituents of any previous landfill activity is essential to the determination of future impacts . The combination Of test cores , soil characterization , soil EP toxicity tests , and surface and groundwater chemical analysis ( if groundwater is encountered ) reveals the extent of site contamination , if anv . The enclosed discussion and engineering report presents the results of previous industrial activity on the site and how it relates to future development potential . All applicable sites must be certified free of hazardous wastes and contaminated groundwater in order to obtain. title insurance for the sale , remortgages or building addition to the property . This site survey is conducted by a professional engineer who has had extensive experience handling the hazardous materials from tanneries , electroplaters , and other industries as well as the desicn of wastewater treatment systems , sludge disposal facilities and landfills . This experience includes a variety of remedial site clean-up actions . All soils and groundwater are sampled according to EPA . protocol and analyzed at SP, Inc. 's in-house chemistry laboratory in Salem, Massachusetts . All sites are subjected to corings and 2 • grounds survey to determine natural cc' dit: ns and any areas of man-made fill or disposal. A material is considered hazardous if it shows : 1 . Ianitabilitv - Having a flashpoint of less than 140oF; a nonliquid liable to cause fires through friction, absorption of moisture , spontaneous chemical change or retained heat from manufacturing or liable when ignited to burn so viaorously and persistently as to create a hazard ; p- ignitable com _ _ _eased gases ; oxidizers . 2. Corrosivitv - Acueous was.es exnit t" ng a pH of less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to i2. 5 and liquid wastes capable of corrodine steel at a rate of greater than 0. 25 inches • per year. 3. Reactivity - Readily undergo violent chemical change ; react violently or form potentially explosive mixtures with water ; generate toxic fumes when mixed with water (or when exposed to mild acidic or basic conditions for sulfi :a or cyanide bearing wastes ) , explode when subjected to a str .ng initiating force ; explode at normal temperatures and pressures ; or classified as Class A or B explosives . 4 . Fall the FP Toxicity Tests - -,he Ex`_ra=t1^n Procedure ( EP ) Toxicity Test is designed to simulate the physical processes which would occur in a landfill . To simulate the acidic leaching medium which occur in actively decomposing landfills , EPA chose to employ acetic acid. To simulate the leaching process , EPA • specified a procedure requiring the mixing of the solid component of the wastes (soil in this instance ) with the acidic leaching 3 medium for a period of 2; hours . To duplicate the attenuation in concentration expected to occur between the point of leachate generation and the point of human or environmental exposure , EPA applied a dilution factor of 100 to the concentration of toxic constituents observed in the test extract. 5. Identified as a Priority Pollutant - The RCRA legislation has classified a minimum of 126 organic and metallic compounds as acutely hazardous to human health . As such , only extremely low Levels are tolerated in t .e environment and ncn-existence required tor drinking water sources . These compounds are cetected by gas chromatograph and regulated according to their level , mode of toxicity ( i .e . oral , dermal , inhalation ) and health effect (carcinogen , irritant or mutagen ) . In all cases , there are chronic ( long-term) concerns as well as acute (single-exposure ) toxicities that have to be evaluated . III . Methcds An 6-inch diameter auger coring devic:; is normally used to penetrate asphalt or soil to refusal or several feet below the groundwater table or the limits of the auger. A minimum of 4 cores per acre is used when the area appears natural . An engineer on site during excavation characterizes soil strata type , depth, unnatural material quantities and groundwater levels . This data is presented in the Soil Logs ( Figure 3 ) . Any organic material , colored soil or landfill refuse is sampled as a worst case and subjected to the EP Toxicity Test. All analyses are performed according to Standard Methods 15th edition 1980, P.CRA Regulations 4 • E. P. Toxicity Extraction Procedures 1978, or the EPA Method 602 for gas chromatographic analysis of petroleum hydrocarbons . Quality assurance and sample identificationP rotocols are in accordance with federal requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES ) , and Clean Water Act of 1976. At all times , hazardous materials must be stored on sealed and bermed bituminous or concrete pads with no conditions that would endanger human health or contaminate the environment . The results of sampling and locations of potentially hazardous materials are identified in this report to facilitate proper disposal and strict adherence to the Hazardous Waste Regulations . !V. Surficial Geolocv The site location of this investigation lies ., ithin an area classified as Urban Land . The Urban Land Unit consists of nearly level to moderately steep areas where soils have been altered or obscured by urban works and structures . T!:e prcperty has scrap metal items ( i .e . Motorcycle ) distributed along the northwestern portion. The buildings cover 15 per=ent of the property , 80 Percent is natural vegetation and the remaining 5 percent is paved Streetway. V. Site Use & History The present owner purchased the property from Samuel R. Hingston in 1970. In 1953, Samuel R. Hingston purchased the . property from John D. and Harold S. Jeffers . The property has been a wood manufacturing shop since the mid 1940 's . The only 5 • waste generated was non-hazardous . Presently , two of the wood frame buildings are being used by the companv , the others are inactive. The purchaser proposes to destroy the existing buildings and construct new condominiums . VI . Soil and [dater Analvsis Summary Composite soil sampling and well drilling were conducted simultaneously in order to minimize air contact time . This sampling method prevents the contaminant from diffusing into the surrounding atmosphere and allows fo-. more accurate laboratory analysis and results . Groundwater was discovered at a depth of approximately 4 feet for Test Well Nos . 2-9 . Groundwater was not present in any of the other Test Wells . Soil from Test Well [dos . 4 and 11 and a composite of Well Nos . 7-9 was extracted and tested for EP Tcxicity Metals . All metal values reported are well below Toxic:ty Limits indicating natural soils . ?he property did not contain discolored soil . The basic site soil composition consisted of a variety of nixtur2s of clay, soil , sand and gravel . Volatile Ornanic Analyses (VOA ' s ) wera performed on the soil from Test Well Nos . 2 , 3 , 5, 6 and 10. All results were less than 1 part per billion, detection limit of the gas chromatograph used for analysis . This substantiates that spillage of gasoline , solvents or organics has not occurred or-, the site. Organochlorine pesticides and Polychlorinated Biphenyls . ( PCB ' s ) testing was performed on Test Well No. 1 and did not indicate the presence of these substances in detectable 6 quantities . This verifies that the area tested does not present a hazard to the environment or human health. Testing for Oil and Grease was conducted on soil samples from Test Well Nos . 1 , 4 and 12. Levels were considerably below limits indicated for natural soil . All testing procedures follow EPA approved analytical techniques as specified by the EPA 's Code of Federal Regulations . VII . Conclusions From :nterpretatiOn of the analytical data and soil profiles , it is concluded that the property can be certified free of hazardous material . The results of the Extraction Procedure Toxicity Tasting , PCB ' s and Pesticides , VOA and Oil and Grease Analysis confirm that the property has not been exposed to accidental or deliberate discharges of hazardous materials , and is frea of contamination. In summary, the conditions of the subsurface soils and : recant activities would not cans: the i4assachusetts DEQE to place a superfund lien on the property pursuant to the Massachusetts General Law Chapter 21E and its amendments . • 7 DEPTH w�Hi lulu ( Feet) I I 2 I 3 I 4 0 Topsoil / Soil Soil and Rocks Topsoil Moist Soil/Rock I Clay and Rocks Soil and Rocks 2 3 4 . Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hole Wet Soil Wet Soil 5 Water/Soil 6 Bottom of Hole No Water Found 7 t Bottom of Hole S011_ LOGS • Property at- HOWLEY STREET PEABODY, MA FIGURE 3 DEPTH LUUAI IUN ( Feet ) I 5 6 7 8 0 Topsoil /Rocks Soil /Sand /Rocks Soil and Rocks Soil and Rock I Wet Sand Medium Sand Wet Medium So 2 3 ji . 4 Bottum of Hole Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hole Damp Soil Wet Sand Wet Sand Wet Sand 5 6 7 SOIL LOGS Property ot: HOWLEY STREET PEABODY, MA CI(_`I IDC' n u�rin ( Feet ) I 9 IO I II 12 0 . Soil and Sand Soil and Sand Soil / Sand Send/ Soil I Sand Sand anFRccKs 2 i i 3 I 4 / • Bottom of Hole Bottom cf Hoie Bottom of Hde Bottom of Hole Damp Soil Dry Sand No Water Found No Water Found 5 6 7 SOIL LOGS r Property at: HOWLEY STREET PEABODY, MA FIGURE 5 . Mr . Michael .._rringtcn 59 Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 DATE: 10/30t- 7 PROJ. NO. : Chapter 21E Site Assessment on Larrabee & Hingston site LABORATORY REPORT Total E. P . Oil PH Solids Toxicity Bulk & PCB VOA Comment Grease 710047 7 . 64 91 X X 0 . 12?4 :{ Hole 1 Soil 710048 7 . 10 ;{ :{ ;{ Hole 2 Soil 710050 6 . 54 :{ l X Hole 3 Soil 710052 5 . 68 80 . 1 0 . 101 X X Hole 4 Soil 710053 5 . 33X :{ < X Hole 5 Soil 710054 5 . 74 Y X :? { X Hole 6 So ' 1 • 710056 5 . 95 X X :{ Hole 7 Soil 10058 5 . 53 90 . 5 '{ X X Hole 8 Soil 7-- 0060 5 . 97 '{ xHole 9 Soil 710064 5 . 98 ? X { X Hole 10 Soil 710066 5 . 43 ')0 . 3 :{ X X Hole 11 Soil 710053 5 . 42 X3 . 5 x 0 . 11 ' X { Hole 12 Soil Q -n A n Sa milled on : 10/9/87 Sa-Dle Rc ' d: 10/9/87 Sampling Info: 0Ac' I n � /x 7 L DATE LABORATORY DIRECTOR Mr. Michael Harrington DATE: 10/30/87 59n Federal Street Salem, MA 01970 PROJ. NO. : E. P. Toxicity Soil Analysis on Larrabee & Hingston site LABORATORY REPORT Hole k4 Composite Hole €11 Hole $7-9 710052 710056 710066 ?H units 5 . 68 5 . 95 5 . 43 Total Solids 80 , 18- 90 . 3% 90 . 30 E.?. Tca. Extracticm : E. P. Tox . Limiz Ar=senic me/ 1 0 . 037 0 . 027 0 . 027 5 . 0 Earium ma/i 11 • . 2 X0 . 2 <0 . 2 0 100 . 0 Cadmium mg/1 <" ) . O1 <0 . 01 0 . 02 1 . 0 .romium mg/1 20 . 02 <0 . 02 <0 . 02 5 . 0 Lead mg/1 <0 . 02 <0 . 02 <0 . 02 5 . 0 :•±ercury mg/1 0 . 001 0 . 013 0 . 012 0 . 2 Selenium mg/1 0 . 001 <0 . 001 <0 . 001 1 . 0 Sit"rer ma/1 0 . 005 <0 . 005 <0 . 005 5 . 0 °u'_ Metals : Ear-um me/k^, <0 . 2 <0 . 2 X0 . 2 Chromium mg/k,; 8 . 57 6 . 05 10 . 39- Lead ma/kg 40 . 9 11 . 9 92 . 0- - J FSamcle pled b G. Olson/L. Keefe, P.E. cled on : 10/9/87 cle Rc 'd : 10/9/87 • Info: -1sah�T� DATE LA80RATORY D RECTOR 9 SP , INC . 29 Congress Street Salem , Massachusetts 01970 Client : Michael Harrington Larrabee & Hingston Site Sample Received : 10/9/87 Sampe Analyzed : 10/ Sampled by : G. Olson/L. Keefe , P.E. EPA 601 & 602 Volatile Organics Hole #2 Hole r3 Hole 45 Parameter 710048 710050 710053 (Soil) (Soil) (Soil) ---- - ------------------ -- -------- - Benzene ND ND ND BromcaiChloromethane ND ND ND eromoform ND ND ND Bromomethane ND ND ND arbon t ;trachloride ND ND ND Cnlorobenzene ND ND ND Chlcroe:hane ND ND ND 2- „ hlcroethylvinyl ether ND ND ND Chloroform ND ND ND Chlorometnane ND ND ND Dib -o ochloromethane ND ND ND 1 ,2 -Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND 1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND 1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene ND PID ND Dicnlorodifluoromethane ND ND ND 1 , 1 -Dichloroethane ND ND ND 1 , 2 -Dich . oroethane ND ND ND 1 , 1 -Dichloroethene ND ND ND trans - 1 , 2-Dicnloroethene ND ND ND _ ,2- D4cn1oropropane ND ND ND ,: is - 1 , 3-Dichloropropene ND ND ND trans - 1 , 3-Dicnloropropene ND ND ND Ethylbenzene ND ND ND Metnylene cnloride ND ND ND 1 , 1 , 2 , 2 -Tetrachloroethane ND ND ND Tetracnloroethene ND ND ND Toluene ND ND ND 1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroethane ND ND ND 1 , 1 , 2-Trichloroethane ND ND ND Trichloroethene ND ND ND Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND ND Vinyl chloride ND ND ND To :al Xylenes ND ND Date Lab Di recto ND NO = Non detectable Method Detection Limit = 25 ug/kg SP , INC . 29 Congress Street Salem , Massachusetts 01910 Client : Michael Harrington Larrabee & Hingston Site SdmPle Received : 10/9/87 Sample Analyzed : Sampled by : G. Olson/L. Keefe , P.E. EPA 661 & 6J2 Volatile Organics Hole i6 Hole =10 710054 710064 Parameter (Soil) (Soil) ----- ----- --- ------ - ---- ------------ - -- - -- Benzene ND ND Bromed ' cnloromethane ND ND 3romoform ND ND Bromomethane ND ND Carbon tetrachloriae ND rID Chlorobenzene ND ND hloroetnane ND ND 2-Chloroethylvinyl ether ND ND �.hloroform ND ND Chloromethane ND ND Dibromocnloromethane ND ND 1 ,2-Dicnlorooenzene ND ND 1 , 3-Dicnlorooenzene ND ND 1 , 4-Dicnlorobenzere ND ND Dichlorodifluoromethane ND ND 1 , 1 -Dichloriathane ND ND 1 , 2-Dicnloroethane ND 14D 1 , 1 -Dicnlorcethene ND ND trans - 1 , 2 -Dichloroethene ND ND 1 , 2- Dichloropropane ND ND cis- 1 , 3-Dicnloropropene ND ND trans - 1 , 3-Dicnloropropene ND ND thylbenzene ND ND >'etn, iane chloride ND ND 1 , 1 , 2 , 2-Tetracnioroethane ND ND Tetracnloroetnene "7D ND Toluene ND ND 1 , 1 , 1 -Trichloroethane ND ND 1 , 1 , 2-Trichloroethane ND ND Trichloroethene ND ND Trichlorofluoromethane ND ND Vinyl chloride ND ND Total Xylenes ND ND l Date Lab Dire NO = Non detectable Method Detection Limit = 25 ug/kg EPA 608 ORGANOCHLORINE PESTICIDES AND PCSS Mr. Michael Harringto SAMPLE ID: #710047 59 Federal Street Sample Date: Salem, MA 01970 Re : Larrabee & Hingst PARAMETE , --SULTS Site Hole #1 - Soil #710047 Aldrin ND A-6HC ND 9-2HC v-cHC NO ND D-=-HC NO Calcrdane 4.41 - n-D NNO I -V - HE NO '-'- ND Ciel �rin NO Enuo=_:_ Ilan NO - =_ulfan II NO Endcsulfan Sulfate ND • Encrin ND Endrin Aldehyde ND Heptacnlor NO HeoTacnlcr Epcxide ND 7cxaohene ND PCE- 1016 NO PCE- 12- 1 NO FC°- 1212 NO - VD NO NO --u NO :thcc P+� = Non de-ectaole . Da-e Laboratory Director !I . LUCUTIVE OFFICE OF COMMUNITIES & DEVELOPMENT Alichad S. Dukakis, Governor Amy S. Anthony, Secretary IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING CHAPTER 774 December 9, 1987 Dear Local Official: The purpose of this notice is to clarify an important aspect of Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 (also known as sections 20-23 of Chapter 40B of the Massachusetts General Laws or as the "Anti-Snob Zoning Act" ) . Chapter 774 is a local process for granting "comprehensive permits" for the development of subsidized low or moderate income housing. These permits, granted on a case-by-case basis by local Zoning Boards of Appeals (ZBAs) following a public hearing, may allow housing construction at greater density than allowed by local zoning. A local denial of a comprehensive permit, or the imposition of "uneconomic" permit conditions, may be appealed to the state Housing Appeals Committee. The regulations of the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee (760 CMR 31.02) specify eight submissions that the ZBA may require from the proposed developer before the public hearing on an application for a comprehensive permit. These items include: (1) preliminary site development plans; (2) a report on existing site conditions; (3) preliminary architectural drawings; (4) a tabulation of proposed buildings; (5) a preliminary subdivision plan (if necessary); (6) a preliminary utilities plan; (7) a list of all requested exemptions from zoning and other local regulations; and, (8) evidence of the developer's interest in the site and eligibility under Chapter 774, including a so-called *site approval letter• from a state or federal housing agency. • Office of the Secretary 100 Cambndge Street, Room 1404 Boston, Massachusetts 02202 (617) 727-7765 . The last item is one of the most important. Site approval letters for most state-subsidized private housing development programs are issued by the Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency (MHFA). Site letters for other programs are occasionally issued by other state and federal housing agencies. These letters indicate: (a) whether a site is generally acceptable for housing development; (b) whether the proposal and the developer are eligible for state housing funds; and, (c) what specific planning concerns must be addressed before the proposal will be considered for state funding. Site approval letters are presently issued by MHFA only after a site visit by its technical staff, review by the funding program to which a developer intends to apply, and an opportunity for comment by ocal officials. Some housing programs may impose other requirements before a site letter is granted. The Homeownership Opportunity Program (HOP) , for example, requires that a developer demonstrate a good faith effort to secure the support of local officials and the local housing partnership (if any) before submitting an application for a comprehensive permit. If your local zoning board of appeals has begun the public hearing process on a comprehensive permit application that does not include a site approval letter, this agency strongly recommends that the ZEA attempt to reach a written agreement with the applicant to suspend the hearing process until the application is made complete. If such an agreement cannot be reached, the ZBA may deny the application "without prejudice* and state in writing that the application is incomplete pursuant to the regulations of the Massachusetts Housing Appeals Committee. The developer may than reapply for a comprehensive permit if and when an application becomes complete. If the ZBA receives a new comprehensive permit application that does not include a site approval letter, or is otherwise incomplete, this agency recommends that the application also be denied without prejudice, in writing, as described above. In all cases where your community is reviewing an application for a,comprehensive permit, we recommend that the ZBA consult with the town counsel, city solicitor or other competent legal counsel. This in particularly important to ensure that all procedural requirements of Chapter 774 are met and that all written decisions adequately protect the interests of the community. Written materials are available to help your community better understand Chapter 774 and grants are available to obtain professional legal and consulting services to help you respond more effectively to comprehensive permit applications. If you have general questions about Chapter 774, please contact Christine Pappas at (617)727-7824. If you have legal questions about Chapter 774 with respect to •a specific permit application, please contact John Carney, counsel to the Housing Appeals Committee, at (617)727-7078. Sincerely, Jose Itley istant Secretary It 4C'B § 20 CITIES, TOWNS AND DISTRICTS REGIONAL PLANNING 4OB § 21 Net. e Mala 1' ere,,the board of Committee b not pro Where tract sought to be developed take Into consideration the recommendations Of the local boards and rented from mantling rhe applicant 1. tar Im, mnd maderaw Is." Mnbg shall have the authority to use the testimony of colnuitanta. The j tit.1 .e lull,.0,Propen7 Interne pima raamlel 10 acre,, and *been linswina end,held In the N10 or p[.aa la aa•Inlne Aplwn4 Committee,In Simmons.teems provisions of section eleven of chapter forty A shall apply to all such 1n1..wh Iraere.t llo.td of Anwab of beanlre Merrill. regrdred that it,d...4 hearings. The board of appeals shall tender a decision.based upon a Minster r, Ilowdrur A1nw.bt Committee minister be eer..trmaed an only ata.area , majority vote of said board, within forty days alter the termination In Deer. of Conmmall, AnnIM1 IID131 with carnation, ale acre. Orlon per- ; c 11 I:.Csd Sal.Sea lla. am. amued for•i.n-P.m.this,*cue.relot. of the public hearing and, If favorable to the applicant, shall forth. ' 11-9 to loe•I Peoria with respect to M. with Issue a compmhmsive permit or approval If said hearing Is S. I-lmuwd m,Id.sd srp..le.u.. and mwleracp meome ho...[.[ Dralerts Develot*r whlch ... .11,1ble 1. rt Id. not convened or a decision Is not tendered within the time ellOwed, vnu lm.pplln Ole. «lie . ,nheldy wm, a Ilinll" dividend unless the time has been extended by mutual agreement between the ,i oromimnno at time that It appurl m n. Emi.ot ..m a. board and file applicant.the applicalfon shall be deemed to have been hard.f anl••de for ro.uprenen,I.CV r-' •11e4•0lemem.nod renin.•cora- am- allowed end the comprehefulve permit or approval shall forthwith ts- ult for sotto n.rloo of Ian- and mW e,. In parer rvnferr•d upon board at .P .1 tram, ha 'I., no.,.1 01 Appeal. crnl..md bn....... ....w.d.ron.mnter. sue. Any person aggrieved by the Lauance of a comprehensive per. of llp.u.J r.lim.M.[Appel,commit. •ndlr...Imr h, nnnuned .poicso, far mit or approval may appeal to the court as provided In section seven- t' L. 1411L of Commnnitr Af Niru Imrmil to mo+uncl low and mW ars to ' teen of chaplet forty A- 370.11.,.,M. bmnme Len+ia[, to mmrddr Imo 're- • am remrnr. sad rrul.aomi' Ineludinr Added by St.1969, e. 774. 1 1. Amended by SLIM, e. 809, '1 4, 4A, 1B. 7. •'c...h 1..1 with I...I...or• mnlne I•,i.... It not c newteot anb Iw Historical Nm. I If •pprotni of e.ten.10. m ..burn mI Deedr.do not lotlad, a taking made BLIBIe.t Baa,II 4.1L.4B..ubUlvted ed h the w '<r coals .rot 1+ ohdlred at town 1• goad bdrh d for •public purpose; Ormond! y PM1•blou et ehaptet ry m,eiinr amus of ba+ailltt to the plot. thus.tela.ertloo sad 11 ii to 23 of tbb :- 'twebe" for 'Youneep", •,taro^ for Can, A e. Ne tienral taw• V .Jim ect. Bombe Appeni. Committee could chs per did at Pmhlblt town from fah. •aet.rnmb'. .ad`se•emeea'for•Rea prior to Wd date until lel• met Is at, Im tract O emlmot domalo far nemee• r{,. tone-. In the fiM1q fiftb, and eighth opted by each vespertine cilr w tom dl+pen.. alta the approval local mmpt , i A- line at romlment *110 Imo neeJ.. a.uoo P^naw. durlp[ peodenq of ape p .,obnm, mPe,tl rel). pnerlded that no bar Wm Jime able. Board of ADpeW of llnyn.ed r. Bout f acus, for n eomprh...Im permit to p}} 9LIOT3,a euA,17.provided: dolts. Diarb.n buedn i •al ser"ep Ing APPrab Cumminer In Dept Of Com• build low sod moderate lorwme hall.[., i•I 'TMs rot.tall lake effect an Januaq tight all dolor oedlnaays and b)-dao so tract Town of Cbelmafurd r, DI- tine .[.,tree hundred and ae•ee til. •ha he OM1ugbl mm mnformll) salla melee Affairs IIma1 343 S.ESd Sat.370 1 t O the proddaua of this rhapbr and stall 11„•. 61, Oiln,e UaT01 res RE2a M. lT0 1hr ,t . to intrae oed[.rosea aped andlur apo WL !;- aarndramix ether Ihfl solo[ temp be ge•eroed Chapy.ter sell forty A tolof M �- .nwndmmLL adopted filer u1d date.• $o,mom e. ”fl est o* v [. enr4t prier"Januar,nn.plpeleen hw.dned Y p^ngr.ph wappeared to the and se,.oty-m7 hall totem waning am$- 2 Low or moderate income homing; applications for approval A hlcb en.aued bill of SLlyra e.sue,"nen of au.and bs-1•.a• of proposed cOnstrulelion; ; appeal -e amendment of 41,11-e.210,1 14A.b, g pP'� 11-e` 1 e of the .at but .an apparently I.- SL]afli a gea was cppne•ed Dee. e Any public agency or limited dividend or nonprofit O leaded to be Imitated 10 1 T ...Pa. tart Evwneeon declaration.. law b) use l P rganlatlon Inn the enekl,m. .1 the •R rad: noM1M1or an filed o toe lime da¢ Proposing to build low or moderate Income housing may submit to -zoning ordb.or* nod bylaw. In ea the (ward of appeals, established under section twelve of chapter for. h-,t an •rod date .hell mail.. to W ly A.a single application to build such housing in lieu of separate ap• z Net.. eel D••I.I••. Plications to the applicable local boards. The board of nppeals shall I.......1 2 lomme bounce bas right of appeal W forthwith notify each such local board, as applicable, of the tiling of .? o.rbb.at a...d 17 If...1.8 Appr to Commlbee Welk wee e- Emin.ml oem.4 a nne,ed 0, laso... m auris permit such application by sending a copy thereof to such local boards for Ee.L.am..Id Imp.el report a has as light at appeal to add eemmflum, their recommendations and shall, within thirty days of the receipt of Mead.'. 10 dome not den,artpaia ieved funny equal p such application, hold a public hearing on the some. The board of Llau.d widest vP.listlem. 7 verloo In that aggrieved pony bas rtgbt appeals shag request time a g p close. 11 of review In 11mwtlar Court 3labapmy rtq appearance at Slid hearing Of SVCh re re- Polls 4 .. Board o1 Appeals el Winebrenner sentallves of said local boards as are deemed necessary or helpful In Pnprly[nbM1•1 npinmub 3 fig?u 316 N.E3J&A 386 Mean.228.a► i making Its decision upon such application and shall have the same Bgm.ua... n••^•Ili 3 ped di.mbatd 95 9.Ct an. 42a C.B. Wer to Issue PP y Rub. l3 gW.42 LEd3d 1131. +l Power permits ore rovab:as an local board or official who v.11411y I This section and 11 20. 22 and 23 of would otherwise act with respect to such application, Including but t.^int rep.imt... a this cbapbr sea not unconstitutionally not limited to the power to attach to said permit or approval condi- ••gum. do oro statute unroasum- llousl delegation of power, and do oro ' I Ilona and g materials a with respect to height, site plan,sizes shape, i. v.unh pewmlt unmrwtltulloo•1•pot"pass. Id. i or building materials as are t'Ottii3lenf with the terms of this section. Til, .eoaon yro.ming Ihnt applicant Sbad.rda ne be applied by board.of The board of appeals. In malting It;decision on said application,shall fur wr.nn m ronanun law or mod.nte ovw.l.and Ileudng Appeals commlttes 305 '. if;7fk11�, ) y q' l er 1 }{ f }.t gat i 9`-sii:C Illi'. 4;•„ h; _ l i Y. i taa.�f r .ill � .• 760 CHR: DEPARTMENT OF COMb1UNITY AFFAIRS 31.02: Local .action Prerequisite (1) In order to appeat to the Committee, an applicant shall have applied to the Board for a comprehensive permit in accordance with M. G. L., c. 40B s. 21 and shall have been denied such permit or shall have been granted such permit with conditions which it alleges are uneconomic and riot consistent with local needs. (2) In order to appeal to the Committee, the applicant shall have submitted to the Board with its application for a comprehensive permit the items listed below. No other documentary evidence at the local level shall be necessary to fulfill the requirements of this section. (a) preliminary site development plans showing the locations and outlines of proposed buildings; the proposed locations, general dimensions and materials for streets, drives, parking areas, walks and paved areas; and proposed landscaping improvements and open areas within the site. An applicant proposing to construct or rehabilitate four or fewer units may submit a sketch of the [natters in 760 CMR 31.02(2)(a) and 31.02(2)(c) which need not have an architect's signature. All structures of five or more units must have site development plans signed by a registered architect; (b) a report on existing site conditions and a summary of condi- tions in the surrounding areas, showing the location and nature of existing buildings, existing street elevations, traffic patterns and character of open areas, if any, in the neighborhood. This sub- mission may be combined with that required in 760 CMR 31.02(2)(a); (c) preliminary architectural, scaled drawings for building plans including typical .floor plans, typical elevations and sections, and identifying construction type and exterior finish, signed by a regis- tered architect; (d) a tabulation of proposed buildings by type, size (number of bedrooms, floor areal and ground coverage, and a summary showing the percentage of the tract to be occupied by buildings, by parking and other paved vehicular arees, and by open areae; (a) where a subdivision of land is involved, a preliminary subdivi- sion plan; (f) a preliminary utilities plan showing the proposed location and types of sewage water and drainage facilities including hydrants. (g) documents specified in 760 CMR 31.01 to show the status of the applicant and the acceptability of the site; (h) a list of requested exceptions to local codes, ordinances, by-laws or reguiations, including the zoning by-laws or ordinances. The applicant shall submit copies of these items to the Committee together with its initial pleadings, as provided in 760 CMR 30.06(1). (3) If the Board does not abject at the local hearing to the failure of an applicant to submit any item of the above, or has allowed an appli- cant to submit information on an item at a later time, the Comouttee - shall consider the requirements of this section to have been fulfilled as to that item. However, the Committee shall require that any such document be submitted to it during the course of the hearing before the Conunfttee. If the Board does object at the local hearing to the applicant's failure to submit any item of rhe above, but due to exceptional circum- stances there is good cause for such failure by the applicant, the Committee may consider the requirements of this section to have been fulfilled as to that item and snall require such item to be submitted to it. (4) An applicant may submit additional documents or amendments to documents to the Board or the Committee during the course of the hearing. 1/1/78 Vol. 17 - 422 760 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 31.03: continued with local needs. If the Committee so determines by majority vote the Committee shall hold a hearing as provided by c. 40B s. 22 and 760 CMR 30.00 ad 31.00, after notifying all interested parties. If It is not so determined, the Committee shall notify all interested parties, and the applicant's comprehensive permit as amended shall be valid. The decision of the Committee on whether to hold an adjudicatory hearing in such cases shall be final. i 31.04: Computation of Statutory Minima (1) Housin Unit Minimum. For purposes of calculating whether the city or towns Tow and moderate income housing units exceed ten ppercent of its total housing units, pursuant to M. G. L. , c. 408 s. 20: (a) The number of low and moderate income housing units shall be the number of units, as defined in 760 CMR 30.02(1), most recently Inventoried by the Department as occupied or available for occu- pancy or under permit in the city or town prior to the applicant's initial submission to the local Board; provided that evidence that net additonal units have been occupied or have become available for occupancy between the date of the most recent inventory and the date of initial application, shall be considered. The Departmental inventory shall be conclusive of the number of units up to the time of the most recent inventory prior to initial application. (b) The total number of housing units shall be that total number of units enumerated for the city or town in the latest available United States Census; provided that evidence that net additional units have been occupied or have become available for occupancy or are under permit or that total units have decreased between the latest Census and the date of initial application shall be considered. • (2) General Land Area Minimum. For the purposes of calculating whether low and moderate income housing exists in the city or town on sites comprising more than one and one half percent of the total land area zoned for residential, commercial, or industrial use, pursuant to M. G. L., c. 40 8, s. 20: (a) Total land area shall include all districts in which any residen- tial, commercial, or industrial use is permitted, regardless of how such district is designated by name in the city or town's zoning by-law; (b) Total land area shall include ail unzoned land in which any residential, commercial, or industrial use is permitted: (c) Total land area shall exclude land owned by the United States, the Commonwealth or any political subdivision thereof, the Metro- politan District Commission or any state public authority; (d) Total land area shall exclude any land area where all residen- tial, commercial, and industrial development has been prohibited by restrictive order of the Department of Natural Resources pursuant to M. G. L. c. 131, s. 40A or s. 105. No other swamps, marshes. or other wetlands shall be excluded; (e) Total land area shall exclude any water bodies; (f) Total land area shall exclude any flood plain, conservation or open space zone if said zone completely prohibits residential, com- mercial and industrial use, or any similar zone where residential, commercial or industrial use are completely prohibited. Only site of low and moderate income housing units inventoried by the Department or established according to 760 CMR 31.04(1)(a) as occupied or available for occupancy as of the date of the applicant's initial submission to the Board, shall be included toward the one and one half percent minimum. Where a housing development for project is receiving a state or federal subsidy but less than 100% of its units are provided at below 1/1/78 Vol. 17 - 424 44