64-181 - R164 BOSTON STREET - CONSERVATION COMMISSION 777�
RECEIVED
D E C 1. 9 1990
CITY OF SAJ
t NING DEPT.
3 a'
t a 44''
Qlty CouneA December 17 , 1990
Ordered:
That the attached letter from the Department of Environmental
Protection, relative to a proposed project on Howley and Main Street in
Peabody, and extending into Salem City limits, be received and placed on
file.
AND BE IT FURTHER ORDERED: That a copy be sent to the City Planner,
Building Inspector Board of Appeal, and the City of Peabody Ward Three
Councillor.
In City Council December 17 , 1990
_ Adopted as amended
ATTEST: JOSEPHINE R. FUSCO
�r
zo&011,
Daniel S. Greenbaum VW&&W,, ✓ffa"a �U6� 07(3)07
Commissioner December 13, 1990
(617) 935-2160
Ms. Susan L. Riess WETLANDS/SALEM
30A Silver Street DEP File =64-181
Salem, MA 01970 Superseding Order of
Conditions (DENIAL)
Dear Ms. Riess & abutters :
The Metropolitan Boston/Northeast Regional Office of the
Department of Environmental Protection has completed its review of
the above-referenced file in preparation to issuing a Superseding
Order of Conditions. Under the provisions of the wetlands
Protection Act, M.G. L. Chapter 131, Section 40 the Department is
issuing the enclosed-Superseding Order of - Conditions denying-the
proposed project based upon: 1) information and revised plans
submitted,' 2) information gathered-during an on-site inspection,
3) reasons the Department has deemed necessary to protect the
'statutory public interests identified in the Act.
The project site consists of an approximately 6 acre parcel
of land which was a former tannery operation. The remainder of
the buildings will be removed from the site in order to construc-t
two multi-family buildings. The project site is located at the
intersection of Howley and Main Streets in Peabody, and extends
into the Salem City Limits. The North River lies adjacent to the
project site. The proposed project consists of the construction,
of two multi-family dwellings, driveways, parking facilities,
utility lines, drainage facilities and structures, and a
compensatory flood storage area. The project site lies within the
flood plain of the North River. The project was filed under tc-;o
Notice of Intent filings ($64-181 & ;55-251) . The Department is
issuing to separate Superseding Order of Conditions for each
filing, however the project was reviewed as one entity.
The Department ' s review of the file and on-site inspection
confirmed that the project site contains the following Areas
Subject to Protection Under the Act ; 1) Bank, 2) Bordering'
Vegetated Wetlands, 3) Land Under a Waterway, and 4 ) Bordering
Land Subject to Flooding: In accordance with M.G. L. Chapter 131 ,
Section 40 and its regulations, 310 CMR 10. 00 et. seq. ,
specifically sections 10. 54 through 10. 57 inclusive, each of the
aforementioned Areas are presumed to be significant to one or more
interests identified in the Act: 1) public or private water
Original Printed on Recycled Paper
Page-2- i
DEP File r64-181
supply, 2) groundwater supply, 3) flood control , 4 ) storm damage
prevention, 5) prevention of pollution, 6) the protection of
fisheries, and 7) wildlife habitat. The project as proposed would
alter Bank, Bordering Vegetated Wetland, and Bordering Land
Subject to Flooding,. The Notice of Intent files were filed for
work within the buffer zone.
The Profile data and FIRM maps provided by the National Flood
Insurance Program for the Town of Peabody, dated May 15, 1980
provides a 100-year flood elevation at 12 feet and the 10-year
flood plain at 11 feet (N.G.V. D. ) , thereby determining this
project site within the flood plain to the North River: The on-
site grades range from 8 to 40 feet. Upon review of the Notice of
Intent, the revised plan dated September 20 , 1989 , and additional
information the Department noted that there are outstanding
concerns regarding the flood plain associated with the North
River. the applicant' s additional information in a letter- dated
November 28 , 1989 and the revised plan address the projects
proposed compensatory flood storage: However, the revised plan is
still deficient_ in compensatory flood storage between elevations 8
and 9- feet (N.G.V. D. ) . Because-the-project does�not provide-the
_e -
requ red"compensatory -flood -storage'as_set_forth
in 310_CMR,10 .57
(4) (a) `the-project cannot=be-approved' as proposed:? y
In addition to the above-referenced concern it is the
Department' s finding that the proposed project will increase the
peak runoff rates into the flood plain on-site thereby further
displacing the existing flood plain and thus will not meet the
General Performance Standards for Bordering Land Subject to
Flooding, 310 CMR 10. 57 (4) (a) (1) . The additional impervious
materials proposed on site, paved parking lots, driveways, and
structures, will increase the existing peak flows during storm
events. Additional peak flows must be mitigated particularly in
the situation where a flood plain already exists on a property
site. Examples of mitigating measures would be in the form of
removal of contaminates associated with stormwater runoff, and
mitigating peak flows with the design of a detention basin. FA_'k
complete drainage analysis (pre- and post-development) is
necessary in order for the Department to make a proper
'determination of the effects the project will have on the Wetland
Resource Area. The U. S. Soil Conservation Service, Technical
Release No. 55 (TR-55) method should be provided with any refiling
for this project.
In addition, the project does not comply with the Wetlands
Protection Act Regulations 310 CMR 10 . 57 (4) (a) (3) , in that the
applicant has failed to' file a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation. More ,
-than 5 , 000 square feet of flood plain within the 10-year flood
plain will be altered on the project site: This amount is beyond
the threshold, and therefore a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation must be
.filed as set forth in 310 CMR 10 . 60.
i
-
Page-3-
DEP File =64-181
The project as proposed will alter the Bank of the North
River. There are three stormwater runoff outfalls proposed within
the Bank adjacent to the site. These stormwater discharge pipes
will be placed into the bank of the North River, below the
elevation of the top of the bank. The applicant has not overcome
the Presumptions of Significance that the installation of these
stormwater outfall pipes will not have a long term irmact on 1�he
stability of said bank, as set forth in '310 CMR 10 . 54 (4 ) (a) ( 1) .
The above referenced concerns as well as the following should
be addressed in any future filings for this project. There is a
floodway associated with the North River at this porion of the
River. In order to make a proper analysis of the prciects impacts
to the flood plain, this 'floodway zone should be delineated on the
site plan. Any revised plans should have a stamp frcm a
Registered Professional Engineer from the State of ;assachusetts .
It is the Department ' s opinion that a project of this magnitude
should be designed by a Professional Engineer, P. E . .
As discussed during the Department ' s in house meeting held on
October 24 , 1989 with all parties, the project reauires MEPP.
review. Please refer to the final statement at the end of this
document.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Departnent has
determined that the proposed prcject does not meet tine minimum
performance standards of the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations
and that the proposed project will not contribute to the
protection of the statutory interests identified in the Act. The
Department has enumerated its reasons for denying the project
within the enclosed Superseding Order of Conditions.
It is the Department ' s position that the enclosed Superseding
Order of Conditions denying the proposed project serves to protect
the statutory interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act ,
M.G. L. Chapter 131, Section 40. However, the Department reserves
the right, should there be further proceedings in this case, to
raise additional issues and present further evidence as may be
appropriate. Should you or any concerned party dispute these
findings , your attention is directed to the language at the end of
the enclosed Order specifying the rights and procedures for
appeal .
Page-4-
DEP File n64-181
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call
Ms. Tracy A. Peter at (617) 935-2160.
Very truly yours ,
C��
Sabin M. Lord, Jr.
Regional Engineer for
Resource Protection
64-181DE
SML/TP/tp
cc: Salem Conservation Commission, City Hall , 1 Salem Green,
Salem, MA 01970
Peabody Conservation Commission, Town Hall , 24 Lowell Street ,
Peabody, MA 01970
Mr. Michael Harrington, Ronan, Segal & Harrington, 59 Federal
Street, Salem, MA 01970
Ms. Joan M. Sweeney, 22 Silver Street, Salem, MA 01970
S,
310 C.*SR 10. 99 DEP File No. 64-181
Form 5a (To be provided by DEP)
Commonwealth Of City/Town gAr.Fm
Massachusetts Applicant Harrington
j� ^( SUPERSEDING ORDER OF CONDITIONS
DENIAL
MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION: ACT
G.L. c. 131, s. 40
From: The Department of Environmental Protection
To: Michael J. Harrinaton Same
(Name of applicant) (Name of property owner)
Address : 59 Federal Street Address: Same
Salem, MA 0197-T
This Order (Denial) is issued and delivered as follows :
by hand delivery to applicant or representative on
X by certified mail , return receipt requested ondaz�ecembe ) 1990
Project Location: .164 Rear Boston treet, Sa1Pro (date)
Hawley Street, Peabody
Property recorded at the Registry cf: Essex Connt-y
Book: 9096 ID4ge: 47�-a72- Certificate if registered:
8843 & 8076 4 '377
Notice of Intent filed on: 7nly S 1989 (cote)
FINDINGS :
The Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the
above-referenced Notice of Intent and plans listed below. Based on
the information available to -the Department at thi - e -he
Department has determined that the area on which the "Copse,^ wor}; is
to be done '_s significant to the followlna interests in accordance
with the Presumptions of Significance set fourth in the regulations
for each Area Subject to Protection Under the Act (check as
appropriate) : - "-
X Public water supply prevention of nol1L'tipn
X Private water supply -X_wand containing shellfish
XGround c:a_erls-,=Z-y XFisher_es
F control pof wildlife
�- -rotection habitat
.x-Storm damage prevention
Page 1
Therefore, upon through deliberation and to protect said interests ,
the Department hereby denies the above-referenced project and orders
that no Activities Subject to Regulation -Under the Act as described
in 310 CMR 10. 02 (2) of the Regulations be undertaken. The
Department's reasons for denying said project are outlined below.
(See attached sheets)
0
LIST v o
_
i . _ LAAS:
Plan entitled "Site Development Plan of Land, Located in Peabody & Salem,
Mass. ," by Christopher R. Mello, P.L.S. , of Eastern Land Survey Associates,
Inc. , dated June 30, 1989 and most recently revised on September 20, 1989,
scale 1"=201 , one (1) sheet, nF 8131 .
Letter by Christopher Mello date] November 28, 1989 and attached sheets (4) .
t
t
Page 2
I
Page-1-
Reasons For Denial
DEP File =64-181
1) The project as proposed does not meet the General Performance
Standards for Bordering Land Subject to Flooding as set forth
in 310 CMR 10. 57 (4) (a) . The revised plan and information
submitted does not provide the required compensatory flood
storage volume. The proposed compensatory flood storage is
deficient between elevations 8 and 9 , N.G.V. D. . Therefore,
the Department cannot allow the project as proposed.
2) From the information contained in the file it is the
Department ' s contention that the project as proposed will
increase the peak rate of runoff into the existing flood
plain on-site, thereby contributing to the increase in the
horizontal extent and level of flood waters during peak
flows. Therefore, the project as proposed does not meet the
General Performance Standards for Bordering Land Subject to
Flooding as set forth in 310 CMR 10 . 57 (4) (a) (1) .
3) The project as proposed does not overcome the Presumptions of
Significance for Bank. The Department finds that the project
will impact a portion of the Bank to the North River from the
construction of three stormwater drainage pipes . The outfall
of these pipes are proposed below the top of the bank. The
proposed activity will have an impact on the stability of
said bank. The applicant must meet the General Performance j
Standards as set forth in 310 CMR 10 . 54 (4) (a) ( 1) .
Therefore, the Department may not allow the proposed as
proposed.
4) The proposed project will alter more than 5, 000 square feet
of Bordering Land Subject to Flooding within the 10-year
flood plain, 310 CMR 10. 57 (4) (a) (3) . Due to this activity
the applicant must file a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation as set
forth in 310 CMR 10 . 60.
Page-2-
Reasons For Denial
File #64-181
Findings Pursuant to the M.G. L. Chapter 30 ,
Sections 61 to 62H inclusive
(M. E. P.A. )
The project as described in the Notice of Intent for DEP File
#64-181 is "categorically included" pursuant to the
"Implementation of the Massachusetts Policy Act" as adopted by the
Secretary of Environmental Affairs . The project is "categorically
included" as the Wetlands Thresholds established under 301 CMR
11. 26 (7) (a) (3) of M.G. L. Chapter 30 , Sections 61 to 62 H
inclusive have been exceeded. However, due to the denial of a
Superseding Order of Conditions it is the Department ' s opinion
that it is not in the best interest of all parties to require the
submittal of an ENF at this time. Please be advised that in the
event this Superseding Order is appealed, the Department will
require the submittal of an ENF and the completion of the MEPA
Review process in accordance with 310 CMR 10 . 07 of the Wetlands
Protection Act Regulations before issuing a Final Order of
Conditions.
issuep Dv :r-.e Decanm..ent c. Enylren -ant P•et_ ups ,
Srprlature
On this ca,, p• D2cemhpr t 9 Q� , before me
Der sonar,apoea!et Sabin M. Lord Jr, onil ErlQineer to me knoyyn to De the Del son
pescrloeo In anD who ekeOuIea ane Iorepolno inseaecutec the same
as nos.net ire= anc pee^_
V01.1
Public My c�cm ssion ezDlres
Thant.the e•.any person acc ll by the superseomc Ome'.any owner of tang a Dong the lana v, l wrench rhe btptrned
werk d m be done.or any len"ISMS omsuam It G.L.C.XU 1 took.ate hereby narl•ep of men non+10 teDaen en eorvo.cnpry heanhb
DUrsuam to G.L.C.3OA. S 10.prMomp me reovesl Is maps W eemlrep meal a nano aewery to ms Deoanment.�mn me soot oonale ors^1•!
aM Ft+ Transmmal poem es ofowoed on 310 CMP to 03r7) Mlhln len pan holm me pale Of iuuahee"the Suoerse 'M9 Ortel.and Is
eooresseo 10.0ocael Ole•..Office of Genotu Carmoo,.Decameefe of F_ t Or menlef P!medfgm.One Writer Still.Boston.MA c2IO!.
A CCOy o'Ine rebveT'Mill,e+Ine same..Mo De Sen+D!Connote mall v nah0 Oe",to the Cmns"litiom bottom"On,the eJbneanl.ane any
Domer Dam
A Norce CI Clam for an Am,otalwy Neatone Shall CDTDly wllm the D!Danmenl S Fifties lot ADNtlICalo,orOLC DIn^S, 31 p Ctd T+
I of 151 emD Shall Contain the loll,-mo rnfdrmaltpn-
121 In! OSP weuarl File NumDel,mama D'Ine=01te It ane froorea of the pn,+ .
._. :ole 00mDfetL nam!,aoore55 and Ieleolon!nftmbef OI the pain Idme me recuesl.and.II rewesemed by COUnsel.the name am,,
aporeSS DI Ine allomey:
lel the names ane aDOfeSSes 012::oche,oanle S.if known:
ft: a near ane corse saientenl of I t I Ine lata;wmeh are q:mres lot the or::ce!dm;,;21 the obievons to this 5^crs.dm^^ c!•.
mc!:omq sDenfr_ally me manse•m wmcn d a eneoe^It be ottme151.n1-In me Detame.nfs wenaneS ReoUlanbnS 131 0 CIAFi
.. Cot anc toes not tomnowe to the Drp+ecpon of me rhre•rsls loenlmeo In me AC:.one f31 the retie+50u01tt mroucn Ine 2S,
=210-Y nealme.InONo'nq SDen6c211y Ine CnamptS oevreo In Ine suDerseoms Omer:
tel 2 Salelnemi".a:J Ctty of rne'ee'J^_5:naS been Sehl IL the 20P'Icanl In,ealsetvanon oommrss':-I ano eacr,other earn Or let
le5entallote or SUCn briny,it known
Fannie io submn an Necessary mlDomall0l may result m a orsmissal by the De anmem of the Nonce of Claim 1,r an Aomoltato,reanrc
Detaen on boned line and.UOmn to the -=•�- - Pilot to eatnme"trin"l el wota.
Please be aOyget Inas me Omer,of COnolflon5 lw the prole Cl a•
Fne NUmbe' naS DCKfeeorOC'at me ne MSVY of one
MIS been naeb In In,Cham UI loot,bl the anetaeo woDem on accordance.nm General Obno,hoh B on
I+ •e_e-bec Iznt. Me ms*'v^!nI nv-b!' w _h•o!nnfrn In, hansaCllon Is
h• _ rgo,t :•J t'Jm!nl m{Jnt!• rnitn 10!nmlr!! roto Z.'2e1•:m It
>Cnal r
__Cam
ttito�aa 3tD CP1R 2.Sv.SG
q
�e�ai�i�2errt o��iututi*�v�?��rztaL�..i�c��ctiorL
EIVED
Daniel S. Greenbaum
�oGu vz ./tea U"�oao1 L'c 1, 14 1990
Commissioner December 13 , SW PLANNING DEPT.
(617) 935-2160
Mr. Michael Guilmet WETLANDS/PEABODY
Allen, DeMurjian, & Major DEP File #55-251
806 Massachusetts Avenue Superseding Order of
Cambridge, MA 02139 Conditions (DENIAL)
Dear Mr Guilmet:
The Metropolitan .Boston/Northeast Regional Office of the
Department of Environmental Protection has completed its review of
the above-referenced file in preparation to issuing a Superseding
Order of Conditions. Under the provisions of the Wetlands
Protection Act, M.G. L. Chapter 131, Section 40 the Department is
issuing the enclosed Superseding Order of Conditions denying the
proposed project based upon: 1) information and revised plans
submitted, 2) information gathered during an on-site inspection,
3) reasons the Department has deemed necessary to protect the
statutory public interests identified in the Act.
The project site consists of an approximately 6 acre parcel
of land which was a former tannery operation. The remainder of
the buildings will be removed from the site in order to construct
two multi-family buildings. The project site is located at the
intersection of Howley and Main Streets in Peabody, and extends
into the Salem City Limits. The North River lies adjacent to the
project site. The proposed project consists of the construction
of two multi-family dwellings, driveways , parking facilities,
utility lines, drainage facilities and structures, and a
compensatory flood storage area. The project site lies within the
flood plain of the North River. The project was filed under two
Notice of Intent filings (#64-181 & #55-251) . The Department is
issuing to separate Superseding Order of Conditions for each
filing, however the project was reviewed as one entity.
The Department ' s review of the file and on-site inspection
confirmed that the project site contains the following Areas
Subject to Protection Under the Act; 1) Bank, 2) Bordering
Vegetated Wetlands, 3) Land Under a Waterway, and 4 ) Bordering
Land Subject to Flooding. In accordance with M. G. L. Chapter 131 ,
Section 40 and its regulations, 310 CMR 10. 00 et. seq. ,
specifically sections 10. 54 through 10. 57 inclusive, each of the
aforementioned Areas are presumed to be significant to one or more
interests identified in the Act: 1) public or private water
Original Printed on Recycled Paper
, ,,„ .
�..
fii.�; � t '. :,
Page-2-
DEP File #55-251
supply, 2) groundwater supply, 3) flood control , 4 ) storm damage
prevention, 5) prevention of pollution, 6) the protection of
fisheries, and 7) wildlife habitat. The project as proposed would
alter Bank, Bordering Vegetated Wetland, and Bordering Land
Subject to Flooding. The Notice of Intent files were filed for
work within the buffer zone.
The Profile data and FIRM maps provided by the National Flood
Insurance Program for the Town of Peabody, dated May 15 , 1980
provides a 100-year flood elevation at 12 feet and the 10-year
flood plain at 11 feet (N.G.V. D. ) , thereby determining this
project site within the flood plain to the North River. The on-
site grades range from 8 to 40 feet. Upon review of the Notice of
Intent, the revised plan dated September 20, 1989 , and additional
information the Department noted that there are outstanding
concerns regarding the flood plain associated with the North
River. The applicant's additional information in a letter dated
November 28 , 1969 and the revised plan address the projects
proposed compensatory flood storage. However, the revised plan is
still deficient in compensatory flood storage between elevations 8
and 9 feet (N.G.V. D. ) . Because the project does not provide the
required compensatory flood storage as set forth in 310 CMR 10 . 57
(4) (a) the project cannot be approved as proposed.
In addition to the above-referenced concern it is the
Department ' s finding that the proposed project will increase the
peak runoff rates into the flood plain on-site thereby further
displacing the existing flood plain and thus will not meet the
General Performance Standards for Bordering Land Subject to
Flooding, 310 CMR 10. 57 (4) (a) (1) . The additional impervious
materials proposed on site, paved parking lots, driveways, and
structures, will increase the existing peak flows during storm
events. Additional peak flows must be mitigated particularly in
the situation where a flood plain already exists on a property
site. Examples of mitigating measures would be in the form of
removal of contaminates associated with stormwater runoff, and
mitigating peak flows with the design of a detention basin. A
y complete drainage analysis (pre- and post-development) is
necessary in order for the Department to make a proper
determination of the effects the project will have on the wetland
Resource Area. The U.S . Soil Conservation Service, Technical
Release No. 55 (TR-55) method should be provided with any refiling
for this project.
In addition, the project does not comply with the Wetlands
Protection Act Regulations 310 CMR 10 . 57 (4) (a) (3) , in that the
applicant has failed to file a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation. More
than 5 , 000 square feet of flood plain within the 10-year flood
plain will be altered on the project site. This amount is beyond
the threshold, and therefore a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation must be
filed as set forth in 310 CMR 10. 60.
Page-3-
DEP File #55-251
The project as proposed will alter the Bank of the North
River. There are three stormwater runoff outfalls proposed within
the Bank adjacent to the site. These stormwater discharge pipes
will be placed into the bank of the North River, below the
elevation of the top of the bank. The applicant has not overcome
the Presumptions of Significance that the installation of these
stormwater outfall pipes will not have a long term impact on the
stability of said bank, as set forth in 310 CMR 10 . 54 (4 ) (a) (1) .
The above referenced concerns as well as the following should
be addressed in any future filings for this project. There is a
floodway associated with the North River at this portion of the
River. In order to make a proper analysis of the projects impacts
to the flood plain, this floodway zone should be delineated on the
site plan. Any revised plans should have a stamp from a
Registered Professional Engineer from the State of Massachusetts.
It is the Department ' s opinion that a project of this magnitude
should be designed by a Professional Engineer, P. E. .
As discussed during the Department ' s in house meeting held on
October 24 , 1989 with all parties, the project requires MEPA
review. Please refer to the final statement at the end of this
document.
For the aforementioned reasons, the Department has
determined that the proposed project does not meet the minimum
performance standards of the Wetlands Protection Act Regulations
and that the proposed project will not contribute to the
protection of the statutory interests identified in the Act. The
Department has enumerated its reasons for denying the project
within the enclosed Superseding Order of Conditions.
It is the Department ' s position that the enclosed Superseding
Order of Conditions denying the proposed project serves to .protect
the statutory interests identified in the Wetlands Protection Act,
M.G. L. Chapter 131, Section 40. However, the Department reserves
the right, should there be further proceedings in this case, to
raise additional issues and present further evidence as may be
appropriate. Should you or any concerned party dispute these
findings, your attention is directed to the language at the end of
the enclosed Order specifying the rights and procedures for
appeal .
Page-4-
DEP File #55-251
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please call
Ms. Tracy A. Peter at (617) 935-2160 .
Very truly yours,
Sabin
wM... Lord, Jr.
Regional Engineer for
Resource Protection
64-181D
SML/TP/tp
cc: Salem Conservation Commission, City Hall , 1 Salem Green,
Salem, MA 01970
Peabody Conservation Commission, Town Hall , 24 Lowell Street,
Peabody, MA 01970
Mr. Michael Harrington, Ronan, Segal & Harrington, 59 Federal
Street, Salem, MA 01970
310 CMR 10 . 99 DEP File No. 55-251
Form 5a (To be provided by DEP)
Commonwealth Of City/Town PEABODY
Massachusetts Applicant Harrington
(A — SUPERSEDING ORDER OF CONDITIONS
DENIAL
MASSACHUSETTS WETLANDS PROTECTION' ACCT
G . Z. c. 131, s. 40
From: The DeDartment of Environmental Protection
To: Michael J. Harrington Same
(Name of applicant) (Name of property owner)
Address : 59 Federal Street Address: Same
Salem, MA 0 970
This Order (Denial) is issued and delivered as follows :
by hand delivery to applicant or representative on
—
by X by certified mail , return receipt rec (da )
uested on Diem_ r 13 1990
Protect Location: 164 Rear Boston S.treet, Sa1 m (date)
Howley Street, Peabody
Prcpertv_ recorded at the Registry of: E—ex C'nnnty
Book: 9096. Paee: _Certificate '1f registered:
8843 & 8076
�7.
Notice of Intent filed on: July 5, 1989
(date)
F-TATDINGS :
The Department of Environmental Protection has reviewed the
above-referenced Notice of Intent and Diars listed below. Based on
the information available to the Depar-vent a' this =ime, the
Denartnent has deterrmined -,hat tele area on which the _proposed wor}: 1s
to De done 1s si -nicand the fol
1 OLi1nC lntereSts 1n accordance
.
--
ifzt t
with the Presumptions of Significance set fourth in the regulations
for each Area Subject to Protection Under the Act (check as
appropriate) ._
X Public water supply Prevention Of pollution
}; Pri Vate Water SL'pply X
_.Land ccrtalning shellfish
2L-Ground water supply g=fisheries
Flood contrcl -Protection of wildlife habitat
.y__Storn damage prevention
Page 1
Therefore, upon through deliberation and to protect said interests
the Department hereby denies the above-referenced project and orders
that no Activities Subject to Regulation Under the Act as described
in 310 CMR 10. 02 (2) of the Regulations be undertaken. The
Department' s reasons for denying said project are outlined below.
(See attached sheets)
LIST OF PL1.NS :
Plan entitled "Site Development Plan of Land, Located in Peabody & Salem,
Mass. ," by Christopher R. Mello, P.L.S. , of Eastern Land Survey Associates,
Inc. , dated June 30, 1989 and most recently revised on September 20, 1989,
scale 1"=201 , one (1 ) sheet, OF 8131 .
Letter by Christopher Mello dated November 28, 1989 and attached sheets (4) .
Page 2
Page-1-
Reasons For Denial
DEP File #55-251
1) The project as proposed does not meet the General Performance
Standards for Bordering Land Subject to Flooding as set forth
in 310 CMR 10 . 57 (4 ) (a) . The revised plan and information
submitted does not provide the required compensatory flood
storage volume. The proposed compensatory flood storage is
deficient between elevations 8 and 9 , N.G.V. D. . Therefore,
the Department cannot allow the project as proposed.
2) From the information contained in the file it is the
Department' s contention that the project as proposed will
increase the peak rate of runoff into the existing flood
plain on-site, thereby contributing to the increase in the
horizontal extent and level of flood waters during peak
flows. Therefore, the project as proposed does not meet the
General Performance Standards for Bordering Land Subject to
Flooding as set forth in 310 CMR 10 . 57 (4 ) (a) (1) .
3) The project as proposed does not overcome the Presumptions of
Significance for Bank. The Department finds that the project
will impact a portion of the Bank to the North River from the
construction of three stormwater drainage pipes. The outfall
of these pipes are proposed below the top of the bank. The
proposed activity will have an impact on the stability of
said bank. The applicant must meet the General Performance
Standards as set forth in 310 CMR 10 . 54 (4) (a) (1) .
Therefore, the Department may not allow the proposed as
proposed.
4) The proposed project will alter more than 5, 000 square feet
of Bordering Land Subject to Flooding within the 10-year
flood plain, 310 CMR 10. 57 (4 ) (a) (3) . Due to this activity
the applicant must file a Wildlife Habitat Evaluation as set
forth in 310 CMR 10 . 60 .
Page-2-
Reasons For Denial
File $55-251
Findings Pursuant to the M.G. L. Chapter 30 ,
Sections 61 to 62H inclusive
(M.E. P.A. )
The project as described in the Notice of Intent for DEP File
#55-251 is "categorically included" pursuant to the
"Implementation of the Massachusetts Policy Act" as adopted by the
Secretary of Environmental Affairs. The project is "categorically
included" as the Wetlands Thresholds established under 301 CMR
11. 26 (7) (a) (3) of M.G. L. Chapter 30 , Sections 61 to 62 H
inclusive have been exceeded. However, due to the denial of a
Superseding Order of Conditions it is the Department ' s opinion
that it is not in the best interest of all parties to require the
submittal of an ENF at this time. Please be advised that in the
event this Superseding Order is appealed, the Department will
require the submittal of an ENF and the completion of the MEPA
Review process in accordance with 310 CMR 10 . 07 of the Wetlands
Protection Act Regulations before issuing a Final Order of
Conditions.
lssuee DY the DeDa^men' c. _nvn enmenlaf pplecl,oc
Slonatur e Y/♦
/ -;, '
On this / J Ga.D' �.?ecQs[uAr t 4 40 . beloie me
Dersonalwaooeafec Sarin N. Lord, Jr. & ional 1n T
� to me known to De the Delson
oescnoed to anC who e.e CuleO lne iDreoolno msulf Ent$6�Qa}ICd7J2yi� ylIQ7}sne
e ecuwo the sem=
zs nts.n r tre _t znc Dem^
It.iotgrY Punllc
My Db1551On eRD111'S
1.
nDdtn nl,me D`nP.any person lDgneyeS by Ine $uTRegrnC Oro".any O mer M Ia,c amtnlnp the lane vor•.mlcn me o•e>=s e!
•e"k'"o ba oo" "'Y fen Dale Oni IW I--hl IC G.L.c.301 1101.• e nen D.netnme of then horst m teeuav an.ansa"tt'.,nonny
pursuam to G.L.c.701, 110.D'"O"o the rryveal is rhaoe tn'cemliepltnai a nano OelMery to Ina D.Danmeel.-•m me epI,vVn.,e lilino les
.no Fee TIa INm•ha1 PO•m as CmyDeC in 310 CLIC 10.03'7).r•In1n len ewe Iran me one at IteuanDe of Inle Supert 9,np 0M, ano Is
a0e10aaaa ic:Dopkal Cl-l.00¢e of Glmaru CD-h—.Dao rehele of 6-nlonma.nal PrplRhvf.One wnnal Sit eel.Bonen.MA 0210°.
.copy of Ine le.puav aWn& fne fame ume Oe lent er Cenllt men p nano o.",10Ine eCnear nVh mmmuloh.Ine aDpl4an;,ant env
Olnit "'ry
L NoliCe Of CIO.,ICf Dn ApIVY011pty He!••nC Shall CDTDIy-'In In'DeCanmem 1 FUIe1 IW A0,01=310 v P,oCeeo,VS.31 O C,IF
1 D 1161 !np Shall Contain in,IOIID+Ino MIOImabOT
lot Te DEP wallIthp3 rile NVmpat,nam.p:fne anoficah1 an_aom,ss OI the wo e!{.
,-7 the CCTDIV Ie n2mT.110011!SS Ono lelefthpna number"the"m"""the"West.anC.11tern eeenleC by counsel.the name.hc
ac Dless DI the allohfev:
ICI the names an:ac Dresses cf a::Othe•Danie S.ii knDwn;
IC7 :ema:ane conase s:alemenl pi i t)the tact;which are;:Ducal for the 0crceebmp.Ql the DDieDuons 1D mIs Sc_e'seDm-�._.,
-h,cn n.s anepec ip De mcpnsstenl—In the Deophl hem)wenanos FeolnahDn_13, 'D _
1 O Col anc Goes hot ComrlDule to In.Dlole Coon 01'me m2•e SIS loemineo m me SCt.anD t31 the repel SDVonI InIOVCn the 2o DG
OtCalo-y heauh-_mCNp1nC sD[CdlCdily the CnahDtS Des•reD m IM SvDelS[Dmp C"er:
I[] 2 Slaleiheh:•'.at A Cozy of t•fe ICCVeS:has been Sem t:the 2DDII.Anl me Conservahsh eommtss•"anb each other Dat-. of re,
IeSentauye 01 SUDn Dany,it knern.
r allule IO SL•Dhll all MCeSs2ry miohhanoh may teS,tt m a 0,shnsSal by the D[oanmehl of Ine Nolle DI Clit'm IDI An FDNO1Calo,Meann.
Deitch on oonee tine no mbmH to In,
p"It IC temm[npament CI rpn,
....... ....r_.._.................____ ...
_—O _c� —_ ..
:SSUI^.y PV'nollr,
V'le2se be aovgec Mal the Olpet CI cohoelons Id the Dep'C:2'
Cnf NUm De' n21 DRh'l[CC&FO at Me Fey srry C: ?no
has Deers h"ll•n me Chein yl nne DI the ah[Ot0 D•DD[T'm aCCDIDance'th Geheral C"Oleon
It re_TDVV la^.C. tn! nV�nr, r ynMiC: IMS llansa[I1Dn IS .
11-TT-T, _ _ Op_Vmenl
ny-::ler —,,Cl fDehnl..�m•: :2,2�nDn l•
>�CnpIV'�
DN4 and
11/l0ion9
Form 3 ` DEQE File No.
Commonwealth (To be provided by DEQE)
of Massachusetts4 clNfrown Peabody/Salem
Harrington
Applicant
Notice of Intent
Under the
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 1,A4O
and J(li
Application for a Department of the Army Permi-1
Part I:General Information
1 location: Street Address Howley Street, Peabody/Salem MA
Peabody Assessors Map 86/.130,132-134
Lot Number
Multi-Family Salein 'Assessors Map 16/37r/ -
Residential Description Cosntruct multi-family residential
2. Project:Type P Y
+ dwellings within the buffer to a resource area.
,
9096 _.. ..._ 471-472
3. Registry: County Fasax _Current Book 88806 &Page 377-11 7-117
Certificate(If Registered Land)—!
S.: 4. Applicant
Michael J. Harrington Tel. 744-0350
59 Federal Street
' Address Salem, MA 01970
re.;1
5. Property Owner Michael J. Harrington Tel. 744-0350
59 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
Address ,
6. Representative Michael J Har'
6. Tel. 744-(1S5f1
59 Federal Street
Address Salem ML 01970
z, 7. Have the Conservation Commission and the DEQE Regional Office each been sent,by certified mail or
": hand delivery, 2 copies of completed Notice of Intent,with supporting plans and documents?
' Yes CR No ❑
3-1
Effective 11/1/87
r ;
8. Have all obtainable permits,variances and approvals required by local by-law been obtained?
Z' Yes ❑ No IN
ff.
°a Obtained: Applied For: Not Applied For:
€. Salem Variance Peabody Site Plan Review
Salem ANR Approval Salem Site Plan Approval
Pnroyal
Peabody Building
Peabody ANR APermit
' Salem Building Permit
9. Is any portion of the site subject to a Wetlands Restriction Order pursuant to G.L. c. 131, §40A or G.L.
f;
{... c. 130, §1057 Yes ❑ No L`;]
10. List all plans and supporting documents submitted with this Notice of Intent.
Identifying
k>;
Number/Letter Title, Date
f2;
F 8131 Site Development Plan Of Land Located In Peabody
'R
& Salem, Mass. , Prepared By Eastern Land Survey
F'r
Assoc. , Inc. , Prepared For Michael J. Harrington
June 30, 1989
Is
w
11.Check those resource areas within which work is proposed:
a}' (a)V Buffer Zone
(b) Inland:
❑ Bank* Land Subject to Flooding,
❑ Bordering Vegetated Weiland* ❑ Bordering
❑ Land Under Water Body&Waterway• ❑ Isolated
(c)Coastal:
'� •
❑ Land Under the Ocean ❑ Designated Port Area*
•
❑ Coastal Beach ❑ Coastal Dune
❑ Barrier Beach ❑ Coastal Bank
❑ Rocky Intertidal Shore* ❑ Salt Marsh*
i ❑ Land Under Salt Pond ❑ Land Containing Shellfish'
�i
❑ Fish Run•
•Likely to involve U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurrent jurisdiction. See General Instructions for
Completing Notice of Intent.
3-2
f
i '.,
12 Is the wetland resource area to be altered by the proposed work located on the most recent
Estimated Habitat Map (if any) of rare, "state-listed" vertebrate and Invertebrate animal species
occurrences provided to the conservation commission by the Natural Heritage and Endangered
. Species Program?
YES ( J NO [ ] Date printed on the Estimated Habitat Map issued
NO MAP AVAILABLE (X] (if any)
If yes, have you completed an Appendix A and a Notice of Intent and filed them, along with
'.` supporting documentation with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program by
?� certified mail or hand delivery, so that the Program shall have received Appendix A prior to the
filing of this Notice of Intent?
YES [ ] NO ( J
�4.
tpp,
f1-
ftk-
iy
e ..
�r
lSr'
r
F �
K_
i
�C
3.3
:n"LL
a
?;.
Part II:Site Description
ti. Indicate which of the following information has been provided (on a plan, in narrative description orcalcula-
''._ tions)to clearly,completely and accurately describe existing site conditions.
Identifying
3 Number/Letter
S (of plan, narrative
t'. or calculations)
Natural Features:
s.
Soils
F 8131 Vegetation
F 8131
Topography
Open water bodies(including ponds and lakes)
F 8131 Flowing water bodies(including streams and rivers)
Public and private surface water and ground water supplies on or within 100 feet of site
Maximum annual ground water elevations with dates and location of test
+1 Boundaries of resource areas checked under Part I, item 11 above
Other
~ Man-made Features:+
F 8131 Structures(such as buildings, piers, towers and headwalls)
F 8131 Drainage and flood control facilities at the site and immediately off the site, including
` culverts and open channels (with inverts), dams and dikes
Subsurface sewage disposal systems
Y: F 8131 Underground utilities'
F 8131 Roadways and parking areas
F 8131 Property boundaries; easements and rights-of-way
1;<
Other
Part III:Work Description
Indicate which of the following information has been provided (on a plan,in narrative description or
calcula-tions)to clearly, completely and accurately describe work proposed within each of the resource areas
checked in Part I, item 11 above.
Identifying
Number/Letter
(of plan, narrative
or calculations)
Planview and CrossSection of:
F 8131 Structures(such as buildings, piers, towers and headwalls)
Drainage and flood control facilities, including culverts and open channels(with inverts),
dams and dikes
Subsurface sewage disposal systems&underground utilities
- Filling, dredging and excavating, indicating volume and composition of material
u` F 1831 Compensatory storage areas,where required in accordance with Part III, Section 10:57
(4)of the regulations
t�. Wildlife habitat restoration or replication areas
Other
*' Point Source Discharge
a ' Description of characteristics of discharge from point source(both closed and open
channel), when point of discharge falls within resource area checked under Part I, item
1 1 above, as supported by standard engineering calculations, data and plans, including
but not limited to the following:
3-4
1
1. Delineation of the drainage area contributing to the point of discharge;
2,. Pre-and post-development peak run-off from the drainage area,at the point of discharge, for at least the
10-year and 100-year frequency storm;
3. Pre-and post-development rate of infiltration contributing to the resource area checked under Part I, item
11 above;
4. Estimated water quality characteristics of pre-and post-development run-off at the point of discharge.
Part IV:Mitigating Measures
1. Clearly, completely and accurately describe,with reference to supporting plans and calculations where
� necessary:
(a) All measures and designs proposed to meet the performance standards set forth under each re-
source area specified in Part II or Part III of the regulations:or
(b) why the presumptions set forth under each resource area specified in Part 11 or Part III of the regula-
r ' tions do nota I
PPY. ._.
❑ coastal Resource Area Type: Identifying number or letter
❑ inland - of support documents
Staked haybales .sha.11 lie-placed as shown on plan to F 8131
prevent siltation to:the resource area:
IM
❑ Coastal Resource Area Type: Identifying number or letter
❑ Inland of support documents
i
9
I
5,
�:. 3.5
C Coastal Resource Area Type: Identifying number or or letter
,p Inland { of support documents
ty
rr.
K,
2. Clearly, completely and accurately describe, with reference to supporting plans and calculations where
necessary:
(a) all measures and designs to regulate work within the Buffer.Zone so as to ensure that said work
does not alter an area specified in Part I, Section 10.02(1) (a) of these regulations; or . -
(b) if work in the Buffer Zone will alter such an area, all measures and designs proposed to meet the
performance standards established for the adjacent resource area specified in Part II or
Part III of these regulations.
C coastal Resource Area Type Bordered By 700-Foot Discretionary Zona: Identifying number or letter
Inland of support documents
Staked haybales shall be placed as shown on plan to F 8131
prevent siltation to the resource area.
{r
i .
i '
I:
.r
36
i.. i
{a
F -
` Part V:Additional Information for a Department of the Army Permit
1. COE Application No. 2.
(to be provided by COE) (Name of waterway)
3. Names and addresses of property owners adjoining your property:
SAF .
a:
,4
' 4. Document other project alternatives(i.e., other locations and/or construction methods, particularly those
that would eliminate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters or wetiands).
5. 81/2" x 11 " drawings in planview and cross-section, showing the resource area and the proposed activ-
ity within the resource area. Drawings must be to scale and should be clear enough for photocopying.
Certification is required from the Division of Water Pollution Control before the Federal permit can be
' Issued.Certification may be obtained by contacting the Division of Water Pollution Control,l Winter Street,
a:
Boston, Massachusetts 02108.
Where the activity will take place within the area under the Massachusetts approved Coastal Zone
Management Program,the applicant certifies that his proposed activity complies with and will be conducted
in a manner that is consistent with the approved program.
:. Information provided will be used in evaluating the application for a permit and is made a matter of public
record through issuance of a public notice.Disclosure of this information is voluntary,however,if necessary
information is not provided,the application cannot be processed nor can a permit be issued.
Y
hereby certify under the pains and pen ties of perjury that the foregoing Notice of Intent and accompanying
e plans, documents and supporting d to a true and colrlplete, to the best of my knowledge.
�� _. July 5, 1989
Signature of Applicant Date
July 5, 1989
y
t
Signature of Applicant's Representative Date
FORM "Eaceptiou to ENC Form 4346 approved by HQUSACE, 6 May 1962".
av ,NED 100 (TEST1 ..Th.* docement contain. a joint Depertment of the Army and State of Massachusetts application
l1 MAY 82 for • permit to obtain permission to perform activities in United States water.. The Office
'r of Ma...e m mt and Budget COMB) he. .,proved thou c..ti... ra,.ired by the US Army Cort.
of Endneo.. OMB Numb., 0702-0036 and ea Diraioa data of 30 September 1933 applies'. This
statement will be ut la 6 point type.
3-7
iA*_
'l)� '
INTpry4N• E \ 1. yJlRese
Goll Cou be� ` l
°
o u"♦ G o r`v♦
� _.'h.✓.a Cem , P;^\\ �'\� % \ rI L�/ I��_ )\rc /<��,/� �� �i�d� �"� I
.„T S ' ,/•. -Yo T d fhT /r GSA //� ��� I/ I� P��'� r
�
O40,
tt"
& ♦ m , �/ �r 1 r9/��i:.. � /'.C-�p�T�\D°�� r f v. /� �; � ,/� � l � )( � �. ,r r° �` s
L berry TreeIr
v r r -
n r aJ Mall = ( � �� � •.1��e>• ��� �� C I _ o -.
v a
NTERCHA
I.
�• \ 1 /c to s � J 1 - ` a - � -°
r � Cem I„° �cern_-�.��7/ F �\R ve ) �Q \vee• �. �, .�
rti'
Cem i'a_+
aCeIJ /JJJJ/ 1;_ r i1_�
rGoWGQ se `�1lSLl�nAt a 6 �
a� Peter
f• A� 1 l� r. /• � •�s-1� Heh eh
\ 7f
rQ _� U✓
ry�'"� 'C °n,E \ o•/ 1 ��It.�r�� a � � �I'�(/;,l '��Hs ch 1�,) I�\ �� r�= I�� y��p
I� ° 0 � %LO(1 0� � F � nr _���� l� �" y � �,�� �U ��'/eJ f•{��1� �.
`„ '• `$,jA4A ^Hill l i� r : reen n - r l}.
A.[4 h I �I �t 'yl - F _/� le 1 �. •
111 .. .—/ L\ �i� '\" s Isz -r /� � " mom• /� Q _� p '%� � � :
1l 1 0
(
en
I
r I
G;fiilkXL
��fc �\ ! C �F � \\ +.0� •-I ®' raw � �f� �� r\\ � °c�\rc\� g /\� �Y° '\ ,4 sV
He 8Wr H y �•� l i il{a %rmo 0 °ve._�
1 A ox
NR Il
1
[ Itl 50
°Ir! sr T��r Park Hldgg� v�� _ a `.
' lem
„� �� '• V i�J t� � 3l'/ 9 1 �% .>s' �1 M 1�L ommO
rAGoff s f° ',�UV�`��Y. � ' Fn%l
S_ WA
5
� r���) '/� U 'C\. sr (eq Oy r •�[i
.� �eatlom J / �` �I� �� 4� y Pa�� Il l�lr r/ � � d� �fi �� g h ♦"
ti's n° �':. AA �JI r�t'ond ), _,�T � � ���3 j2 water ., �e��1a "► � If/i�i�.,�1 A �\.�l)�17 � ai � 9
gh�(�tea, e
A
Cf
"Mil
�.;. e Pond _ n 2� � � /i c.l �` •" �r �� r �� I
�� e4� T / / 1/110•• GO/ 1 �� \ �A ) A OCKS (I _
/
Subsla •I
�C r t
Al r
OB
r \ V
>�41W r"r' -_`�f`�. ���ro i 0 �� �, C�' �,, Q`•�I. \<� of +! � �,- �_ P , .. _.��- ��1 a" I � I ��' -.
e
� d &:;
r T, Dale G. Dick, irRatea of '
% Siryt
Trust,
r/d/t
�.*�. $7S0,Drp 23. 1917. 'reeordsd herewith, foonwns no",
74 - 1750,D00_00, Paid of
Salem, £saes County, Lichael 8 rarrfagtan, c/o S! Ponderal Street,
Y. }l assachusetts, vi"'
M
ISis Peabody, zaaex County, Masa ,
aausattaar�vix. wveaa°ts' t.ha
G, 3
tYu ,
f
Parcel 1
a cerurn Parcel of land with the buildings
Barley Street 1n Said Peabody, bai aberem situate m
entitled M • N LOt a an a Plan 4:
'Lod of Sansei R. win soon,
Y , In-40 ft_, July. 1915, g Applvten, C. 34ss„ Scale 1
mth 'i7rcary a. Deed..on, C.Z. • recorded with V I
.k bounded
and district Registry of Deede. Boot 3118, POde i21, and
3 bounded and described as follows:
Beginning et the he Intact y
xt�,K cormr of tAe granCed promises on Hawley Street at the Intact
of the Boston 4 Main Railroad and thence mating s,athwosterIa 7J¢ by A`; tr Bowley Street tea hundred eight and 97/100 (208_07) feet to land
of Jahn hundred CwFlynn a Sona, Inc_: thence running southeasterly two
hundred and tamr� and 15/10D (222.15) feet to a Points thence
r
r ag northeasterly two hurdr'adsfifteen (215) feet
sto the locatroo of Boston i Maine nc
9ailroadr thee turning and e
y ng uorthwesterlY by said location of Boston f Main Railroad
1 two hundred sixteen 1216) feet to Borley Street and Point of o
�^ beginning. CCntainlD9 {5,030 0
x eQoare feet. Howlett to a can Y
(3-01snEan right of vasa over the-New
Uayes to Rowley Street as
ai .. i said Plan a marked •new 7aaY'. to Ae used in cosuon m
erA
pBfa
Samuel 0..
y„ nion, his heirs and aslpns, and all other
ersoogqss 'din *aY have,tha like right to p
ass and vehlclea and Otherwise. at all timesm P
afar all Pass Purposes
s tar-
s --
�"".. which rights of rays y be used. urpoe
^ right
tonatruct and sen Latah o• branch railroad track r the to
northwestafly corner of Lot C rurmin9 from the location Of the
- Boston a mains esilroad no the noribeastarly corner of lot A. ;
¢ a a
s 4 Parcel II tt
O t
11 certain Parcel of Iand with the buildings t2mram situate in r 11
r
the rear Of Bv10T Street in said Peabody. and ■hos as Lot D ge
i1 the ahoy: rntlened plan. and boarded and described as fallowac
Beginning at a Point which is two hundred nine Sad 32/100 a
(209,321 feet southwesters i
Y DY ISM Of Jona ylyno a Sons. Zone„
thirty-mine and 55/104 {]9.55mid
feet to a Dolede i
{ them
athwasterly but sore rwaterlY by id land of said m
segenty-tw 1721 feet to CustsrY landr thence running Tns
southeasterly nfoateee and 62/100 (19.62) feet to a Points thence
contlnulog in the sage direction by said Cesetexy Iand eighty-siz
aM 37/100 (86.371 feet to Lot C as sown on hsaid
plane
thence
Cr , rnnaiog nOrcheasters
')
said plans thence Y.by said Lot C 170) feat to a way Shown m
.Nqk,,� feet to a polets tbe�s ramg mal g "aterly by said rey thirty (70)
b ng &baeu ran 6rIYsaid slaty-tw Sed
d 'j 37/100 162_37} feet to. a ray as eharra m said DFanr thence '
#c )- rnming oortywster27:by said wq and a Dortlm of Lot
L -
��' twenty-four {263 feet'to the Point begs at. Concilnlag 6563
agrure feat. Togatbmr.with the right to ase to Coeoo,n with
Others, bath rights of.,oy show an said Plan l*"Icq from said
Lot B to the lastiom ;nf the lwton 6 ]sloe Sailre".
:kms i�+ . .
s.
'a
)
r�
J(I
L 1
A
}
4 aw J ���
land
oanty the tru11dl7e axtl LR+m+�tota WDl $8 " .
' y.
ry�A'- 9 nanq am llateaehs bm dedftua acr;bad t8tzart and .
Corner of as folios.:
' f sw.�h �tip h* -toad parsectsr
"I'm,e�abeae sip SLY-[arrr .
: fd B.2S) test to a sten smid K�d 1101 Forty-eight a l Ueoca .
four and 8/30 'railr thence northerly35/100
ieasterly b (4-ei feet co the e by aaltl at,,,
northeasterly sa td us 11 tm orner Of said —11, thenncall
t Y by lard (301 ,feet to a bolt !n the vallr tlusoce
f27.71 feet to a bots he
ter described trenty-seven and 7/10
t k '' sixty-cvo and 5l10 is the ground: thence
ceme ceeater3Y »
the 6Eencrfa4tn to the CeOstery southeasterly
t}k . little more tsOuthehc and IJ10 tSB.i feeetr thence aootMeecesoutJ18"terly by t y a
j southeasterly by the- as the fence no stands bounded
r� to Main
gt:,eert3m�LerY fifty-nide and 68/100 (54.68) feet
�) f , 4nd 75/100 1135.75) feet atota00 ACglej bthennccea street thirty-els
lanet
nd.
0f•beginningby •• co..I aeventy'-three 3/10(73e31 Yfeettto
r� land. taining about 10.736 square feet of
t4eer.tng LOO'Shea. Peabody M. on Plan of 'Land of Esau of
,
r ..ands S.
February 1923, :houas A.
Y. baa" Scale I inch equals ZO fle
App l eton t,
, C.E.•
PARCEL N
Is
PeabodyPaa1ndelaCjoinod with the buildings t
g the parcel ab g hereon situated in said .
8 Point on the southeasterly line of Novld� ibed. Seginaing at a
northaes cecly corder of;, the' lot al' Sizeet at the
northeasterly by awl above described thaoee
s aN At'' (157.5) feet to "'Sues[ ane hnndrsd fif 5/10
t
'illy-E varly(165) fast Lotlu rd Parcel sof iabo t M, imrO�dradd, than"
V' ad
_ tbs tette theoee southwesterlyJ.
r{` lf..
the abwes esccrribed pareslrtheoeeed frteaa and 6/10 (16) faetytoeat
test by the tha gd"Or�ttres ilxty-tw and 5/10 (63.51
a bolt In
a sad 7/10 (27,71 fast to a bolt rLres CerlY preniy-savao
z° a by said stone call ten •tone rally thaws r
thence 402 tone atar2 ('10) feetnp corner seterly
Y by 'said atone call [gut o[ said wilt r�
to a point; the Last four courses being and 8/10 (4.B) fast
r described: thence northresterly by said the PaKel eb0ie `.
forty-eight and 25/100 JB. Pa l abp'a dastrlbad `���'
Point Of beginning ( X51 feat to H{ J i
containing about 17.400 pryfeet. Ue ?I!.
7
ttkvOF
f 41
aATL-�_YaYVY_a+�'•+� IMIR�eu�eaeR
P'
M � 30aGQ' s — a .
3?a 0 8
'WyT
1
t[fi,
z,.
i
a t.
e
BMW
'r}I -anin0' to coawey Lot 6 as share on said plan. 'geld Lot n is
+r conveyed subject to the right of drainage granted in deed frac
William Sutton. Jr. to Jaws Boston, dated December 21. lael and
w t xr recorded is Us= Booth District Registry of Deeds, nook 1072,
wr „Ya - Page 257.
FARM V
A parcel of land vith'the buildings thereon adjoining the above
i described Parcel IV. Beginning on the easterly side of Horley
Street at the northerly corner of the granted premises thence
noutheasterl
y by a private way about two hundred eleven (211)
n 4a feet to land now or formerly of the heirs of Clark;' thence
soutnvescerly by said,Clark land about one hundred eight and 9/12
1106-9/125 feet to the second parcel above described, thence
^t northwesterly by said I second parcel one hundred einty-sever and
6/12 (167-6/12) fast to Horley Street, cheoce northerly by said
,. , Howley Street ninety-nine and 7/12 (99-7/121 feet to the point of
beginning- Subject to any rights of way that say now lawfully
exier war the sae.
meaning and intending to convey the preauses conveyed to ne this
day by deed of John Flynn a Sons, Inc., recorded previously this day.
,
r ;
.'I IN WITNESS WHERRO?, 1 hereunto set my hand and nal
j
this day o-` March, 1987. —
yrR IDALE G. OICX. Trusted
ate,
9 'OHMOHwE LTH OF MASSACRUSLrES
'44y Essex, as. march U 1961
>�F 4
Than personally appearedthe above-named, Dale
Street
a G. Dick, Tzva tee of the Rowley S[zanttrust, and ackoorlsdged
Y + the foregoing to be hnr free act and dead, before ae,
Notary Public
My commission expires:
,
�trPJ
y�'1
rl� Yjs �
1
I
i,
f 1L
3. .
600h6fl;6 race 377 /
'11
r FEorpora CHINgg COMPANY OF SALEM, INC.
.. >oorporo on u y eetabliehed under the lave of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
and having its usual place of business at Salem
Essex County,Nleesechuxttq for conaiderotion paid
a !rants," of U ..
- - - -$40,000.00 - - - -
r grants to JOHN C. JEFFERS
01 15 Orchard Street, Peabody Massachusetts with off"Comtatfa ds
The land in Peabody and Salem in the rear of the Peabody Cemetery
and in the rear of the tlortherly side of Boston Street, and shown on
`1 plan of "Land of the A.E. Clark Lumber Company, Salem and Peahodye
Mass., Scale 40 ft, to an inch, May. 19'8, Thomas A. Appleton, C.E.
3 tr recorded with Essex South District Registry of Deeds, Book of Plana
54, Plan 27, bounded and described as follows:
Beginning at a point on the Westerly side of the "Way" shown on said
plan which is 97.67 feet Northeasterly of land of James A. Brophy,
shown on said plan, and also thirty-Fix feet Southeasterly of the s
"Peabociv Cemetery" as shown on said pian; thence running m i
y NORTHWESTERLY thirty-six (36) feet by other land of grantors to the
un y Northra<ter'.y corner of the cemetery and on the same course by the z
's - cemetery sixty-se.-en ! ') Jett to ''Parcel A" shown on said plan lrrw
of deuers): tl•erre owning Ind runninr
u* • o n NORTHEASTERLY by said 'r`!crs lard ninety-five and one tenth (95.1) [)
Gl N fee' to a pipe in the eround at said ?er`ers land; thence turning and '
�l running ...
_ SOUTHEASTERLY eighty N.-,�c and fifty one hundredth- (95.50) feet to
the "Way" shown on said plan: thence turning and running
-: ,... SOUTHWESTERLY by said way one hundred nine arc' forty-four one
s hundredths (109.44) feet to lthe point begun at.
m
Together with the richt to use said ,v as shown on said plan for all
nurposes. ' •.
y s
r ? For title see deeds recorded in Essex Registry of Deeds in Book 5814,
Page 710 and Book 5834, Page 714.
7ntndMA1hrrW the said Federal Machine Company of Salem, Inc.
J,Ma has caused its corporate seal to be hereto affuced and these presents to bead, atJmosrledged and
delivered in its name and hehalf by Edward J. Canty, President and Sahag Saahhagtan
f its Treasurer hereto duly authorised,this 8th
day of October in the year one thousand nine hundred and eighty-fivC .
1
Signed and sealed in presence of
FEDERAL MACHINE CO6IPANY OF SALEM, INC.
,k y
1 � _ Tress.
�.: �IEelLto?mnnaweplfhd�Bassgdnt>ecits
a Essex as. October 8, 19 85
p P
Then penonslly appeared the above.n`med Edward J. Canty, President and Sahag
li.y r' Sahagian. Treasurer
fs t
an,. o:i.noe!c Gr t"a n,rcgmc K--.,!r., �t t:�he u,a free xct n:_d deed of a,- Federal Machine
Company of Salem. Inc.
x
} before me i.
uic
tyamf+f
s
� xrtsY,�xt(rNgrBfsfr
\(y amamisaion expire+ April 4, 19 91
t.
1 r[I IS
L2
I II
s
WIN
..
i^
Iaul 9O98fc471
GEORGE R. HINC39TON
a
t .
°f Alt Hmw3sy street, Peabody, CBaex Caueb'. M'"Uh,estts,
i
In mn#Mentbn of THREE HUNDRED PIPTY THOUSAND DOLLARS (9350,000.00)
i
i
Y
grenls to MICHAEL J. HAHAINOTON
4i
I
I
3 °f 59 Federal Street
- ,.1tb gtdfr(aha rMnards salem, Massachusetts _I
ibmkeariex
I An undivided one-half Interest in the land with the buildings
thereon situated In Feebody and Salem, EHaea County, Maeaachu-
aette, as shown on "Plan of Land in Peabody and Salem, Property ?
of Estate of Samuel A. Hingeton, scale? 1" - 40' September 26.
1979," said Plan recorded with the 09eer South District
Registry of Deeds In Boot 157. Plan 3, and more particularly
bounded and described as follows,
i ul Beginning at a point on the Northwesterly corner thereof at
'!o lend of the' Boston 6 Main* Railroad and thence running
N
SOUTHERLY by land now or formarly of John Flynn, Inc., as
shown on acid plan, 203.16 feet# thence turning
} `ti and running
EASTERLY as shown on said plan, 38.07 feett thence turning
t and running
Y SOUTHERLY at Shown on said plan, 132.75 feetl thence turning
a7y7 and running
ROUTHRASTERLY by land of Peabody Cemetery,j shown on said� Dien, 102.50 feet# thence turning
lnq and running
d{ tye NORTHERLY by land now or formerly of Federal Machin* Co.,
Inc. as shown on said plan. 95.1 feat# thence
m turning and running
.^, NORTHEASTERLY by land now of formerly of Federal Machin* Co.,
Inc. 68.21 fe*tt thence turning and running
� (t1Sti; g NORTRERLY by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brothers,
116.01 feett thence turning and running
BASTEnY by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brothers,
61.68 feet, thence turning and running
BOOTRBABTBRLY by lend now or formerly o[-0etfen BrOt hen
7777 and a way, as shown on said plan, 52.0 feet#
IIthence turning and running
n1; 900THERLV by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brothers,
179.0 feats tbenca turning and cunning .i
RARTBRLY by land now or formerly of Jeffers Brothers,
Thomas Brennan, Marlon Dennehy, and Barbara
Urebit, as shown on said plan, 125.9 feet, 51.0
feet, and 76.0 Usti thence turning and running
L� t
C`
{
��'� 11rr JO36''t472
NORTHERLY by land now Or Ro[marly at G1Crgo, and land now
or formerly of Robinson, 117.01 feet? thence
turning and running
NORTnEASTERLY by land now or formerly of Reddy, as shorn on Said
{#.. .. , Plan, 59.2 Neti
Iv' i EASTERLY by land now or formerly of Reddy, as an*" en
said plan, 64.3 feat and 60.5 feet? thence
'�,. �t;l•I I turning and running
q 1 ° NORTHEASTERLY by land now or formerly of Reddy, ee shown on
t, li said plan, 7.7 feetl thence turn ing and running
Y 1 �� EASTERLY by land now or formerly of Reddy and land now or
l,r formerly of Calaris, as Shown on Said plan,
86.0 teat and 57.3 feetl thanCa turning and run-
90PTRERLY by land now or formerly of %q[ra s, as shown on
;I,j,',i;! said plan, 54.0 feetl thence turning and running
•S`'. I'� WESTERLY by land of the Boston 6 Maine Railroad, 230.0
featp thence turning and running
;�.�'�1,�" SOUT nPrESTERLY by land now or f0he" o Of the Banton a Maine
t
f 11 Cocporat inn, an Shown on said plan, 76.0 teat
and 149.0 teetr thence turning and running
NORTHWESTERLY by land now or formerly of the aoaton i Xalne
corporation, 69 shown on said plan, 110.0 feat
and 81.0 feets thence turning and running
i ;
WESTERLY by lend of the Boston 4 Maine Corporation, as
shown on @aid plan, to the point of beginning
222.05 feet.
I` Containing according to said plan, 3.6 acres more or lee e.
l� Subject to and with the benefit of 611 rights of way as shown
on said plan.
for my title eH need dated December ]l, 1979 and recorded with
the Esser South District Registry of Deeds In Soon 6671, page
tio.
i
i
a.
i 1� fi
ut
.. `�q%ON Cp�� .
Conseiwation •
Salem. Massachusetts 01970 . do
ASSf�N�� ,.
TO: Conservation Commission Members
FROM: Kathy Winn rvation Administrator
SUBJECT: July 13//, 111989 Meeting
The first agenda item is a Notice of Intent filed by Michael J.
Harrington for a proposed multi-family housing complex located at 164
Rear Boston Street. Attached for- your information, is a copy of a
Chapter 21E Site Assessment for this property and a copy of the Board of
Appeals decision to grant a Comprehensive Permit. The decision
presently is the subject of an appeal by abuttors. Following granting
of a Comprehensive Permit, review by the Conservation Commission is the
only local review required.
The other major agenda item is a discussion with two business
owners whose properties are located along the North River Canal on
Commercial Street. Following site visits to these properties; the
Commission requested that Mr. Dan Wiggin of Hendrick Manufacturing Corp.
and Mr. Aaron Weinstein of Mason Realty Trust appear at this meeting to
discuss unauthorized filling activity observed during the visit:
A presentation by members of the Marblehead Water and Sewer
Commission has been postponed until the next meeting.
The minutes of the last meeting also are enclosed for your review.
Please call me at 745-9595 ext. 311 if you have any questions.
cm149
,4
SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES OF BOARD MEETING
JUNE 22 , 1989
A regular meeting of the Salem Conservation Commission was held
on Thursday , June 22 , 1989 at 7 : 30 P . M . in the second floor
conference room at One Salem Green.
Present were: John Vallis, George Ahmed, Robert Crowley, Richard
Femino, Fred Harney, and John Bleiler . Also present were Kathy
Winn, Conservation Administrator , and Debra Tucker, Acting Clerk.
Chairman John Vallis called the meeting to order , and introduced
the board members to the public . He asked that anyone that
wished to address the Commission state his name and address
before speaking.
DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY- HALEY & ALDRICH, INC.
Bob Bouchard of Haley & Aldrich , Inc . appeared before the Con-
servation Commission Board on behalf of Pine Realty Trust .
Mr. Bouchard was seeking a Negative Determiniation of Applicability
for the excavation and removal of an underground fuel storage
tank on land leased by the Stop and Shop in Vinnin Square .
The two thousand gallon tank which used to hold #2 heating oil
is located approximately 100 to 200 feet from the Tedesco Pond
area. The land does slope steeply toward the gond, but Mr. Bouchard
does not anticipate any runoff . The work should take only one
day and will be scheduled to take place during a dry spell .
All digging will be done above the water table , and the area
will be backfilled the same day. The storage tank will be drained
first if necessary. A permit from the fire department is necessary.
George Ahmed asked what the distance between the tank and the
pond was . Mr . Bouchard said that it was approximately 100 feet
on a slope at the closest horizontally.
Mr . Bouchard stated that tests of the soil and material found
will be made . If the soil is contaminated, the fire department
and the DEQE must be notified . Any oil left and any grossly
contaminated soil will then be removed.
Richard Femino asked if Haley and Aldrich will be responsible
for the job . Mr . Bouchard replied that they will be . John
Blyor asked how old the tank was . Mr . Bouchard approximated
that it was 32 years old . He also stated that the tank will
not be replaced because the store has converted to gas . Granular
fill will be used . This will be compacted and then resurfaced
with blacktop.
Page 2 of 8
Minutes of Conservation Commission Meeting 6-22-89
Kathy Winn stated that she had received a call from a condo
owner that there is a pollution problem in the pond. Some lead
contaminated geese have been discovered . The caller felt that
the problem may be coming from pipes from the Stop & Shop area.
Mr . Bouchard said that there is no evidence of leakage . There
does appear to be some contaminated soil in the area, but that
may be due to parking lot runoff or a past dry cleaning business
nearby.
George Ahmed asked how much of the soil would be removed, and
Mr . Bouchard replied that as little as possible would be removed
as per DEQE suggests .
John Vallis asked if there will be an engineer from DEQE present
while work is being done . Mr . Bouchard said that the department
would be notified and that there would be one present if they
felt the need.
George Ahmed stated that he would like the Conservation Commission
Board to receive a written report of the firms findings . Mr .
Bouchard said that a report would be filed with the fire department
and the state after the work was completed unless contamination
is found.
Richard Femino asked for which types of contaminants the firm
would be looking . Mr . Bouchard stated that even if there are
no visible signs of contamination , the firm would screen the
soil at different levels while in the field . A photoionization
meter will be used for lab analysis . Mr . Femino noted that
the firm would be backfilling that same day. Mr . Bouchard replied
that if evidence of contamination is found a layer of polyethaline
will be used to segregate the clean fill from the dirty . During
initial testing boring was done every several feet down approximately
five feet into the water table then screened, and tested .
Mr. Vallis asked how much fuel is left in the tank. The contractor
will "stick"
the tank the da before e t o determine how much is
left . The tank will be empty before being removed . The top
will be cut open and then the tank will be emptied then cleaned .
Fred Harney asked if this work was being done strictly due to
the conversion from oil to gas . Mr . Bouchard replied that it
was and that many sites had been surveyed.
John Vallis asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in
favor of the firm receiving a negative determination. There
was none .
Fred Sullivan of the Marblehead Conservation Commission spoke
against a negative determination . Marblehead is considering
Page 3 of 8
Minutes of Conservation Commission Meeting 6-22-89
reactivating a nearby well field because of water shortages .
He said that there may be problems with drainage to a lower
pond if the tank is disturbed . He urged that the firm take
all the precautions that it could to assure that the job be
done well .
George Ahmed motioned that the Public Hearing be closed. Robert
Crowley seconded that motion, and the vote was unanimous .
George Ahmed stated that he would like documentation on file
with the findings at the site. Richard Femino asked if it wasn' t
standard procedure to have an engineer from the DEQE present .
John Bleiler stated that they only have to be notified . It
is then up to them whether they visit the site or not .
The board asked Mr . Bouchard who would actually be doing the
work . He replied that Zecco a division of Metcalf Eddy would
be doing the work. They have gotten a five million dollar insurance
certificate and are very experienced in the field .
Mr . Femino asked Mr . Sullivan if there were any specific removal
procedures required by Marblehead. He said that the last problem
of a leaking tank occurred in the harbor and the firm was required
to have a boom in place.
George Ahmed asked what the soil composition of the area was
and if it is a type that is very permeable . Mr . Bouchard said
that it is granular matter and fill with regrading done . He
said that when excavation is done , any material removed will
be placed in a lined container. there will be no rain or runoff
problems. Then the soil can be replaced or removed if contaminated.
John Vallis asked what the time frame would be if the soil is
found to contaminated . Mr . Bouchard said that according to
the Massachusetts contingency plan , the firm would then have
to notify and file a plan with the DEQE which would have to
be approved before the work could be done . Since it is not
a priority site, that could take four years .
Robert Crowley stated that with good precautions it would be
best to remove the tank now before it begins to leak.
Fred Harney stated that the specifications seem good and that
he is in favor of the plan.
Richard Femino , George Ahmed , and John Bleiler agreed with Mr.
Crowley and Mr . Harney and also requested a lab report with
soil conditions .
George Ahmed motioned to grant a negative determination of applica-
bility for the site with contingencies that the lab findings
Page 4 of 8
Minutes of Conservation Commission Meeting 6-22-89
and analysis of data be sent to the Conservation Commission ,
a copy of the specifications be attached to the request, a copy
of the bonding contract be sent , and that a sketch with approximate
distances locating both the pond and the tank be included .
Fred Harney seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous .
DISCUSSION OF SALEM STATE SOCCER FIELD EXPANSION
The Salem State soccer coach Nick Padovani appeared before the
board to request that Salem State College be allowed to develop
10 , 000 feet of wetlands for additional soccer field space .
Sixty-five thousand dollars has been raised over the last four
years for the development . Mr. Padovani wants to move the wetland
and extend the pipe further . He feels that the area is not
really a wetland . He proposed that a hill will be taken down
and that material will be used for fill . A retaining wall will
be built and shrubs will be moved and replanted on the outside
of the fence. The area was once marked.
George Whittie stated that a drainage alteration permit would
be required from the City.
John Vallis asked the board if they felt that a site visit was
in order. The board agreed and a site visit will be scheduled
for July 8 , 1989 at 9 A.M.
DISCUSSION: TIDAL GATE REPAIR
George Whittie , City of Salem Public Works Director, addressed
the board concerning proposed repairs to the tidal gates near
the Forest River Conservation land . The City is proposing to
repair the existing gates . The movable parts , gearings , and
motors , including electrical switch gears , will all be repaired
or replaced . The estimated repair time is 20 weeks because
getting new motors may be a problem . Mr . Whittie stated that
the proposed operating time schedule can be adhered to as he
has a crew on call at all times .
John Vallis stated that the Conservation Board could not enforce
the hours of operation . The Planning Department would have
to be consulted . He would have to check with the Mayor to see
if a schedule could be attached as an order of conditions .
Mr . Whittie said that there should be no problem with that issue.
Richard Femino asked why the flood gates were installed. Mr . Whittie
replied said that they were put in around the turn of the century
with modifications made in 1964 for flood control as well as
for recreational use . By the 1980 ' s only two were functional .
John Vallis added that they were installed for statutory purposes
for the neighbors to create a beach.
Page 5 of 8
Minutes of Conservation Commission Meeting 6-22-89
Fred Harney asked if applying equalressure
P would be a problem .
George Whittie replied that there is one stationary gate and
one moveable one , and that there would be no problem . Richard
Femino asked if there had been a build up of silt around the
gates and if it would be removed . Mr . Whittie replied that
there was a buildup , but that it would not be removed. He also
said that by eliminating the drive shafts and with regular yearly
maintenance, this system should last a long time.
Ian Smith of the state Coastal Zone Management said that there
used to be a large smelt run in the Forest River area in the
past . There are indications that the run may be returning .
The CZM is interested in maintaining conditions that would be
conducive to the return of the run . He also stated that the
CZM feels that it would be well withing the jurisdiction of
the Conservation Commission to impose hours of operation as
part of the order of conditions .
Mr . Sullivan of the Marblehead Conservation Commission said
that to repair the gates would be a great amount of work . He
said that he felt that the Commission should hold a public hearing,
and that the tidal gates have caused harm to wetland areas .
There has been significant encroachment of freshwater materials
in the salt water marsh areas . He stated that the town line
is the edge of the river . Marblehead is losing land due to
the operation of theates , and they y are destro '
in marsh land
on both sides . Mr . Sullivan felt that the gates should beremoved
or left open.
Richard Femino asked if there had ever been any recorded instances
of flooding . Mr . Sullivan stated that just the opposite had
been occurring , and that the flora and fauna was being killed
and the bank was eroding.
Mr . Femino asked who would be funding the repair work, and Mr.
Whittie responded that it would be City money.
Don Jeffrey representing the Salem Neighborhood Association ,
gave a history of the tidal gates . He stated that they were
installed for recreational purposes as well as for flood and
pollution control . Mr . Jeffrey stated that the gates were closed
only on weekends and never for long periods of time. Only in
the case of an emergency such as the Blizzard of 1978 and an
oil spill have the gates remained closed otherwise . He said
that the reason for tidal pressure problems and erosion problems
was due to the fact that there is only one gate that is currently
operational . Professor Moore of the Salem State College Biology
department has created time charts for the tides . George Whittie
added that the gates were being opened and closed during normal
working hours rather than at the correct tides . Mr . Jeffrey
stated that the water clarity at Pickman Park is good , and that
Page 6 of 8
Minutes of Conservation Commission Meeting 6-22-89
regular year round operation of the gates would help with the
maintenance . An electric motor should have no impact on the
wetlands . And repair work to the gates and gears should have
no impact on the area.
The board felt that a site visit of the tidal gates would be
appropriate and scheduled one for July 8 , 1989 .
DISCUSSION: CLEAN-UP OF LOT BETWEEN #29 & #35 STATION ROAD
Michael Beatrice appeared before the board regarding a request
to clean up the lot between lot #29 and #35 on Station Road .
Mr . Beatrice checked the area in question and picked up wind
blown debris . He has no immediate plans for the land and does
not wish to clear the land which he feels would make the lot
attractive to children and possible trespassing and subject
him to possible liability . He has agreed Y g to cut back some of
the growth that is near the street . Mr . Beatrice has written
to various City departments regarding a pool of water at the
back of the lot and two unconnected pipes which drain there .
He would like to connect the pipe so that the water would not
drain onto his property.
Kathy Winn instructed Mr . Beatrice to file a Notice of Intent
with the Commission regarding connecting the pipe.
John Vallis said that he may need an easement to connect the
pipes . He suggested that Mr . Beatrice get some legal advice
to determine who is responsible for the pipe. Mr. Vallis also
said that he should file a Notice of Intent . Under the order
of conditions he would have three years to complete the work.
After consulting a map of the lot , John Bleiler asked if a site
visit would be appropriate . George Ahmed agreed and said that
because the map showed wetland areas in front , Mr . Beatrice
should hold off on trimming the vegetation.
OLD BUSINESS
The board addressed Mr . & Mrs . Abraham of 65 Valley Street .
John Vallis stated that after a site visit by the board to the
property, they had determined that new fill had been added to
the back of the property which is well within a buffer zone
and probably even wetland area. He also said that it is within
the jurisdiction of the Commission to protect the City ' s wetland
areas and the ecosystem . The board is very concerned that Mr.
Abraham had not appeared before the board before the work was
begun , and that the grading appears to have been changed by
two feet . John Bleiler stated that the fill is within a buffer
zone and that the house appeared to be as well .
Page 7 of 8
Minutes of Conservation Commission Meeting 6-22-89
Mr . Abraham stated that he is only filling three to four feet
from the bank to level his yard . John Vallis said that the
board had seen from a neighboring yard fresh fill and tractor
prints . Mr. Abraham said that a truck dumps the clean fill ,
and he distributes it around the area . He also said that he
is expecting six more loads of fill . He said that none of the
fill has gone over the edge of the slope. The trees and bushes
are still there.
John Vallis said that the area is clearly within a buffer zone,
and suggested that if allowed to continue , he would like to
see fertilizer use banned to avoid runnoff. John Sleiler suggested
an erosion line . Fred Harney indicated that a Notice of Intent
should still be filed . Mr . Vallis informed Mr . Abraham that
the conditions are being made to protect the wetland and not
to stop him from improving his yard but just to control what
is and is not done.
George Ahmed suggested that the board review the Notice of Intent
once it is filed and then issue an order of conditions . John
Vallis asked if Mr . Abraham could wait until this is done .
Mr . Abraham replied that he would if he was ordered to do so .
Geroge Ahmed asked the distance that is being filled. Mr. Abraham
said approximately thirty feet which stopped six feet from the
edge.
John Vallis stated that reseeding the area would be allowed
as long as no fertilizers were used . Also no addtional fill
should be brought in until the correct slope is determined and
to prevent unclean fill from being used.
Fred Harney motioned to issue a cease and desist order to Mr. &
Mrs . Abraham of 65 Valley Street prohibiting the use of unclean
fill or fertilizer on the area facing the wetlands . It is also
ordered that the filled areas shall not exceed the present grade.
A Notice of Intent is to filed with the Conservation Commission
for the remainder of the work . area that faces the wetlands .
The board discussed the filling in of land at Hendricks Manufacturing
on Commercial Street . According to the owner the contractor
on the North Street sewer project last year asked if the fill
that had been removed from the project could be placed there .
The owner felt that he was doing the City a favor and agreed.
C. E. Maguire confirmed that that is where the fill came from .
The fill was then leveled out . The board asked that Kathy Winn
send a letter to Hendricks Manufacturing to appear before the
board regarding the fill and their intentions .
The board instructed Kathy Winn to send a letter to Mason Realty
the other area on Commercial Street where there is evidence
of filling activity to come before the board.
l
Page 8 of 8
Minutes of Conservation Commission Meeting 6-22-89
Robert Crowley said that there is another area across the canal
with piles of fill . Kathy Winn said that that was on State
owned land, but that it still falls under the Commissions juris-
diction.
George Ahmed asked that a letter be sent to Council member O'Leary
regarding the Board ' s inspection of Sable Raod . Based on a
visual inspection of the area the board found no evidence of
water. Mr. Ahmed also asked if a reply was ever sent to Councilor
Nowak regarding the boat yard culvert at Winter Island. There
was no evidence that the culvert was blocked.
NEW BUSINESS
Kathy Winn informed the board that a student Muncipal Intern
had been appointed to the Commission by the Mayor . The appointment
will begin in September.
Ms. Winn also informed the board that the residents of the Bertini
area had filed an appeal .
Fred Harney stated that Mr . Bertini had applied to the Board
of Appeals for a Special Permit because it is a flood plain
wetland area.
Kathy Winn said that Council Member Blair had introduced to
the City Council an order regarding zoning ordinance regarding
Pummel Construction on the Bertini land.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM JUNE 8 1989
Robert Crowley made a motion to approve the minutes from the
June 8 , 1989 Conservation Committee meeting . Richard Femino
seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous .
There being no further business before the board , a motion was
made by Robert Crowley to adjourn the meeting. George Ahmed
seconded the motion, and the vote was unanimous .
The meeting was adjourned at 10: 05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted by:
Debra A. Tucker, Acting Clerk
HO 100761'(:, 227
RUQ 2 i�39
FO.f�t5
DEQE File No. 64-181
(To be provided by DEQEI
-JCommonwealth city/Town Salem
] of Massachusetts Applicant Michael J. Harrington
Order of Conditions
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
G.L. c. 131, §40
From Salem Conservation Commission
c
r--
ToMichael J. Harrington Rama
QD
(Name of Applicant) (Name of property owner)
ro
Address 59 Federal St . Address lama N
Salem, MA 01970 N
m
This Order is issued and delivered as follows:
t by hand delivery to applicant or representative on July 18, 1989 (date)
❑ by certified mail,return receipt requested on (date)
This project is located at 164 Rear Boston Street , Salem, MA
Howley Street, Peabody, MA
O
The property is recorded at the Registry of F= a v c,,,�n r 4, O
9096 471-472 0
Book pg/.4 Page 11n_11;
W
8076 377
W
Certificate(if registered)
Th--Notice--{Intent.!or this project Voe filo nn
Tnl ; S, 1489 IdafP!
The public hearing was closed on July 13, 1989 (date)
Findings
The Salem Conservation Commission has reviewed the above-referenced Notice of
Intent and plans and has held a public hearing on the project.Based on the information available to the
Commission atthistime, the Commission has determined that
the area on which the proposed work is to be done is significant to the following interests in accordance with
the Presumptions of Significance set forth in the regulations for each Area Subject to Protection Under the
Act(check as appropriate):
❑ Public water supply ® Flood control ❑ Land containing shellfish
❑ Private water supply ® Storm damage prevention ❑ Fisheries
❑
Groundwater supply ® Prevention of pollution ❑ Protection of wildlife habitat
5.1
Effective 11/1/87
NO10076rb228
Therefore, the Commission hereby finds that the following conditions are
necessary, in accordance with the Performance Standards set forth in the regulations, to protect those inter-
ests checked above. The cnmmi c c i on orders that all work shall be performed
in accordance with said conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the fol-
lowing conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications or other proposals submitted with the Notice
of Intent, the conditions shall control.
General Conditions
1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein,and with all related statutes and other regulatory meas•
ures,shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order.
2. This Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges:it does not authorize any injury
to private property or invasion of private rights.
3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all
other applicable federal, state or local statutes,ordinances. by-laws or regulations.
4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless
either of the following apply:
(a) the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act:or
(b) the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than
five years,from the date of issuance and both that date and the special circumstances warranting
the extended time period are set forth in this Order.
5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each
upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order.
6. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill,containing no trash.refuse, rubbish or de-
bris, including but not limited to lumber, bricks, plaster,wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe. tires, ashes,
refrigerators, motor vehicles or parts of any of the foregoing.
w7. No work shall be undertaken until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed or, if
O such an appeal has been filed, until all proceedings before the Department have been completed.
8. No work shall be undertaken until the Final Order has been recorded in the Registry g try of Deeds or the Land
Court for the district in which the land is located,within the chain of title of the affected property. In the
case of recorded land, the Final Order shall also be noted in.the Registry's Grantor index under the name
of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of registered land, the
Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which
the proposed work is to be done.The recording information shall be submitted to the semmn� en
on the form at the end of this Order prior to commencement of the work.
9. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less than two square feet or more than three square feet in size
bearing the words."Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering,
File Number 64-181
10.Where the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering is requested to make a determination and
to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a parry to all agency proceedings
and hearings before the Department.
11. Upon completion of the work described herein,the applicant shall forthwith request in writing that a
Certificate of Compliance be issued stating that the work has been satisfactorily completed.
12.The work shall conform to the following plans and special conditions:
5-2
. BKO10076P" 229
Plans:
Title Dated Signed and Stamped by: On File with:
Site Development Plan 6/30/89
Of ian`i Christopher R. Mello, Salem Conservation Commission
T.nr arpA Ppahn��
and Salem, MA astern Land burvey ssoc. nc.
Special Conditions(Use additional paper It necessary)
See Attachment A.
_.................................................................................. .
. ................................................................................................
(leave Space 81ankl
5.3A
0100 7 6 i;�G23 0
Plans:
Title Dated Signed and Stamped by: On File with:
Special Conditions(use additional Paper if necessary)
... ....................................... ..... ... ...... ..... . ................................... .. . ... . . ...... ....
(Leave SoaCe Blank)
5.38
.. '9K0'A 00=,-6FG � 3 'I
Issued By Salem Conservation Commission
SionatureW y
This Order must be signed by a majority of the o servation Commission. p 9
On this. �a d of 19 1� , �before me
personally appear to me known to be the
person described in and wtto executed this foregoii g instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed
the same as rdiUhgrtfree act and deed.
,q I
Notary Public. n , commissio IPtres
wut0
t t�, e'. .;• Y'
eqp rived by this Order.arty owner of land abttmg me land upon which ata txtxro 1 work n to
Thi!a(Ipl,eerl`e�the ov.mer:ets,d'ara city
us••
badartwWi�rryJSM1reai�lstif the airy ar town in which aWl land IS located an hereby nobfled of mak right to request me debarment
of Erl4mgnmenleS��(io `@+10meenn9 to iayss a superseding order.plowidkng the request is made by candied mad or hand delWery to
the Oepsr4hent,atilhM"tan dM from the date of issuance of this Order.A coo,of the request shell at me same droll be sant by carolled
mad or hand dairy"to me Conservation Commission and ane appkyflt.
a
C
E o
E �
L O�
y 0
C ro G O
G d N
N m E Detach on dolled line and Submit to ter prior to comrnencament of work.
v .ti v
Issuing AuthOrry
ro To
Please all advised that the Order of Conditions for the protect at
oFile Number has been recorded at the Registry of and
N
Q
z hal been notes in the chain of tide of the effected property in accordance with General Condition B on . 19—
It
9—
II retarded two. the instrument number winch identifies this transaction is
It registered land. the document number which identities this transaction is
Signature Applicant
5.4A
NO I 1 40 7 6 plc 2'3.2x.
Issued by the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering.
Signature
On this day of 19 before me
personally appeared to me known to be the person
described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed the same
as his/her free act and deed.
Notary Public My commission expires
The applicant.me owner,any person aggrieved by this Superseding Order,any owner of land abutting the land upon which the pro.
posed work Ili to be done or any ten persons puratme to G.L c.30A.§1 OA,are hereby noshed of the r nght to request an atiludiCaely
hitang pursuant to G.L 30A.;i 0,prar.ang thti reduce:is maCe ay oerufled mad tar hand delivery to the Department within tan days
from the date of iseuence of the superseding Order,and IS addressed to: Docket Clark.Office of General Counsel.Department of
Envkonmenm Ouesty Engineering.One winter street.Boston.MA 021 be.A copy of the request shed at the same time air sent by
Certified mad or name dedvarlr to the Conservation Commission.the apaucant.and any other parry.
A Notice of Claim for an Adfudiralory,Hearing shad campy with me Oeparbnenrs Rules for Adjudicatory Procew mgs.310 CMR
1.01(a).and Ones conn the fadowrq information: -
(al the DEOE Wedends File Number.name of the applicant are address of the project:
(bl the Complete name,ad0rese and telephone number of the parry filing the request.and,it reoresenled by•:ounsar.the name and
address of the attorney:
(c) the names are addr"u W ad other parties.it known: ..
(d) a clear and concise statement W(1)the facts which are grounds for the praeeac np,(2)the objections to this Superseding Order.
Including specifically the memter in which it is alleged to be tneonaatent with the Depatnent's Wedenws RequlaCbns(310 CMR
10.001 and does not contribute to the protection of the Interests Identified in the Act.and(3)the relief sought through the adju-
dlCatory hearing,Including SPWItICally me changes desired In the Superseding Order.
(el a statement that a copy of the request has been sent to the 110011COnt.the COltservaten Comrlllaslorl Mo each other parry or rep-
resentative of such party.it known.
Failure to submit all necessary information may result In a dlsmessit by the Department of the Nonce of Claim for an Adjudicatory Hearing.
Detach on dared line and submit to the
prier to commencement of work.
TO Issuing Authority
Please be advised mat the Order of Conditions for the project at
File Number has been recorded at the Registry of and
has been noted In the chain of title of the affected property In accordance with General Condition a on , 19_
If recorded land, the instrument number which identifies this transaction is
If registered land.the document number which identifies this transaction Is
Signature Applicant
5.4B
Attachment A
Special Conditions Michael J. Harrington
164 Rear Boston Street
1. All work shall conform to the above-referenced plans. Any change
made or intended to be made in the approved plans shall require the
applicant to file a new Notice of Intent or to inquire of the
Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is substantial
enough to require a new filing.
2. All catch basins shall be fitted with oil and gas traps. A regular
schedule for maintenance of catch basins including traps, manholes and
piping shall be developed and submitted to the Commission for approval.
3. Use of salt as a de-icing agent on roadways or parking areas within
the project is prohibited. No salt or hazardous material shall be
stored on site.
4. A plan for landscaping and maintenance of vegetation for the buffer
zone area shall be developed and submitted to the Commission for its
review and approval prior to commencement of work.
5. All work shall comply with conditions set by the City of Salem Board
of Appeals ' decision to grant a Comprensive Permit.
6. Any decision issued by the City of Peabody Conservation Commission
relating to this project, shall be submitted to the Salem Conservation
Commission for inclusion in their files.
7. A copy of an environmental study of the North River prepared by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts in connection with the proposed
construction of the Bridge St. by-pass project, shall be incorporated
with this filing.
8. No commercial vehicles , trailors, boats, or vehicles having more
than two axles shall be parked or stored on the premises with the
exception of vehicles necessary for maintenance and repair on the
premises and commercial vehicles on-site during the period of
construction.
9. Members and agents of the Salem Conservation Commission shall have
the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate compliance with
the conditions stated in this order, and may require the submittal of
any data deemed necessary by this commission for that evaluation.
10. Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall submit with
their request for a Certification of Compliance, an affidavit prepared
by a professional engineer or land surveyor registered in the
Iv/
Commonwealth of Massachusetts , stating that the site has been developed
in accordance with the requirements of this Order of Conditions and the
referenced site plan.
11. This Order shall apply to any successor in control or successor in
interest of the property described in the Notice of Intent and
accompanying plans.
r273
r 310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Y ii
10.99: continued
RecEIVED
AUG
DEP Pok Tim
55=369
� `y,. l�ua (fa he provided by Der)
Form 5
811'8 plarrif1911`f ci'J/1'— Peabody
a Ory(• baa Stop & Shop
CormnoFwealth -
Of Nassachusetts '
Order of Conditions
Hassacbuetts Wetlands Protection Act
-G.L, c. 131, 540 .
From Peabody Conservation Commission Issuing authority -
To Elizabeth Frank/ Stop & Shop See Attachment A
(Na" of Applicant) (Name of property owner)
P.O. Box 1492 Boston "
Add ... Address
MA 02105
This Order is issued and delivered as follows-
by hand
ollows-by-banddelivery to applicant or representative on 8/ 09 /94 (date) -
❑ by certified mail, return receipt requested on (date)
This pzoject is located at 19 Howley St. Peabody & Salem
The property-,4s recorded at the Registry of See Attachment A
Hook page
1
certificate (if registered)
The Notice of Intent for this project was filed on 5/3/94 (date)
The;A)ublic bearing was closed on 8/20/94 (date)
Findings -
The.. - Commission has revfnmd the ab.-ref.renced Notice of intent aM plus and has
held • Public hearing setthe project. sesed on the infocsution swat able to the Commission at this
tine, the ommls s ion Ms getereined that the area cn which the proposed work is to be done is
significant to the following interests in accordance with the Presumptions of Significance set forth in the
Mutations for each Area Subject to Protection Urder the Act (check as appropriate):
Public water supply flood taotrol Land conainirg shellfish
Priwte water supply Store O+mpr prevention Fisheries
ward ester supply Prevention of pollution Protection of wildlife Habitat
Total Filing fee Subnftted ./$525.00 sate share $250.00
(1/2 fee in ucess of S25)
City/Tan Share $275.00
Total Refund Due S City/Town Port fon S Sate Portion%
(1/2 total) (1/2 total)
11/20/92 310 CMR — 280439
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
10.99: continued
Therefore, the Commission hereby finds that the following conditions
are necessary, in accordance.with the performance standards ■ggt forth in the
regulations, to protect those interests checked above. -The met
orders that all work shall be performed in accordance with said conditions and
with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the following
conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications or other proposals
submitted with the Notice of Intent, the conditions shall control.
General Conditions
1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein, and with all related
statutes and other regulatory measures, shall be deemed cause to revoke
or modify this order.
2. The order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges;
it does not authorize any injury to private property or invasion of
private rights.
3. This order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the
necessity of complying with all other applicable federal, state or local
statutes, ordinances,- by-laws or regulations.
4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from
the date of this Order unless either of the following apply: -
(a) the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the
Act; or
(b) the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more
than three years, but less than five years, from the date of issuance
and both that date and the special circumstances warranting the
extended time period are set forth in this order.
S. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more
periods of up to three years each upon application to the issuing
,Authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration data of the Order.
6. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill,
containing no trash, refuse, rubbish or debris, including but not limited -
' to lumber, bricks, plaster, wire, lath, paper, cardboard, pipe, tires,
ashes, refrigerators, motor vehicles or parts of any of the foregoing. -
7. No work shall be undertaken until all administrative appeal periods from
this order have elapsed or, if such an appeal has been filed, until all
proceedings beforetheDepartment have been completed.
S. No work shall be undertaken until the Final order has been recorded
in the Registry of Deeds or the Land Court for the district in which
the land is located, within the chain of title of the affected
property. In the case of recorded land, the Final order shall also
be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name of the owner
of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case
of registered land, the Final order shall also be noted on the Land
Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which the
proposed work is to be done. The recording informatin shall be
submitted to the Commission on the form at the end of this Order
prior to commencement of the work.
9. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less than two square feet or
more than three square feet in size bearing the words,
-Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
File Number 55-569
10. where the Department of Environmental Protection is requested to make a
determination and to issue a superseding order, the Conservation
commission shall he a party to all agency proceedings and hearings before
the Department.
11/20/92 310 CMR - 280.40
310 CMR: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
10.99: continued
11. Upon completion of the work described herein, the applicant shall
forthwith request in writing that a Certificate of Compliance be issued
stating that the work has been satisfactorily completed.
12. The work shall conform to the following plans and special conditions:
Plans: Plans for Proposed Supermarket - Stop & Shop
(See Below)
Title Dated signed and stamped by: On File with:
5/3/94 _Christopher Mello, PLS PCC
Sheet A of 7, B of 7, C of 7, D of 7, E of 7, F of 7, G of 7.
Plans of Proposed Supermarket: Dated 6/15/53- Revisions 4/20/94
Special Conditions (Use additional paper if necessary)
Standard Conditions 1-12.
Special Conditions 13-50: Attached and Incorporated Herein.
/
(Leave Space Blank)
..............................................................................
11/20/92 310 CMR - 280.41
EXHIBIT A
Owner: Advantage Bank Telephone No. (617)846-9200
Address: 25 Bartlett Road Winthrop, MA
Title Reference:
Owner: John J. Jeffers Telephone No. (508)531-1221
Address: 164 Boston Street Salem, MA
Title Reference:
Owner: Margaret M. Buckley Telephone No.
Address: 1212 Ocean Blvd. Rye, NH
Title Reference: Book 6671 Page 114
ORDER OF CONDITIONS
CITY OF PEABODY
DEP 55-369
APPLICANT : Elizabeth Frank for Stop & Shop
ADDRESS : 19 Howley St. , Peabody/Salem
13 If any permit, license or approval by any other municipal
agency, board or commission is withdrawn , obtained or
reversed and the construction work is to be altered or
changed from the plan filed with the Commission and made
a part of this Order of Conditions, the applicant shall
notify the Commission in writing addressed to the
Chairman through the Commission' s Office prior to any
work commencing on the project. If the Commission
determines that the changes or alterations are to be
significant, the Commission may require a new Notice of
Intent or a modification of the existing Order of
Conditions .
14 . A copy of this Order of Conditions shall be included in
all construction contracts and subcontracts dealing with
the work proposed and shall supercede other contract
requirements.
15 . This order shall apply to all successors in interest, in
possession or in control and shall be attached to the
Deed and Title .for this property.
16 . A copy of this Order shall be present on the site at all
times until the completion and certification of
compliances by the Commission.
17 . The applicant shall file with the Commission prior to any
request for a Certificate of Compliance , a Certified Copy
of the Order of Conditions as recorded with the South
Essex Registry of Deeds , which must include the
appropriate Book and Page reference .
18. The staked hay bales shall be placed prior to any
construction on-site ; the applicant shall notify, in
writing, the Commission, through the Chair, with the same
filed with the Commission' s Office . Said hay bales shall
be maintained until a Certificate of Compliance is
issued.
19 . The applicant shall obtain from the Commission a partial
or final Certificate of Compliance before the applicant
applies for an Occupancy Permit.
5-3B
ORDER OF CONDITIONS
CITY OF PEABODY
DEP 55-369
APPLICANT : Elizabeth Frank for Stop & Shop
ADDRESS : 19 Howley St. , Peabody/Salem
20. The applicant and owner by conducting work under this
Order of Conditions hereby grants and consents to the
Commission and its agents the right to enter upon the
premises subject to the Order of Conditions at any time
to inspect compliance with the Order or for any other
purpose directed by the Commission or its Chairman. This
right shall continue until a Final Certificate of
Compliance has been issued on the premises.
21 . When the applicant applies to the Building Inspector' s
Office for a permit for construction of a foundation, the
applicant must show on the plot plan for proposed
foundation, the location of haybales on site . A copy of
this plan must be submitted by the applicant to the
Conservation Commission at the time of application for
the Foundation Permit.
22 . In conjunction with the sale of any lot governed by this
Order, the applicant shall submit to the Conservation
Commission a signed statement by the buyer that he/she is
aware of an outstanding Order of Conditions on the
development and has received a copy of this Order of
Conditions.
23. No earthen embankment in the Buffer Zone shall have a
slope steeper than 2 : 1 .
24 . In order to receive a Certificate of Compliance upon
completion of the project, the applicant must send to the
Commission a letter requesting an appointment to be
placed on the agenda for a Certificate of Compliance
along with ( 11 ) eight copies of the "As-Built" plan of
the project and a locus map of the area.
25. The Conservation Commission shall be notified in writing
( 48 ) forty-eight hours prior to work start-up that
staked-haybales and silt fence are in place and ready for
inspection.
5-3C
ORDER OF CONDITIONS
CITY OF PEABODY
DEP 55-369
APPLICANT : Elizabeth Frank for Stop & Shop
ADDRESS : 19 Howley St. , Peabody/Salem
26 . The 21E report shall be filed with the Conservation
Commission office prior to the start of any work.
27 . Any changes to the plans resulting from other Local ,
State or Federal approvals must be submitted to the
Conservation Commission .
28 . All on-site facilities will be maintained by Stop & Shop
or any successor in title . Catchbasins will be inspected
every three months and cleaned and cleared as needed, but
in no case less often than yearly.
29 . Oil will be removed from catchbasins and grease from the
grease trap by personnel duly licensed to do such work.
30 . Revised plans showing grassed swales versus concrete
swales shall be submitted to the Commission.
3} .., A landscape plan for the area north of the building will
be approved by the Community Development Department and
implemented as such by the applicant.
32 . No demolition materials or construction debris shall be
deposited or disposed of in the Buffer Zone or wetlands
or the Flood Plain. Hazardous materials from the
demolition and construction activity shall be disposed of
at approved disposal sites .
33 . No liquid or floatable demolition materials and
construction materials and debris shall be stored at the
site below elevation 12 (NGVD ) for more than five ( 5 )
days or during expected flooding , without written
approval of the Conservation Commission.
5-3D
ORDER OF CONDITIONS
CITY OF PEABODY
DEP 55-369
APPLICANT : Elizabeth Frank for Stop & Shop
ADDRESS : 19 Howley Street, Peabody/Salem
34 . No chemicals , electrical equipment, machinery, trash,
floatable items shall be located or stored below
elevation 12 (NGVD ) without proper flood proofing and
approval of the Conservation Commission. Flood proof
areas can not be used to meet the flood storage
requirements .
35 . No tanks or other containers shall be located on the site
on in the proposed building if they contain flammable
fluids or other chemicals without prior approval by the
Conservation Commission.
36 . The contractor will be required to have control over
access to the site by unauthorized vehicles by
installation and maintenance fences , gates , etc . as may
be necessary.
37 . Prior to any construction, all necessary State and/or
Federal Permits and all orders of conditions from Salem
Conservation Commission shall be submitted to the Peabody
Conservation Commission.
38. , 39 . and 40 . are CONDITIONS IN PERPETUITY
38. The applicant , owner, successor, or assignee ( s ) shall be
responsible for maintaining all on-site drainage
structures and outfalls , assuring the lasting integrity
of vegetative cover on the site and site activities so as
to prevent erosion, siltation, sedimentation, chemical
contamination or other detrimental impact to the adjacent
off-site wetlands resource area.
5-3E
ORDER OF CONDITIONS
CITY OF PEABODY
DEP 55-369
APPLICANT: Elizabeth Frank for Stop & Shop
ADDRESS : 19 Howley Street, Peabody/Salem
39 . All effluent catch basins shall contain oil/gasoline
traps and it shall be a continuing condition of this
order even after a Certificate of Compliance has been
issued that the oil/gasoline traps in the catch basins be
maintained every six months and a record kept subject to
inspecti.on by the Peabody Conservation Commission.
40 . On this lot no underground storage of fuel oils shall be
allowed on any lot within this development. This
condition shall survive this Order of Conditions and
shall run with the Title of the Property.
5-3F
ORDER OF CONDITIONS
CITY OF PEABODY
DEP 55-369
APPLICANT : Elizabeth Frank for Stop & Shop
ADDRESS : 19 Howley Street, Peabody/Salem
EARTH MOVING-STOCKPILING-EROSION\SEDIMENTATION CONTROL
41 . The drainage system, ( replication area and compensatory
storage areas if applicable ) , shall be constructed during
the initial phase of the project so that they may be
functional during construction. Said structures shall be
kept free of silt and debris to ensure their proper
operation . All drains shall be maintained until
construction is completed.
42 . Any siltation caused onto any wetland or waterway areas
shall be reported promptly to the CC and such areas shall
be restored to the satisfaction of the CC .
43. Temporary seeding, mulching or other suitable
stabilization measures shall be used to protect exposed
areas during prolonged construction or other disturbance .
44. . All final earth grading shall be permanently stabilized
by the application of loam and seed or sod.
5-3G
ORDER OF CONDITIONS
CITY OF PEABODY
DEP 55-369
APPLICANT : Elizabeth Frank for Stop & Shop
ADDRESS : 19 Howley Street, Peabody/Salem
ADMINISTRATIVE
CHECK LIST LARGE COMMERCIAL PROJECTS
45 . Prior to construction, the applicant shall inform the
Conservation Commission in writing of the name ( s ) ,
address ( es ) , and business and home phone numbers of the
project supervisor( s ) who will be responsible for
insuring performance of all sedimentation and erosion
control measures, wetland alteration and replication
- aspects of the project.
46 . In advance of any work on this project, the applicant
shall notify the Conservation Commission, and at the
request of the Conservation Commission, shall arrange an
on-site conference among the Conservation Commission, the
contractor, the. engineer, and the applicant to ensure
=that all the Conditions of this Order are understood.
This Order also shall be made a part of the contractor' s
written contract.
47 . Commencing with the issuance of this Order and continuing
through the existence of same the applicant shall submit
to the Conservation Commission a written progress report
every three ( 3 ) months detailing what work has been done
in or near resource areas .
DEWATERING
48 . Any dewatering activities on the project site in which
water will be released to Resource Areas shall make use
of a settling pond or similar device to remove sediment
before water is released.
5-3H
ORDER OF CONDITIONS
CITY OF PEABODY
DEP 55-369
APPLICANT : Elizabeth Frank for Stop & Shop
ADDRESS : 19 Howley Street, Peabody/Salem
49 . Upon completion of construction and grading, all
disturbed areas located outside resource areas shall be
stabilized permanently against erosion. This shall be
done either by sodding or by loaming, seeding and
mulching according to Soil Conservation Service
standards . If the latter course is chosen, stabilization
will be considered once the surface shows complete
vegetative cover has been achieved.
CHECK LIST
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
50 . Lower sodium de-icing chemicals shall be used on all
paved surfaces.
5-3I
10.99: continued Y _
rrs 5
Issued By Peabodv cons rvatio comm).axion/
signature(
This er must be signed by a majority of the Conservation commission.
On this 20th day of July 19 94 before me
personally appeared above-named signatories , to me known to be the
person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged -
that he/she executed the sate as his/her free act and deed. MARILYN J.LIMONGIELLO
NOTARY PUBLIC
W Commieeinn olp.Feb.3,2000
Nota u my commission expires - - -
The applicant, the aver, any person*Wleved by this order, any owner of lad abutting the land upon which
the proposed work is to be dare, or any tan residents of the city " torn in Mich such lad is located, are
hereby notified of their right to request the Departawnt of Environmental protection to issue a superseding
Order, providing the request is wade by certified aril or had delivery to the Department, with the
appropriate filing fee and fee Trarnsafttat Fora as provided in 310 CMR 10.03(7), within ten days free the
date of issuance of this determlnatlon. A copy of the regdest shalt at the same tine be sent by certified
MIL or..hard delivery to the Caxerntian CoaaissIM and the appticant.
Detach on dotted line and abait to the COmmiSS ion prior to commencement of work.
............................................................................................................
to Peabody ConserVa Cinn C 'On Issuing Authority
Please be adAced that the Order of Conditions for the project at Howley St.
file wurber 55-369 has been recorded at the Registry of and
has been noted In the chain of title of the affected property in accordance with General Cordition 5 on
,19
If recorded lard, the irrtruaent amber Mich identifies this transection is
if registered lard, the document rmnber Mich identifies this transaction Is
$igroture Appl i cant
11/20/92 310 CMR - 280.43
PEABODY CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
HAY 18 , 1994
PEABODY CITY HALL - LOWER LEVEL CONFERENCE ROOM
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT :
Joseph Horrigan , Chairman
Andrew Cotreau, Vice-Chairman
John Marino , Secretary
Joseph Bogigian
Arthur Peretzian
Susan St. Pierre
Arthur Pavlo
Frances Gallugi , Alternate
James Demotses , Alternate
Curt Bellavance , Planner
CHAIRMAN HORRIGAN CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 7 : 00 P . M.
iKK # i * i
1 . Approval of Minutes for April 20 , 1994 .
MS . ST . PIERRE : Motion to accept the minutes .
MR. BOGIGIAN: 1 second the motion .
MR. HORRIGAN: Discussion on the motion. No . All those in
favor say, 7 ayes . Any opposed, No . Motion
carries.
iKKKKK* *
Page 2
2 . Public Hearing for a NOI for Joel and Elizabeth Brenner, 210
Washington St. , for the property known as Lot 3 , Alexandra St. ,
Summit Acres . Proposed work is for the construction of a single
family dwelling, appurtenant utilities and landscape within the
buffer to a resource area.
Christopher Mello , Eastern Land Survey
MR. MELLO : I am here with the Brenner ' s who are here to
my right this evening. We are here pursuant
to a NOI for Lot 3 . It was the subject of a
previous Order of Conditions for Summit Acres
that held a condition that Lot 3, and several
other lots shall be refiled with a separate
filing depicting the proposed dwelling and
other appurtenant structures and work to be
done in the buffer. Lot 3 as you see before
you ( showed plan) proposed dwelling with the
deck also shown are proposed shed and garage
all within the buffer. The remaining land
outside of the haybales in the buffer will be
loom and seeded for a yard and a driveway will
be constructed from Alexander St. Again, all
this work is in the alexandra, none of it is
in the resource area and this is what was
anticipated from the definitive subdivision.
I ' d be happy to answer any questions the
Commission may have .
MR .MARINO: Through you Mr. Chairman, I was at the site , I
think were the proposed dwelling is , there is
a sort of a part of a foundation, that wasn ' t
shown on the plan, that' s lying there right
now, so there going to have to dig that up.
MR. MELLO: Whatever there , will have to go.
MR . MARINO: Right, I understand that but generally when
you do a print, if there was an old building
there , you would show the old building.
MR . MELLO : There wasn' t an old building , there might be
something there that was covered up , but in
our initial survey, we didn ' t uncover that.
This plan is an enlarged reproduction of the
original survey.
MR. MARINO : Right, Okay, just for the record, there is
something old there . Now the proposed garage
doesn ' t show the actual driveway yet.
Page 3
MR. MELLO: Right, there is a driveway that is proposed
from Alexander St. The garage may not be
built, initially, due to the way the Brenner' s
are going to attack this . We may end up with
a driveway that wouldn' t serve the garage
immediately, but I 'd like them to have the
opportunity, hopefully considering in your
Order of Conditions , they could build a
driveway in the buffer and it wouldn ' t be tied
down, so that they don' t have to come back
again if it has to be slightly moved or if in
the process they decide that it will go to the
garage .
MR . MARINO: Right, I had called the Building Inspector,
because I did see the drainage easement,
really is very close to the proposed garage .
MR. MELLO : Yes , but it is out of it.
MR. MARINO : Right, but if they ever had to go in there , to
work on it, it would be sort of a problem,
wouldn ' t it?
MR. MELLO : That drainage access easement is from Lynn St.
It has nothing to do with coming in from
Alexander. Nobody has any rights to come into
that.
MR. MARINO: Then Ralph would have no problem with it .
MR. MELLO: I don ' t think it is his jurisdiction.
MR. MARINO: That ' s why I called, I had really called him.
I didn ' t know the City regulations with the 5
foot, when it is detached you can have 5 feet,
attached 20 feet , Ralph would have no problem
with that.
MR. MELLO : As long as it is out of the easement , that ' s
what the easement is there for.
MR. MARINO: And the dwelling itself , the proposed garage
is 30 feet from the actual floor water and
your conservancy district. Now my problem is
and I know your wrote here 68 . 2 elevation for
your conservancy district, but you are showing
a shed 10 ' x 20 ' . I could see you down sizing
the shed to a 10 x 10, because if you scale
that , that' s 20 feet to a conservancy and
we ' re calling for a 30 foot.
Page 4
MR. MELLO: I suggest that the swale isn ' t part of the
conservancy district, if you look at your map ,
that ' s not shaded and that ' s not a water way
listed. That ' s a drainage channel .
MR. MARINO: It ' s running, it ' s free flowing water, it was
running the day I was there .
MR . PERETZIAN: It was running the day I was there .
MR . MELLO: I agree its running, I agree its free flowing,
I just disagree that it has any jurisdiction
from the Conservancy District as it is not
listed in your table , and it is not shaded on
the map. I 'm not trying to be difficult, I
just don' t agree with you.
MS . ST . PIERRE : Where is the Conservancy district line?
MR. MELLO: The Conservancy District line is along
Goldthwaithe Brook, which I have a copy of the
plan anticipating that you might have a
discussion in this manner. I think you will
find that the Conservancy District by the map
ends down here ( showed on plan ) then there is
a listed a group. . .
MS . ST . PIERRE : What ' s the lot we are looking at?
MR. MELLO : Up here , we are about 200 feet from
Goldthwaite .
MR. MARINO : When you shot over here , you got this that ' s
66 , 68 right over here , plus there ' s
monitoring wells over here , these weren' t even
shown, there ' s 5 wells .
MR. MELLO : They are not monitoring wells , they' re water
wells and they belong to Eastman Gelatine and
they are off the site .
MR. MARINO : Right, but Eastman Gelatine is always very,
you know, they are very curious as to what' s
happening to their land that abuts them. We
had a problem with Cedar Pond Village , that
they ' re building now, and that abuts them and
they want to know what ' s happening.
MR . MELLO : Well , they were given certified notice of this
meeting.
Page 5
MR. MARINO : Now, I know that Eastman Gelatine owns that
land . I not happy with the shed being a 20 x
10 . I ' m happy with 10 x 10 .
MR. PERETZIAN: I would like to get a ruling , are we or are we
not?
MR. MELLO : We have the map out.
MR . PERETZIAN: Send the City Engineer out and get us a
ruling.
MS . ST. PIERRE: What are the 'resources areas here?
MR. MELLO : The resources areas are flagged (Showed flags )
MR. HORRIGAN: Can you show us the Conservancy District on
the map?
MR. MELLO: The district is right here .
MR. PERETZIAN : You believe .
MR. MELLO: No , I know.
MR. HORRIGAN: Right. Where is it on the plan?
MR . MELLO : It is running right through here ( Showed on
plan ) running parallel with Goldthwaithe
Brook. It does not come down to Lynnfield St.
Which this brook does .
MR. MARINO : My problem, is 68 point and we have 68 here ,
we have FEMA maps that aren ' t correct either.
MR . MELLO : John, it is a zoning issue . It is as clear,
it is clear, there ' s the map that shows you
were it is and then there is a table of brooks
that it covers , it doesn' t say anything about
a drainage channel coming from Lynnfield St.
and it doesn' t show it on the map .
DISCUSSION ENSUED .
MR . MELLO : My only comment, is that it is not subject to
the Zoning Act in the Conservancy District.
Maybe we can cut to the chase here , I don ' t
think. . , the Brenner' s want to get going on
there house , the shed was more , let ' s get one
now. Do you care if it is a 10x10 or 10x20?
Page 6
MR. BRENNER: No .
MS . ST . PIERRE : I don ' t even think we ' re at that point yet.
MR. HELLO : Well I don ' t want that to become an issue of
them not being able to build this year.
MR. HORRIGAN : Okay, do you want to take the shed off of here
for now?
MS . ST . PIERRE : Before we do that, can we discuss what
resource areas this shed is next to? I think
there is BVW here but it is not shown clearly
on this plan. A shed 5 feet away from BVW to
me is a little different then a shed being 20
feet away from a drainage swale . What other
lots are coming in, in the future on this?
MR. HELLO: Lots 4 and 5 .
MS . ST . PIERRE : Okay, can you clearly label BVW.
MR. MELLO : Sure .
DISCUSSION .
MS . ST . PIERRE : I would just as soon have no shed and have the
garage and I think you could move the garage
closer to the road and put a shed further away
from the resource area.
MR. MELLO : We can ' t move the garage because of zoning.
DISCUSSED ZONING AND PLACEMENT OF SHED. TAKE SHED OFF . WE WILL
NOTE IT ON OUR COPY. IT WILL BE IN THE ORDER OF CONDITIONS.
MR. HORRIGAN: Is there anyone wishing to speak on Item 2 .
No. What is the wish of the Commission?
MS . ST . PIERRE : Motion to issue an Order of Conditions
approving the construction of a single family
dwelling and garage on Lot 3 Alexandra St. ,
with the condition that the proposed shed_be
removed from the site plan and they will come
back if they wish to have a shed at a later
date , with the standard Order of Conditions 1-
25 .
Page 7
MR. MELLO : In the original order we had an item, that
prohibited any work within so many feet of the
haybales to keep them from getting close to
it. We need that eliminated or just make it
clear that this Order supercedes the other
one .
DISCUSSION ENSUED - This Order supercedes the condition governing
the Order which approved the Subdivision - Summit Acres - which
prohibits construction activity. DEP 55-350 . Condition #30 .
MR . BOGIGIAN: I second the motion.
MR . HORRIGAN: I have a motion to close the hearing and issue
an Order of Conditions , 1-13 and 14-26 and to
eliminate condition #30 on this site only for
DEP 55-350 . Any further discussion on this
motion. All in favor say aye , 7 ayes. Any
opposed. No . Motion carries .
Page 8
MR. HORRIGAN : I realize there a number of people who would
like to tape this meeting , if you would state
your name and who is taping?
Attorney William DiMento , Swampscott .
ATTY. DIMENTO : I object to the request under Chapter 39 ,
Section 23b, of the MGL. This is a public
meeting, under the open meeting law,
MR. HORRIGAN : That ' s right.
ATTY. DIMENTO : There ' s no obligation for any person to reveal
for what reason or who it is for or who is
taping.
MR. HORRIGAN: We didn ' t ask for who they are taping.
ATTY. DIMENTO : To satisfy your curiosity and not to comply
with the request, it is attorney William R .
Dimento , 990 Paradise Road, Swampscott .
MR. PERETZIAN: And you are?
ATTY . DIMENTO ; I am an attorney.
My name is Gregor MacGregor of the Law Firm, MacGregor and Shay.
I ' ll be here speaking later tonight and I 'm taping the meeting as
well .
MR. HORRIGAN: The whole meeting?
MR. PERETZIAN : That ' s all he wanted to known.
ATTY. MACGREGOR: The portion that deals with the Stop & Shop
application . Thank you.
MR. HORRIGAN : Put it up there any place , You ' re going to
keep it in your hand or?
ATTY. DIMENTO: Yes , I ' m afraid the height will . . .
MR. HORRIGAN, Okay, stand back out of the way. Is there
anybody else?
l
Page 9
MR . PERETZIAN : Barrister, are you going o
, Y g g to tape .
ATTY. KEILTY: I am not.
MR . HORRIGAN : 3. Public Hearing for a NOI for Stop & Shop
Supermarket Co . , Inc . P . O . Box 1942 , Boston. Proposed work is for
the development of a Supermarket facility. Proposed work entails
working with the buffer zone including construction of a stormwater
detention basin, grading, paving, etc . for the property known as
Howley St. , Map 86 , Lots 130 , 131 , 132 , 133 & 134 , in Peabody and
Salem.
MR. HORRIGAN : One more thing , we are not going to talk about
traffic , we ' re only going to talk about the
issues that we as a Conservation Commission
can discuss , we have a lot of people , I
believe that want to talk on this and the
issues that we will discuss are the Wetlands
ACT items and flooding and the Conservation
Conservancy district, zoning in the City of
Peabody. Do you want to continue .
Attorney John R. Keilty, 40 Lowell St.
Christopher R . Mello , Eastern Land Survey
Paul Sommer, Sommer Environmental Technologies , Inc .
James McDowell , Eastern Land Survey
ATTY. KEILTY: I am representing Stop & Shop Companies with
respect to an application that they have
presented to the City of Peabody Conservation
Commission for the development of a site
located in Peabody and Salem, Massachusetts .
With me this evening are representatives of
Eastern Land Survey, both Jim McDowell and
Christopher Mello and additionally Paul Sommer
from Sommer Environmental Technologies. We
would like to break up the presentation into
several aspects and they will be presented to
you in an overview presentation by myself and
then Mr. Sommer will address standards of
performance and resources areas and then
hydraulic issues and flood plain issues will
be presented to you by Mr. McDowell of Eastern
Land Survey. This proposal is for the
development of a Stop & Shop Supermarket
facility. We have filed an application for
variance here with the City of Peabody and it
has been granted, however that is the subject
of some litigation in the Superior Court of
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts .
Page 10
ATTY. KEILTY: Additionally, we have filed in Salem for a
planned PUD application. And we will
additionally be filing also with Salem with
the Conservation Commission. We have
reflected these applications and the status of
those applications in our NOI . The proposal
that we will present to you this evening calls
for the development of a parking lot and
supermarket facility and what we have chosen
to do is present to the Board that box, if you
will , that supermarket facility. I ' ll use the
graphics that we have rather than this .
ATTY. DIMENTO: Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt for a moment?
MR. HORRIGAN : Sure .
ATTY. DIMENTO : On a jurisdictional matter, could I examine
the affidavit that' s on file relative to the
notice provided pursuant to the statute .
ATTY. KEILTY: That would be return of service , we used a
constable in this instance to serve notice
upon the abutters to the property.
MR. HORRIGAN : Why don ' t we go on.
CLERK : We don ' t have anything here .
ATTY. DIMENTO : I raise that issue before we waste the Boards '
time in hearing the hearing if , where its '
jurisdictional as you know, since April S . for
a hearing to proceed under Chapter 31 , 131
Section 40 ( 2 ) that a certificate of , an
affidavit by the petitioner must be on file
prior to the hearing. And if there is none on
file , than the Board doesn' t have jurisdiction
and I suggest that it would be a error of time
or a waste of time to convene a hearing if it
is not jurisdictionally proper to do so . So i
just ask, just so you don ' t waste an hour or
two hours in a hearing that would have to be
repeated anyway. The purpose of that is that
I represent several people in the neighborhood
that I don ' t know whether they were notified
and if they were , there ' s only one way for me
to determine if they have been
jurisdictionally protected, in by examining
the affidavit required by the statute . I have
a copy of the statute if you ' d like to see it
Page 11
MR . HORRIGAN: No , I ' m not going to go through the statute
now. I guess what you ' re telling me is that
you would like to examine those at some time .
Don ' t you have the right to examine them later
and then appeal .
ATTY . DIMENTO: No. I do , but it would be a waste of this
Board ' s time to have a hearing if there is no
jurisdiction of the Board to have it without
that affidavit on file and it would seem to me
in the interest of time , we know we are going
to have a hearing and if you do have a hearing
it should be pursuant to the statue .
MR . HORRIGAN : Let me ask you councillor?
ATTY. KEILTY: I have the return of service from the
constable who served the abutters . I could
interrupt the proceedings at this time and go
over to my office and get it or, in the
alternative . . .
MR . HORRIGAN : No , let me ask further, that the abutters you
have are the right abutters?
ATTY . KEILTY: Yes .
MR. HORRIGAN: Okay, we ' ll go on.
ATTY. DIMENTO : Thank you.
MR. MARINO : And another thing, through you Mr. Chairman ,
on filing a NOI , the next time this happens on
a new such a large scale of abutters , if you
could put on your NOI all the abutters names
on the NOI , also . So we can match them up on
the NOI with the . . .
ATTY. KEILTY: I think I was at the point where I was
suggesting to the Board, that what is being
considered this evening.
MR. HORRIGAN: Okay, let ' s , maybe we can turn this right
against the wall so that as many people as
possible can look at it, Atty. DiMento , maybe
you could move down here and they could put
that right against the wall .
Page 1%
ATTY . KEILTY: Just for orientation (pointed too on map ) .
This is Howley St. , in Peabody, MA. The line
between Peabody and Salem is right here . This
is the City line between the property which
traverses , actually bisects the front portion
of the building this area is to be utilized
for parking. It will be an access to the
property and egress at this point on Howley
St. There will be an additional access and
egress to the property at that point on Howley
St. This will be the rear of the premises.
There is an area that Mr. McDowell will
discuss with you later this evening. In this
general area of the property which is a water
management facility. This is the Brennan
property which is referred to in the NOI , I 'm
sorry the former Brennan property is right
here . This area is owned by John Jeffers and
then the remaining parcel of land , with an
exception , this dotted line represents an area
that is owned by John Jeffers . What I ' d like
to speak to at this point, is that we are
showing to the Board, a building, which is a
building that the Stop & Shop hopes to develop
for this site . In event that the variance is
eventually, is capable of being utilized, this
is the building that will be developed. In
the event that the PUD, is eventually adopted
in Salem, that is the building . There is one
possible scenario , in which the building would
change . That would be an intrusion we would
need to remove without benefit of a zone
change and without benefit of a variance . We
would need to have a setback of some 40 feet
rather than 10 feet of side line . And there
would be area of the building, let ' s for the
sake of this evenings discussion, suggest that
it was this entire area. Now, the issues as
presented to the Conservation Commission will
remain the same with respect to surface water
runoff , impervious site , impact upon the
wetland, so that my suggestion to the Board,
if there is in fact a change at a later date
with respect to the size of the facility, that
the issues as presented to this Board , do not
change . This is the channel which is known as
the North River ( Showed on plan) this is the
existing railroad track and our property is,
as the Board can see on the other side of the
railroad track from an area known as the North
River.
Page 13
ATTY. KEILTY: I ' d like to also point out by way of
orientation, this is the City of Peabody Old
South Burial Ground, think, I hink that I ' d like now
to turn over the presentation to Paul Sommer,
of Sommer Environmental Technologies . Thank
you.
Paul Sommer , Sommer Environmental Technologies , Inc . Wakefield , MA
MR . SOMMER: Having received, having heard this
introduction to the site . I would like to
digress a little bit probably more for the
benefit of the abutters than the Commission
itself , but I think it is valuable to present
to this hearing what we ' re doing here , why
we ' re here and each of the resource areas
we ' re dealing with. We have an overview,
essentially of the site , what I have done is
but together, a handout, that represents each
of the sets of performance standards which we
deal with under the Wetlands Protection Act.
ACT - gave out handouts to the Commission,
these are certainly available if you ' d like to
pass those around. I ' d like to go first
through the performance standards what they
mean and then I will go through the site
specifics . In general with respect to the two
Towns and specifically with respect with
Peabody in order to clarify exactly what we
are here for and what we are trying and how we
fulfill our obligations under the Wetlands
Protection Act. We have several varieties of
resource areas here . We have the North River
Channel, Land Under Water Body; we have in
brown on this plan, the bank, the river bank
which is also a specific protected resource
area. We have areas of vegetation , whether
they are potentially Bordering Vegetated
Wetlands (BVW) or not is something that we
have to ascertain under this proposal . We
also have an area described by the FEMA maps
and through the Conservancy District in
Peabody, well FEMA maps , an area of Bordering
Land Subject To Flooding. Each of these
categories are specifically identified in the
ACT . In addition there is the potential for
Isolated Land Subject to Flooding, small
pocketed areas which are potentially subject
to flooding. I have been on the site ,
identified those resource areas which are
present, specifically on the overall site .
Page 14
MR. SOMMER : We do have Land Under Water Body. We do have
Bank. We do have Bordering Land Subject to
Flooding, all the cross hatched, hatched
yellow area (Showed on plan ) I also identified
three areas of interest with respect to
vegetation and potential water storage as
isolated land subject to flooding.
Specifically in Peabody we have land under
water body, bank, this area of vegetative
community and the bordering land subject to
flooding. I ' d like to go through these
performance standards just quickly to indicate
how we have complied. As far as bank is
concerned, I took these in numerical order
from 310CMR 10 regulations, that ' s why there
taken in this order. In Peabody, we have
Bank, that' s a resource area. We are staying ,
we have defined a 100 foot buffer zone from
that resource area. We have no plans for
altering the stability of the bank, no change
to the water carrying capacity of this system.
No change or effect to groundwater or surface
water within the plans for the Peabody area.
We are not altering the breeding habitat. You
can see by that other plan, that there is
absolutely no change occurring within the bank
area. Next, BVW, BVW is identified by the
presence of identifying species , wetlands
identifier species over 50% in an area
adjacent to water course , an area of extreme
wet which connects to a water course . We do
not have a distinct bordering vegetative
community due to the _presence of the railroad
track system off of the North River Channel .
There are some vegetative wetland plants
present on the bank. These are acknowledged
but they are concurrent with the bank resource
area and as such have been identified
concurrently as a protected resource under 131
40. So we simply are not altering in this
proposal , we are not altering any BVW, we ' re
not altering, as such we are not replicating
or dealing with any abstract of the BVW ,
including rare and endangered species , none
have been identified for this area of Peabody
and Salem. Land Under Water Bodies , it' s
clear that if we are doing anything to the
bank then obviously, we are not, there is no
intrusive activity into the North River
Channel and as such we are having no impact on
its carrying capacity, it ' s ability to provide
Page 15
MR . SOMMER : breeding habitat whether that exists or not in
this particular water course . Bordering Land
Subject to Flooding under 310CMR 10 57 , we
clearly have a site which is involved with
this resource area. And the Rules and
Regulations for dealing with this type of
resource are very specific in that if we are
altering the capacity to hold water, we have
to compensate for that. I am not going to go
into a lengthy discussion as to how
compensation is going to occur, compensatory
storage , Mr. McDowell will do that after I am
through. We have the potential for Isolated
Land Subject to Flooding. We do have in fact,
an abandoned railroad spur in this area
( showed on plan ) shaded purple on the plan.
This railroad spur is concrete on two sides ,
has railroad tracks literally going down into
a mucky area and is supporting a type of
supporting cattails , phragmitiis , various
wetlands plants . We have looked at the area,
the calculations for the aerial extent of this
railroad spur do not indicate , or indicate
that it does not store the required 1/4 acre
foot of water to an access of 6 inches during
any given period of time during the year. We
have simply a catchment area, concrete on
either side and a railroad bed which has
developed an impervious nature through time ,
through the accumulation of organic material
and it is holding water, like a bathtub . It
is not in our assessment , a resource area.
There are a couple of other areas in Salem,
just because they are on the plan, I want to
explain what they are . Adjacent to the
railroad tracks there is an area of wetlands
vegetation. In the very center, it is a low
area in the very center, it may in fact have
just barely 50% wetland species . Be that as
it may, it does not border a water course , it
does not store water to the requisite 1 /4 acre
foot to 6 inches , it is not isolated land
subject to flooding and it is not bordering
vegetated wetland , it is on the other side of
the railroad tracks . Similarly, there is a
low area in here , which is supporting soft
rush, some wetlands plants . It appears that
the drainage is generally in this direction
out of this area and again it does not satisfy
the regulations , there is no distinct water ,
no distinct channel to the North River and
Page 16
MR. SOMMER: there is no storage of water to make this
significant area as isolated land subject to
flooding . We have provided in the NOI a more
complete description of these areas . We are
also attempting to make sure we are fulfilling
our obligations with respect to 131 40 , in
identifying the areas and pursuing and in
pursuing this NOI are here before you because
we feel that we have to fulfill those
obligations . I ' ll turn this over to Jim
McDowell with respect to the compensatory
storage and drainage .
James McDowell , Eastern Land Survey Associates , Inc . Peabody, MA
MR. MCDOWELL: Thank you. In preparing the site design for
the proposed Stop & Shop in Peabody and Salem,
one of the very early tasks we entered into
was an analysis of the site in its present
condition and we went through various gradings
studies to develop a site that in its '
proposed conditions would conform with the
requirements for activities in bordering land
subject to flooding. Namely that the various
flood storage volumes , existing a various
increments of elevations , one foot in this
particular case , after development would be at
least equal to or greater than those flood
storage volumes that exist today on the site .
On the Peabody side of the project, the FEMA
flood plain, which I an approximately going to
trace out here for you, runs at elevation 12 ,
right up to Howley St . and of course up to and
across the railroad to the North River. As
the property crosses the boundary , that
elevation drops to elevation 11 in Salem.
After the design of the grading , we performed
several cross sections through the property in
order to determine the incremental volumes
that existed today and could exist after the
proposed development of the property .
Attachment E in the NOI which I ' ll read the
key figures from, summarizes the results of
those calculations . And I will read these on
an elevation by elevation basis . In the
existing condition between 7 and 8 , 7 is the
lowest elevation that was found by survey to
exist on the site , there are 889 cubic feet
presently of flood storage capability . in the
proposed condition , there will be a total of
8326 cubic feet or approximately 9 times that
storage .
Page 17
MR . MCDOWELL: A significant part of that storage ,
compensatory storage occurs in this area that
I 'm showing on this portion of the site here
( showed on plan ) the area is split into 2
separate catchments , one catchment will
receive the run off coming from the back
portion of the building . We ' ll talk about the
drainage system in more detail in a minute .
Will receive the overland runoff coming from
the loading area portion and runoff from the
existing bank from the various properties out
here (As he is talking , he is pointing to
areas on the map ) by means of a paved swale
into this area. This front catchment area
will actually function somewhat as a detention
facility. The back one is not designed to
function as detention, but rather to provide
more than adequate compensatory storage ,
especially between elevations 7 and 9 .
Between elevations 8 and 9 , there is presently
9137 cubic feet of storage on the site and in
the proposed conditions there will be some
34 , 700 cubic feet of storage . Between
elevations 9 and 10 , there are 43 , 462 cubic
feet of storage in the present condition. In
the proposed conditions there will be some
48 , 337 cubic feet. Between elevations 10 and
11 again in the existing condition there is a
little over 111 , 000 cubic feet, in the
proposed condition it will be a bit over
112 , 000 cubic feet. And with respect to
elevation 12 , which is really only applying to
the Peabody side per the FEMA flood map, there
is presently 68, 350 cubic feet of storage and
in the proposed condition there will be a
116 , 350 cubic feet of storage . The obvious
reason for presenting all that information is
to show that design of the site , the grading
_ . of the site has been accomplished in such a
manner that, that performance standard is
satisfied or exceeded in all cases on the
incrementent elevations . With respect to the
proposed building , the building has been
designed with a slab , the lowest floor
elevation of elevation 12 . 5 , or approximately,
or exactly 6 inches above the 100 year flood
plain on the Peabody side . There are no
basement or mechanical areas below that slab ,
that is the lowest grade that will exist on
the building on the site .
Page 18
MR . MCDOWELL: With respect to the storm drainage system ,
there really are two kind of distinct systems
that will join together in the middle of the
site . The front parking lot is to be drained
by a series of 4 catch basins , as indicated on
the drawing , each of those basins will have
kind of a bowl effect around it and high
points in between . The basins , the piping , in
this case because of the flatness of the site
we are proposing a 1 foot high by 4 foot wide
cast in place concrete channel , rather than
the usual 12 or 18 inch concrete pipe to
conduct the runoff to a point in Salem that
I ' m indicating here as a proposed drain
manhole . The backside of the property and
again the banking and the back yards of the
various homes here in Salem will all drain
ultimately to this catchment area as I
referred to here with the back areas of
compensatory equalized. There is an outlet
proposed 12 inch drain , outletting from that
again connecting to this proposed drain
manhole . The roof drains from the building
will also connect to that manhole . From the
drain manhole , we are proposing to construct
an open concrete channel , again on the Salem
side , but this will be the outlet for the
entire drainage system to the North River .
The concrete channel is being reviewed and
will require approval by the MBTA because it
is crossing their trackage and obviously will
require action by the Salem Conservation
Commission because that is the one place where
the bank of the North River will be penetrated
by the drainage system. Propose the concrete
open channel , because it allows a free water
surface , allows the system to work better if
you will with the fluctuations of the North
River. The various catch basins in the front
portion of the site as well as the outlet for
this proposed area back here will all be
designed with appropriate gas traps . The Stop
& Shop policy on clean-out of such features is
to inspect them on a quarterly basis , 4 x ' s a
year and clean them at any rate , once a year
whether it is needed to be cleaned or not .
The 2 areas back here , compensatory, the
catchment area and compensatory area will be
lined with stone riprap and are designed to be
free drainage following the conclusion of an
extreme rainfall event or a flooding event .
Page 19
MR. MCDOWELL: We have several other environmental controls
proposed for the site and I think, Paul it
would be appropriate for you to speak to
those .
MR . SOMMER: Erosion and siltation controls although are
not readily evident on this plan, the one
underneath but I 'm not going to make it move ,
we do have a complete line , actually following
the property line proposed erosion and
sedimentation control by joint haybale and
silt fence to be installed per the usual , or
the accepted method by DEP . That is
essentially as far as Peabody' s concerned the
major management technique that we ' re
proposing however , all catch basins will be
covered during construction so as to eliminate
erosion during the constructive process to the
basins and to the river and controls will be
set in place in order to contain all materials
that are mobilized during the constructive
process. Sumps will be cleaned on a regular
basis just to maintain and assure no transport
of silt and sediment into the North River
system offsite as far as Peabody is concerned
but on site , we will control all of the storm
drainage system until such time as it is
appropriate to uncover those manholes and have
a fully operational system .
MR . MCDOWELL: I think one other thing to add Paul , because
it is a regular question from the Commission
and certainly not zone like this important
issue , is how the building will be heated .
The building will be heated by natural gas .
There is gas available on Howley St. There is
no proposal or plan for any underground
tankage on the site or any storage of . . .
chemicals . At this point , it would be best if
we could answer any questions the Commission
or the public might have .
MR. HORRIGAN: On the flow of water out in a 100 year storm,
is it more now with this change than before?
MR . MCDOWELL: The 100 year storm is an unique event to
analyze in this particular case , Mr. Horrigan ,
because in 100 year storm this site is already
covered with water . As is the North River and
a good portion of Howley St.
Page 20
MR . 14CDOWELL: There would certainly be some increase in
runoff from the site , yes , to the North River.
Because the site today contains several
buildings , these dotted building outlines
( showed on plan ) certainly a far amount of
impervious area, represented by those , the old
foundations which are in the front of the
site . The balance of the site is mixed, there
is a bit of bituminous concrete , but primarily
it is a soiled surface , fairly compact soil
surface . Not a virgin gravel or anything as
far as allowing infiltration . But there is
some infiltration capability today. I believe
that this catchment functioning as a detention
area will help diminish the impact.
MR. HORRIGAN: Is there any difference in the peak level that
you ' re going to see or elevations from that
type of storm.
MR. MCDOWELL: As far as the flood elevations? I don ' t
believe there will be a change . Although we
are showing an increased flood storage
capability on the site , given the size of the
catchment area and the fact that the North
River in a full flood situation as being
heavily influenced by the tide as well as by
runoff , I don ' t believe that there will be any
measurable change as a result of this project
one way or the other.
MR. MARINO: Mr. Horrigan , (Yes ) actually its almost
doubled. . . 116 ,000 some odd , you also must have
factored it in through TR 55 , especially with
your buildings that are existing there in the
flood plain, so there actually already down
and putting a new building in there , just
almost rule of thumb, pretty similar.
MR . MCDOWELL: It is not a dissimilar situation, as they say,
there is the capability on the site today in
some areas for some infiltration. But a far
amount of the site which consists of the
buildings or the old concrete foundations on
Howley St. , a least one bituminous road way
that runs through there and again a lot of the
soil areas which are old industrial yard
areas , area very very compact soils so have
minimal infiltration capacity. Again you
right the difference is not great.
Page 21
MR . MARINO : Now that you mention soil , where will be the
actual area during the excavation will you be
storing that material?
MR . MCDOWELL : The material that ' s excavated will by and
large be removed from the site . As you can
see from those flood storage volume
calculations , with the exception of some
engineered fill under the building slab, in
this area and that fill will have a typical
depth of 3 feet or less , especially as you
move here toward the banking. There is a fair
amount of soil removal that will occur,
especially in the front portion of the site
and to an extent the back portion of the site .
That will be excess material and will be
removed from the site in accordance with the
City' s earth removal . . .
MR. MARINO: I think I may have throw a curve here , what
I ' m getting at is , is removing that and doing
that excavating , your probably, are they just
going to put it directly into trucks and
moving it right out .
MR . MCDOWELL : I would expect, given the staging of this it
would be the best way to work, there maybe
some stockpile areas , but they will be pretty
small . Those stockpiles could be stored up on
this portion of the site away from any of the
flooding activities and so forth.
MR . MARINO : Would it be first those block house , they call
them with the chimney' s , are they going to go
first?
MR. MCDOWELL : That area would be a logical place to start.
The site demolition would probably occur
before any site excavation.
MR. MARINO : Also your 8000 gallon , I don ' t think you
mentioned much on the sewerage capability
there .
MR. MCDOWELL : Okay, let me discuss that. The waste water
from the site is going to be collected from
this part of the building . There are actually
2 collection points ; one point is an 8000
gallon grease trap , that will pick up any
interior water that in any way comes in
contact with food preparation, being the wash
Page 22
MR. MCDOWELL: reprocessing or anything of that nature . The
sanitary waste will come from a separate line
and the outfall , outflow from the grease traps
from a separate line into a proposed pump
station located here ( Showed on Plan ) and then
there will be a fourth sewer come back out to
the existing sewer on Howley St. The reason
for the pump station and a fourth sewer is
that by the time the mechanical people got
done with the plumbing schematics and so forth
for this, and given the fact that the Howley
St. sewer is really rather shallow, we will
probably only have 2 or 3 foot headers . That
will be a new . . . . pump station with back up
generator capability, probably tied in to the
backup generation system of the building
itself .
MR. MARINO : The pads for the backup generator, those will
be above flood plain?
MR. MCDOWELL: Yes, I believe those are actually contained
within the building.
MR . MARINO : And also those grease traps , will be built to
the standard , that in a flood plain , it will
not leak. . .
MR. MCDOWELL: We ' re calling for the grease traps and the
pump station accesses to be all bolted and
gasketed covers which are the water tight type
of covers . So that they are accessible , but
in a flood situation they are water tight .
MR . MARINO : So they will not purge .
MR. MCDOWELL: Right.
MS . ST . PIERRE : Are you done? ( Mr . Marino - Yes ) (A Lady had
her hand up ) First the Commission will ask
questions and then it will be turned over to
the public . Did I hear you see that there
will be a net increase in run off of site?
MR. MCDOWELL: Yes , there will be some increase , I don ' t have
an exact figure , but I could certainly provide
it to you .
MS . ST . PIERRE : By what percentage , roughly?
MR. MCDOWELL: Roughly, in the order of 15-200 .
Page 23
MS . ST . PIERRE : Have you looked at any way that could be
prevented?
MR . MCDOWELL : Again, we ' ve looked at gathering the water
from the storage , the loading area, which is
the back of the building into this detention,
this will function as a detention facility. I
hesitate to use it, to call it strictly a
detention facility because it has a dual
function in this case . Stormwater detention,
but also collection . The grade back here
( showed on plan ) being elevation 8
approximately, are such that you really
couldn' t develop a proper cover to have a
piped system collecting the water for this
area, so allowing it into that catchment. But
that will serve a detention function.
MS . ST . PIERRE : I think we would like to get a little more
information. I understand that part of the
site is in Salem and part of the site is in
Peabody, however , the resource area, the North
River. .
MR . MCDOWELL: It' s the resource area, yes , I understand.
MS . ST . PIERRE : From my point of view, I ' m interested in the
detention pond and how they ' re designed and
how they function.
MR. MCDOWELL: We ' ll provide you with a full pre and post
construction for a 10 and a 100 year .
MS . ST . PIERRE : And if you can find ways to insure that the
increased runoff is zero . Also had questions ,
Paul talked a little about the environmental
controls in Peabody, could you also talk about
the ones in Salem.
MR. SOMMER : Essentially the same systems will be in
affect. However , obviously the outfall here
will be protected with haybales . . . . we ' re
assuming that we will band this pipe with the
haybales and similar , exactly the same system,
both silt fence and haybales in order to
assure that materials moving into this control
area, runoff control area, is run through a
filtration system prior to its release .
Page 24
MR. SOMMER: Obviously as we generate construction
activities with this culvert, we will
necessarily providing similar protection at
the edge of the North River.
MR. HORRIGAN: Is that described someplace?
MR . SOMMER : Not in our filing before this Commission. It
was in Salem. Certainly, again, it is very
difficult, we ' re working with 2 towns , and I
hope you understand that in my presentation, I
tried to incorporate Salem. I just didn ' t
know how much of the nitty gritty you want.
MS . ST . PIERRE : I think for example , a lot of the runoff ,
pretty much the drainage plan and taking the
drainage from Peabody directing it through
Salem, to the North River, so I think we would
like to see the details.
MR. SOMMER : okay.
MS . ST . PIERRE : I would just like you to elaborate more , why
you feel it is necessary to have concrete
drainage swales when vegetative swales would
do a better job attenuating pollutants?
MR. MCDOWELL: I absolutely agree with you , that they would
do a better job . The problem we have in the
front is , #1 . we have a large paved area
coming very close to the lot line , we don ' t
have a lot room for vegetative , very frankly.
The concrete channels have been proposed ,
again, it is a very flat site , it is in a
flood plain and we have very minimal slopes
available and conventional piping in a case
like this just doesn ' t develop a proper water
way area.
MR. HORRIGAN : What is the top of the concrete? I ' m
interested in this piece that is going to the
parking lot, is there grading on the top of
it.
MR. MCDOWELL: No . There is individual catch basins connected
to it. ( Showed in Plan ) Catch basin, catch
basin, these will be connected with 12 inch
duck of lined piping . Man hole here which
would be the beginning of the concrete channel
to another manhole here , again under ground
channel , basin, basin.
Page 25
MR . HORRIGAN : Is that all solid?
MR. MCDOWELL: Yes , re-enforced concrete , full re-enforced
concrete construction. As . .
MS . ST . PIERRE : Those pipes are subsurface .
MR . MCDOWELL: Yes , yes they are , as are the channels . The
channels are under ground . You will not see
them, I think a boxed culvert might be a
better description.
MS . ST . PIERRE : So when you say a concrete drainage swale , you
mean a subsurface .
MR . MCDOWELL: Yes , it is not a swale , it is a channel , or a
boxed culvert. I think a boxed culvert would
be a better way to consider it. The open
portion however, will be from this man hole to
the North River. Now the reason that is an
open portion, is we are working with the MBTA
to actually create a bridge . It ' ll be a re-
enforced concrete abutment today, as opposed
to , if you ever walked along a railroad, years
ago , it was very common for them to where they
had to bridge a small stream, use granite
blocks . If you walked along a track and see
the granite blocks and a little stream flowing
underneath. Well this is the 20th century and
we are not going to be building it out of the
granite blocks , but rather re-enforced
concrete . This channel would be open, again
to provide an adequate water way area.
Side One - Taped ended - Turned over.
MS . ST . PIERRE : . . . . to protect the resource area. It seems
that you have a lot of paving .
MR. MCDOWELL : There is a lot of paving , yes . The area here ,
immediately adjacent is within a couple of
feet of the line of the actual railroad, and
the railroad is , and I 'm sure you ' ll get down
to see it at some point, is a typical
railroad, it is all rock ballasted . There is
virtually no vegetation going across .the
railroad bed and all we don ' t propose to put
any there , because the railroad will just
spray it out of existence any how. As we move
down into this portion of the site we do have
the capability of putting in some vegetation .
Page 26
MR . MCDOWELL: However, the entire paved area is designed to
flow to either these catch basins or this
catchment area back here . None of it, is
capable of going over the track if you will ,
it is all coming down into the site . So in
that respect, any potential pollutants, I
think the greatest opportunity there being ,
oil drippings and so forth from automobiles or
trucks , will be captured in the within the
very basins that will have the gas traps or
captured in here ( Showed on plan ) which again
will be trapped.
MR. SOMMER: If I may through the Chair, I will add one
other aspect, in the process of putting this
together, one of the thoughts I had, harkening
back to the original filings by Chase
Properties and the interest that was generated
with respect to the fence and the trash
barrier control type of fence that was used on
that property, it would be my suggestion and I
have a detail here that I was going to present
to the Commission for the fence , that the
length of the area around to this point
( showed on plan ) that this type of fence be
installed. I think it would be appropriate as
far as any control of trash off-site , I think
that we would also provide a maintenance type
of schedule or the assessment, or agreement by
Stop & Shop to police this barrier as Chase
Properties is supposed to police theirs in
order to provide for elimination of any trash
going off-site . We also , obviously are not
doing anything on the side of the existing
active railroad track and as such the
vegetation which exists there will not be
impacted in the least.
MR . HORRIGAN : Are you doing any cleaning on the other side?
MR. SOMMER : I think that is certainly something , I ' m sure
Stop & Shop would be move than willing to
agree to some clean-up along the area .
MR. MCDOWELL: Providing that the railroad would allow them
some 'access .
MR . SOMMER: The property is indeed owned by the MBTA.
MR. HORRIGAN: Could you people pursue that a little bit?
Page 27
MS . ST . PIERRE : Related to that, would be any opportunities
for creating public walk way.
MR. SOMMER: That' s because the property is owned in fee by
the railroad, when we ' re talking to them
absolutely, we could ask them.
MR. BOGIGIAN : The City is doing that.
MS . ST . PIERRE : If we could get a developer to do the walk
way, that' s better. My last question is , can
you put the building in Peabody and the
parking lot in Salem?
MR. SOMMER: No , I don ' t think the site works .
MR. MCDOWELL: We ' ve been through a lot of discussion with
Stop & Shop about building places , quite
frankly.
MR . MARINO: Through you, Mr. Chairman , Jim, on the up to
20% on the net increases , is possible , I now
the flood storage capacity and when you have
FEMA building such along the ocean front and
others , they put holding tanks under their
buildings , is it possible to put a holding
tank under that building and then purge it out
that will increase your net increase to 20%
MR . MCDOWELL: We can take a look at that. I seem to get a
clear reading that the Commission would be
looking for additional retention .
MR. HORRIGAN : Joe .
MR . BOGIGIAN: No , I 'm all set, I think it was a great
presentation .
MR . HORRIGAN : John, do you have anything else? No . Arthur ,
No . Anyone else , No . Curt - No . We ' ll open
it up for questions , now. Again , I want to
reiterate , we ' re just talking about wetlands
act issues , we ' re only talking about flooding
and controls and conservancy districts issues .
That ' s is all we have anything to do with this
particular Commission . I ' m going to set a
limit of 4 minutes on each speaker and I ' m
going to ask Councillor Slattery, if you would
like to be the first one to speak. Thank you.
Page 28
Councillor John Slattery, Councillor at Large , 20 Orchard St.
COUNC . SLATTERY: Thank you, I ' d just like to point out to this
Commission, that this project has been the
subject of much acrimony among the
neighborhoods . I know it is not in your
purview, but I do think, that you just need to
be reminded of that, when you ' re going through
that issues that you confront in making a
determination whether to approve the project.
I ' d also like you to pay close attention to
the drainage , cause I haven ' t really heard
anything here that satisfies me about the
drainage from this site . Their having a net
increase of 20% . I think by the time , after
the amount of time this project ' s been on the
table here and in Salem, they should have had
those issues ironed out before they came
before you and the reason they don ' t have them
ironed out is obviously there must be some
problem with that and I think you need to look
real closely at that before you make an
decision. It would be pre-mature to make any
decision without that information and I just
urge you to make sure that everything that you
can do to prevent this project from going
through that you do, because it will be a real
problem for the neighborhood up there , and I
know it ' s not within your purview again, but I
feel that I should speak on behalf of the
neighborhood. They' re not in favor of this
project. Thank you .
Greg MacGregor of the Law Firm in Boston MacGregor & Shay,
ATTY. MACGREGOR: I represent the Ward 4 , Ward 6 Association as
a special counsel . I 'm surprised that we ' re
limited to 4 minutes , but I ' ll do my best to
be brief. In conclusion. Here are the
questions I would have asked and wanted the
answers to tonight, within the 4 minutes .
What percentage of the flood storage lost by
this development occurs in Peabody? What
percentage of flood storage compensation for
that loss will be provided in Peabody? If the
answer is none , all of it is over here in
another community, by next question is , Is the
NOI pending in the other Community and whether
or not how does the applicant propose to
assure , you , that the mitigation that they
offer you, will actually happen?
Page 29
ATTY. MACGREGOR: If it is never proposed in Salem, or
conditioned in Salem, you won ' t get the
promises you have been given. I would ask for
all flood storage lost in Peabody, to be
compensated for in Peabody. It is there
choice where to pave . Those . . . . . requires
the paving to be here and the building to be
here . Largely in another community. Any more
than some law requires what little
compensation they want to provide , be over
here . Now related to that, is why can ' t you
provide 100% storage compensation like the
wetlands act regulations require . Are you
asking for a variance from the regulations ,
their performance standard for work in
Bordering Land Subject to Flooding? If so ,
when are you going to ask for that Variance in
a formal application, which has to be approved
by the State as well . So you see a lot of
important questions flow from their desire to
build it this way. Now, also , next question,
do I understand that there is going to be
connection to the river that does not now
exist? If not, what is the mention of a 6 to
8 foot big culvert in the environmental
studies that are being worked on to be
submitted to the State? Is that culvert going
to be somewhere in this vicinity ( Showed on
plan ) Is it going to convey the drainage
carried by the underground pipes or swales or
whatever those are from the parking lot? And
aprepo your question, what treatment will be
provided on site for that stormwater. Related
to that, what percentage of all the drainage
goes over here , why is so little land reserved
for compensation? Why are they hedging on
their conclusion that this will be adequate to
provide compensation? Why do they say that
its not really going to provide compensation?
Why is there an increase in the volume of the
100 year flood flows off-site , related to that
is , is there going to be an increase in the
rate of flow of the 100 year flood. I tell
you, you have 2 inquiries there , volume and
rate and you what to have answers to both and
you want to have controls on both . And
finally, I ' ll close with, Is there a hazardous
waste cleanup that is going to have to take
place on this site , under 21E and is it going
to take place in conjunction with development,
before development, after or when?
Page 30
ATTY . MACGREGOR : And what are the hazardous materials that have
to be dealt with on the site and how do they
relate to exposing this site to a whole
different drainage plan and linking it to the
river during rainfall . That was second to
last. Last is, what plans that we ' ve looked
at tonight have been filed with the
Commission?
MR . HORRIGAN: I would like to have a copy of your comments?
ATTY. MACGREGOR: I ' d be glad to , make better use of my 4
minutes . So , what plans were filed with the
Commission that have been presented tonight,
related to that? What were the plans that
were on file with the Commission for which the
applicant seeks approval and when were they on
file in relationship to when notice was given
to abutters? An on that score , which I have
to agree with Mr. DiMento , is very important
pre-requisite to the Board hearing the matter ,
was the notice given and the form required
under the ACT , telling those getting the
notice , where they can see the plans? End of
the 4 minutes .
MR . HORRIGAN : Who was it that gave up their right to speak?
I have three questions?
MR . HORRIGAN: Did someone give up their right to speak?
ATTY . MACGREGOR: He was asking , did someone yield while I was
talking to give me an extra minute or two .
Sure , I ' ll give up my time .
ATTY. MACGREGOR: Thank you .
MR . HORRIGAN: Okay, what is your name?
Marie Coca, 128 Lowell St. , Peabody.
MR . HORRIGAN : Are you listed here? No . Well .
I 'm listed; Maureen Kiley
MR . HORRIGAN: Let me just go through these , Joan McSweeney ,
do you wish to speak?
MRS . MCSWEENEY: Yes , I do .
Page 31
Joan McSweeney,
MRS . MCSWEENEY: I have 2 questions . Cities vary in their
requirements . I don ' t know how much of a
buffer zone you ' re supposed for wetlands to
have in Peabody. I have no idea what your
figures are , but I was just concerned that it
was being built on a flood plain and what it
is zoned for now. I did see a white snowy
egret down there , I don' t if its an endangered
species but that' s been in the neighborhood in
the area for the last 2 years . I got some
astonishing figures when I was listening to
the man from Stop & Shop . Its 12 feet in
elevation in Peabody, and 11 foot elevation in
Salem and where all the heavy trucks are going
to be unloading and everything , its an 8 foot
elevation. I can ' t understand that. In your
historic area, that the building is down
belongs to Mrs. Buckley right now, we have
planters there , in 1636 , this building was a
fort, we have a lot of history right in that
area and I really think it should be well
documented before the area is given up. The
Howly St. area coming down the hill , there is
not much history there , it was building that
were built in the 1800 ' s . But to go back to
1638 and dismiss it is bad. on the river
banks as it stands now, are birds galore and
vegetation on that site a group of whispering
aspen trees, which I believe are inducive to
flood plain, there is a business down there
belonging to Mrs . Buckley, that I believe has
a cellar constructed to accommodate flooding ,
one of the historic , one of the historians in
Peabody told me that. Said to be a most
interesting building and eligible for the
national historic register . This area is in a
flood plain, a designation in Peabody and
Salem, I believe both. Harmony Grove Rd. is
flooded several times a year and the area is
flooded . Now we can drain off into the river
all we want, but what about. . . floods ,
everything is coming back at us no matter what
drainage system we have . I live in the area
that' s just beyond this wonderful ponds
they' re going to build to jeopardize kids .
The river has shown no mercy, if spreads left
and right on both sides. And I have serious
considerations about this road here ( pointed
to on map ) where all these big heavy trucks
area going to unload in here .
Page 32
MRS . MCSWEENEY : This is the area that is 8 feet now.
MR. HORRIGAN: Okay, Would you give us a copy of what you
just went over. Somehow?
MRS . MCSWEENEY: Laughed. . .
MR. HORRIGAN : The next one listed here is Hoang Lam.
Hoang Lam, 79 Beaver St. , Salem.
MR . LAM: Tonight, I just come here and listen and I
have no idea about those plans , because I
think all of you experts about those things .
I really don' t know about those things . If I
can, I just come here to oppose this proposal
only and I can save my time for Mr. DiMento ,
who can speak to us . Thank you .
MR . HORRIGAN: Thank you. Maureen Kiley?
Maureen Kiley, 15 Bow St. , Salem, MA.
MRS . KILEY: My concern with the proposal is for a variety
of reasons , since you are the Conservation
Commission, I will request that you pay
attention to the information presented by both
of our attorneys , who have done much more
research into the legal aspects and our rights
then I have had time to do . I would request
that you listen carefully to what they are
saying because they are representing us , the
people in the neighborhood , which will be
directly impacted by this magnificent big box ,
as Mr. Keilty, likes to call it. We ' ll put
the biggest box there that we can and we will
" take all the water apparently, that ' s going to
be created in Peabody and drain it over to
Salem. The hearings haven ' t occurred in
Salem. You don ' t have permission to do
anything in Salem yet. How can you be given,
as Mr. MacGregor, how can you possible give
assurances that there will not be a flooding
problem in Peabody, because it is going to be
solved in Salem, when there isn ' t even another
meeting in Salem scheduled yet. I think those
are requests that you must look at, demands
that you must make of the Stop & Shop . They
have to solve the problems that they create ,
in Peabody, at the Peabody Conservation
Commission and not tell you that Salem is
going to fix it, because in fact, many of the
neighbors in Salem, much more than this room
Page 33
MRS . KILEY: will hold, have been to meeting after meeting
and no one in Salem, have said go ahead, build
these 2 catch basins , put all the water you
want from Peabody there . Open up a hole in
the bank of the North River, we ' ll take it
all . No one has said, that' s okay and you
need to be aware of that. Thank you.
MR. HORRIGAN: Councillor Speliotis , did you want to talk on
this , your name wasn ' t here (on the list)
that' s why I haven ' t called you yet?
Joyce Speliotis ,
MRS . SPELIOTIS : Yes , thank you. I have 2 questions , in the
presentation they spoke of silt screens and
hay bales systems to control run off , which
means that they plan to run off into the North
River and I 'm concerned about that. And my
2nd question is , has anyone done any
subsurface exploration to determine if there
is any hazardous material in the area of the
railroad, because usually where there is
railroad , there is some kind of contamination.
And if they start construction and digging up
earth, I mean, what is that going to do , with
that contamination, that' s going to disturb it
and I find that disturbing and those are my 2
questions, because they did mention silt
screens and haybales .
MR . MARINO : Mr. Chairman , through you. The silt screens
and haybales are basically when there
excavating during construction, to basically
make sure that no siltation goes into the
river. That' s the answer to your first
question. Now on your second question,
basically can you go over that again?
COUNC . SPELIOTIS : Okay, the second question, I ' m really still
concerned about my first one , because I know
they use it. .
MR. MARINO: They use it in all the standard practices
under the wetland protection act for all
conservation commissions .
COUNC . SPELIOTIS : I understand that, but I know they also use it
for that reason to , for the purpose of run
off .
MR . MARINO: In perpetuity, you ' re saying, always?
Page 34
COUNC . SPELIOTIS : They also use it to control run off .
COMMISSION : No .
MR . MARINO : The second question?
COUNC . SPELIOTIS : The second question is , has anyone done any
subsurface exploration to determine if there
is any hazard material in the area of the
railroad?
MR. MARINO : What the learned counsel , Atty. MacGregor was
stating , on a 21E , if something was to be
found in that, immediately that would stop
immediately the excavation of that there ,
whether it be in Salem or Peabody, the health
departments , which have the strongest
enforcement codes would enter in on the
picture immediately.
COUNC . SPELIOTIS : Well , when are they going to do the 21E?
MR. HORRIGAN : Has it been done?
ATTY . KEILTY: For the benefit of Stop & Shop , who has
entered into the Purchase and Sales Agreement,
there has been some exploration conducted and
there has been some removal done by a prior
owner of the land and that removal constituted
much of the surface waste that was on the
side , it additionally addressed some issues
with respect to soils that were on the site
and the Stop & Shop preliminary investigation
has been completed and it is of a nature that
would not deter Stop and Shop from going
forward with its plans and conducting any
remedial plan if necessary.
MR. HORRIGAN : Let me just ask ,
MR. PERETZIAN : Were core samples taken, has any hazardous
materials been taken?
MR. HORRIGAN: Has a 21E been done on the site?
ATTY. KEILTY: Yes , a preliminary 21E .
MR. HORRIGAN: Well , let ' s say. . .
ATTY. KEILTY: I ' d be happy to share the results of the 21E
with this Commission.
Page 35
MR. HORRIGAN: You say preliminary.
ATTY. KEILTY: Phase I . There are usually 3 phases ,
sometimes 4 , that are . . . determine what is the
subsurface soil consists of , secondly, is it
contaminated and what extent is it
contaminated to and then the second phase
would be , what steps should be taken and
whether or not we are out beyond or within
compliance with the regulations , we would be
happy to share that with the Commission .
MR. MARINO : In your NOI , it did say there were no . . . .
ATTY. KEILTY: I will suggest, that if Stop & Shop were to go
forward, there would be certain soils that
would be taken off the site , yes.
MR. MARINO : There were no borings , basically because it
not coming under a title . . . .
ATTY. KEILTY: There were borings.
MR. MARINO : no , let me finish. Under title 5A, you don' t
have a title 5A, because it is sewerage ,
because if you it in your NOI you did state ,
because its being sewerage , out to the 8 ,000
gallons and further we have sewerage out there
and you don ' t have a title SA, so there was no
borings as far as that is concerned .
ATTY. KEILTY: That ' s correct.
MR. SOMMER: There are numerous test borings and monitoring
wells that have been installed on site and
substantial number of chemical analysis which
are presented in this Phase I report.
MS . ST . PIERRE : Don ' t we usually provide that information?
ATTY. KEILTY: No .
MR. HORRIGAN: We usually ask for it.
ATTY. KEILTY: And if we ' ve been asked, we are happy to share
it. I don ' t mean to be obstinate , but there
are competing interest with respect to the
land owner vs. someone who wants to buy the
land and attack whether or not there needs to
be something done . To answer your question ,
no , there not usually shared with the Board.
Page 36
MR. HORRIGAN : Why, I don ' t we go on then , the next one
listed here is Pat Murphy.
MRS . MURPHY: I relinquish my time to the lawyer.
MR. PERETZIAN : Which one?
MRS . MURPHY: Right here .
ATTY. MACGREGOR : The extra time I already took.
MR. HORRIGAN : An the last one I have listed is Attorney
DiMento .
Attorney William R. Dimento , 990 Paradise Road, Swampscott, MA.
ATTY. DIMENTO : Here this evening representing Thomas Pyburn ,
the owner of the property on Howley St. who is
an abutter and entitled to notice under the
ACT . It always disturbs me . . . . It always
disturbs me to come before a Commission that
doesn ' t follow the statute . And I ' m going to
address myself to procedure and I suggest to
the Board. . . if you ' re going to say something ,
speak up so that we can all hear you.
MR. BOGIGIAN : Go ahead, I ' m listening.
ATTY. DIMENTO: It disturbs me , that members of the
Commission, some who may some conflicts of
interest or prejudice , may be involved in this
public hearing , which is a public hearing
under the MGL , and not the Peabody Laws ,
because we know that you have no local wetland
bylaw. And clearly, in the last issue , in
reverse order and I ' m going to ignore the four
minute rule , because the public law allows me
an adequate opportunity to respond to anything
at a public hearing which a developer is given
45 minutes . But the issue raised by Mr .
Keilty and what your entitled to , I suggest to
you people , before you conduct a continuation
of this hearing , read your statute , Chapter
131 , Section 40 . As you know, this petition
is subject to hearings other cities . The City
of Salem and is subject to other proceedings
and with certain filings and I read for you
one section of Chapter 131 , Section 40 , that
says . . . .
MR. HORRIGAN : I would just assume you didn ' t give us. . . . .
Page 37
ATTY . DIMENTO : And I would just assume read it, because it is
important for you to understand. . . .
MR. HORRIGAN : How long is this going to take?
ATTY . DIMENTO : It is 2 sentences .
MR. MARINO : Could you please give me the exact, what is
it?
MS . ST . PIERRE : He is reading from the ACT , not the
regulations .
ATTY . DIMENTO : Chapter 131 , Sec . 40 , in which it states in
Paragraph 1 , no such Notice , this meaning
Notice of Intent, shall be sent before all
permits , variances and approvals required by
local bylaw with respect to the proposed
activity, which are obtainable at the time of
such notice have been obtained, except that
such notice may be . . . . at the option of the
applicant after the filing of an application
or application for said permits , variances and
approvals provided that such notice shall
include any information submitted in
connection with such permits , variances and
approvals which is necessary to describe the
affect of the proposed activity on the
environment. Now that is reading from the
statute . You were just asked a question, and
you were told, well we have to ask for this
material . You are entitled to it. I suggest
that the Board should stop apologizing for
being here , do your statutory job, demand
these things from the applicant before you
going any further. That ' s the law.
MR. HORRIGAN; Do you have any concrete items to discuss with
US .
ATTY. DIMENTO : That' s when you deny people their right to be
heard. That' s a concrete right under Chapter
39 , 23c .
MR . HORRIGAN: Are you going to give us any comments that
relate to . . .
ATTY. DIMENTO : I have not heard enough about this development
to think that this Conservation Commission,
are either unaware or didn ' t care that there
is hazardous waste on this site and yet has
Page 38
ATTY. DIMENTO : only said that you trill share a preliminary
report rather than demand that it be filed , is
more than a procedural item. That is a very
substantive action , from my practice before
many Conservation Commissions . And I please ,
implore this Board to do their job at the
local level . That ' s all I have to say. Thank
you.
MR . PERETZIAN : Mr. Chairman, some members of this Board have
been accused of having a conflict of interest.
MR . HORRIGAN : Yes, I ' ve been wanting to ask, do you have any
basis for that, we ' d like to know what it is ,
that statement.
ATTY. DIMENTO : I didn ' t say that you did have a conflict of
interest. . .
MR . HORRIGAN : You indicated to me , you . . .
ATTY. DIMENTO : I have no idea who has been represented in the
past from this Commission, I don ' t know
whether the engineers have done any work al
all .
MR. HORRIGAN: You don ' t know then?
ATTY. DIMENTO : And I don ' t mean either accuse anyone of
being. .
MR. HORRIGAN : Okay, fine , you have no information that
indicates that ' s the case .
ATTY. DIMENTO: Absolutely not, if that was the impression
that was not the one I intended to make .
MR . HORRIGAN: Why don ' t we go on.
MR. MARINO : Verbally and eye contact , it was .
ATTY. DIMENTO : I was reacting to the undertone by this
member, who I don ' t even know his name .
MR . MARINO : There was eye contact there , sir.
MR. HORRIGAN : Why don ' t we go on. John, Let ' s go on with the
meeting. Does the Commission have any other
questions they want to ask?
Page 39
MR. PERETZIAN : I noticed that Miss Otto is here from the
Community Development Department , and I would
like to know what Community Development feels
about this project.
MR. BOGIGIAN: One second, Councillor Moutsoulas made an
indication that he would like to speak.
COUNC . MOUTSOULAS : Thank you Mr. Chairman, I am Jim Moutsoulas ,
I 'm the Ward 3 , Ward Councillor . I really
don ' t have anything to add here , I ' m just here
to show support for the neighborhood that I
represent and I think that it is very
important that you know that the neighborhood
that I represent is 100% against this project
and I hope you would consider their feelings
when making a decision. Thank you.
MR . HORRIGAN: Okay what is the wish of the Commission?
MR . PERETZIAN: I want to hear Miss Otto .
Judy Otto , Assistant Planning Director for the City of Peabody
MS . OTTO: The Community Development has looked at these
plans and we appreciate the comments and
questions that have been raised by the
Commission members tonight. I think these are
all valid concerns that you ' ve raised and they
all deserve answers . A couple of points I ' d
like to bring to your attention , this notion
that Peabody will drain Peabody' s drainage and
Salem will drain Salem' s drainage seems to me
perplexity in an era in which we are trying
very hard to work regionally. We of the
Peabody Planning Department have had
conversations with the Salem Planning
Department about this project in the past and
will continue to do so and I think and I would
suggest to the Commission, you also certainly
have the opportunity to go to the Salem
Conservation Commission hearings and hear the
project. But in any case , both Commissions
will be wanting to treat this as one integral
project, no divide into 2 lines , 2 individual
projects because I think it makes logical
sense that no parking lot is going to be built
in Peabody before a project is approved in
Salem and the issue of regionalism and sharing
information and working together , I think is
something sadly that has been lacking from
some of the questions that have raised.
Page 40
MS . OTTO : We would also like to offer our help in any
research that the Commission feels we might be
able to help you with, I speak particularly to
landscape issues , because you have raised them
and some members of the public have raised
them. We will be reviewing other issues
outside of this Board ' s purview with respect
to urban design issues and landscaping issues ,
but if you feel that anything we can provide
for you will be helpful for you, we ' d be more
than happy to provide it.
MR . HORRIGAN : Thank you. Yes.
Maureen Kiley, 15 Bow St.
MRS . KILEY: I just wanted to clarify that I am a resident
in Salem and I deeply appreciate the
announcement that this is a regional issue .
However, I have been trapeezing for a year
between 2 cities , hearing in one city one set
of facts and going to another city and hearing
the same gentlemen present a different set of
facts , so if you ' re communicating so well , why
are the neighbors in Salem forced to run back
and forth for over a year and forced to hire
an attorney, forced to get legal assistance in
order to get the reports that you' re so
willing to share . This is not
regionalization. I just need to say that in
fact, I wish that the Stop & Shop words that
we read in the paper about how often they' ve
asked to sit down with the neighbors were
true . They are not true .
MR. HORRIGAN : We will try to do our best and be fair.
MRS . KILEY: Because the neighbors would appreciate the
information, she says , you' re working
regionally to determine . Because we are not
told and the facts that we are presented in
our city, frequently are different then the
facts that are presented in yours .
MR . HORRIGAN: Thank you. Yes .
MS . ST . PIERRE : I ' d just like to ask, when will the NOI be
filed in Salem and why had it not been filed?
Page 41
ATTY. KEILTY: Salem has yet to schedule it PUD hearing , I
hopeful that the schedule will be made
tomorrow evening and I would expect
immediately thereafter, the local filing will
be made .
MS . ST . PIERRE : But you don ' t necessarily have to have the PUD
or do you in Salem have to have your PUD .
ATTY. KEILTY: Not necessarily, no .
MR. HORRIGAN : We would also like to have a schedule of your
licensing process .
MR . MARINO : Excuse me , and also , through you Mr. Chairman ,
there has been instances where Commissions on
bordering lines and you can file under one
file number and both Commissions can work as a
conduit. So where they haven ' t received their
file number and had no notice actually brought
to them, I think with a letter through this
Commission the possibility both Commission
could work it as a conduit and resolve the
issues of the neighbors .
MS . ST. PIERRE: We might want to ask the Salem Conservation
Commission if they would like to join the site
walk, they could say no , but they could say
yes , it wouldn ' t hurt to ask .
ATTY. DIMENTO : Could I address the Commission? ( yes ) The
Mayor of Salem wrote you a letter a year ago ,
asking you to meet with . . . .
MR . HORRIGAN : The Conservation Commission?
ATTY. DIMENTO : The City of Peabody. . .
MR . HORRIGAN: We don ' t get the city mail .
ATTY. DIMENTO : It was a request from the Mayor of Salem to
the City of Peabody and the City of Salem to
meet the Conservation Commissions to meet and
address the issues .
MR . MARINO : If there is such a letter, I ' d like to see it,
please fax it to Marilyn , I ' d appreciate it.
ATTY. DIMENTO: I ' d be happy to do it tomorrow, I have a copy
of it.
Page 42
MR. HORRIGAN : We still have quite a bit of work to do here ,
I don ' t believe we are going to get much
further on this tonight, why don ' t we continue
and see , what is the wish of the Commission?
MS . ST . PIERRE : Make a motion to continue the public hearing
and we need a lot more information from the
applicant and see if we can set up a site
visit and also ask the Salem Conservation
Commission to join us at that site visit. .
MR . MARINO : And also , I would like to see the calculations
from Eastern Survey, be given to our resident
engineer to peruse through also at the time .
MS . ST . PIERRE : Well once we get all the calculations . . .
MR . MARINO : Right, as of the stand now, I think he could
start working on those . .
ATTY. DIMENTO : How will we know what the continuance is to?
MS . ST . PIERRE : Should we just set a date now, because there
are so many people here?
MR. HORRIGAN : Either June 8 or 22?
DISCUSSED DATE TO CONTINUE TO AND SITE VISIT .
MR . MARINO : Just for the record , Mr . Chairman , I ' d like a
show of hands of the , I myself walked the
site , has anybody in the Commission walked the
site? 4 Members right here , Arthur Peretzian ,
Andrew Cotreau , Joseph Bogigian, Joseph
Horrigan and myself . 5 Members that have
walked the site already too .
ATTY . KEILTY: Could I speak to the issue of the site visit
date , only because my thought , is that some
concerns may arise looking at the site and
there may be some additional information
requested of the Board having seen the site
and it might give us , if it was a little
earlier than the 4th , if at all possible might
give us an opportunity to provide you with
that information .
MR. PERETZIAN : Good idea .
DISCUSSED DATES .
l
Page 43
MR. HORRIGAN : Curt, will you make sure you call the
Conservation Commission in Salem and make sure
they know about it and tell them their invited
and we ' ll follow it up with a letter. But I ' d
like them to know as soon as possible .
MR. PERETZIAN : Tomorrow morning .
MR . MARINO : And could you send , possibly what we have
exactly what we have to their Chairman, to
their Commission so that they won ' t be in the
blind.
MR . BELLAVANCE : Sure .
MR. MARINO: Good .
MR. HORRIGAN : You ' ve taken notes to know what we need?
ATTY. KEILTY: Yes .
MR. HORRIGAN: I have a motion to continue the meeting until
June 8 , do I hear a second.
MR. COTREAU: Second .
MR. HORRIGAN : Any discussion, all in favor say aye , 7 ayes .
Motion carries .
SUBSURFACE HAZARDOUS
WASTE INVESTIGATIONS
AT
Larrabee & Hingstcn
19 Howley Street _
Peabody , Massachusetts 01960
rre.ared by :
Leo T . Keefe , P. E .
Gaor Olson
SP, Inc.
29 Con_ress Street
Sai= , Massac:^.usetts 01970
( 617 ) 745-4569
November 1937
�pV tA G F,4,
�3
c LEO T. : :-
X KEEFE
MECHANICAL
.0 9No. 31446
tl
90 F�lsTEa
SSS/ONALF-ab
T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Page
I. Introduction 1
II . Assessment Rationale 1
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 6
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 I
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 cil 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.
.,h cRcNANfc i " ' - . � � rt ',y V +e4 ° i`•. ��.:li-G- �o�il
I r71
•_ - f ---T \ r�z -- .. � ` \ Ili �d fiw:`%
r ti a _� '�L I �. _� P '�' -,�'1 .--"�Is .` _,C lA-• -�y� roe.
-fa: �z 7
Sana~ns o g �.(a .: � :{'� 1\. '�`e. . V� yrs "i��•Y">,� _ /' ,
l .. + / \�.\�'srR�. Ck7 �,i7`-s-��- ,C�ra:Ca + a
f
.ree -/�I
_ C2JI . _.'�ite ( �., •r Ia'" '�°'`
a r7 Sh ^I 4 `tA- n �I ri E !"�4' -yJC.�+_ ? �. �8C':f>n•< -;
.. . CH!~ifar - 7¢
I! c 1 r ��♦ � aA :' n. l G .- r`Geh,; .�.
` 4 A
• _ a-
-
Fosters P. ;,;� t��s..r.z°- t•✓- 1 �� C '
aUE a ♦ / i • b 6
a 0 .'.h r>_�` — r _ _ i G? � Park r :+ - O^ •i � � ':K ,
c
Ce
,ea Cem �J, i _ li P y�. iE..yda �.,4,rare
- w
--70 y= 11 ail 4. HMAC
ca tors Q,. F". e C' _
'FW
�.• —. >�'— - _ ^H¢o xn . - nJ n[ _ .. pern :Ja }� -�•'- !-� Ali 1 \ °y
_ 7� OII I"u:: _ `- - - Looster•' •Tuck
quc, pt
_ -. W
//'�,t�ur:�> _,."� \moi' r . Sr Cix. `.,ea�w ''✓ v HAPEO
Cen+ to. .r�
xt �'.
WII - F.rr s rttf � p. v { � G a u« :.. - ►• - -
.. •t Ch- - �-i Tls.mu Yh 1• �- e.net.ry W a
\1�.. � - .[s»ch'_-. TS<h O •,� 1.•.. -. is __ �' .F:
am
11 {'��"�77.�
�AIJV L.1YFlat
_le w.r�. m J s ". _ jrt�- >.ta _ 4. �\i:dal'•.•..•h j '
F ` A
F_ r.k P7 _y �a / _ LZ ne r .4�..^ P p Fu r,.a •
^1 �.. : ( �.. c ( _ �. aCt a 8uli:.•�0 .
cuth
`/'_�. of en1F+e1�69' /l s a e . r... L va' __ •� ♦Ce
-LOCUS _.wvry— ScH a .aa-em:<,T
r— _Fviir tt - • w. xu�r C•ekzs. a'a: me
St .ia.
�.. >. r_ �� � Sla StiLE11 - \ t '. r c ♦^, -
JI:Qo Ju PO •• T d - 3' •4 h - D 1 :U �• s':
Puna (( `q 'Ve' o a s
< - ': �•.aZ H�.. - •. :t.aaraT Lam.. Long Pt
G. S - o •: .. p ' s~ ♦ _ -mea' k P�rS
_ . - n i J ,� •,r a � � :. 6� ti �a r� ,".Pnlrtvr Y/
• �.1 �. / � ' Suhsq � 1 aim _•� • •. � a.- f .\.
l _
� l �i`',y � lam`:-." ~"' a `�•'•• o � .�+� ��o tS- _ 1 w -__- CaCM 5 =.43iTel
�., ,� �� . 1 `�'_•. HY7 e. .r� 16
�ar
y 9''Re4y�n r 4` c FIGURE .P
a Cker�ng C
Pt
n v 1< St An" LIQSAL �M
STATE CULf.E,;F
...Goll 1;
N Course )) :)• '�?SU/ • A`
Y%
N
W � B � M RR
i
•2
_ •3 e4
0) - -- - - _
LI o8E �-- _ _ ---�--
i •g
O , IO lie� __ �81dg. (Ty p.) Property Line
' 0l2 (Typicci )
'I I
a
a
o E
.0 u
C;
a
o CO
o_
MAIN ST.
8 OSTON ST
Property at" HOWLEY STREET
PEABODY, MA Not to Scale SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2
SF 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
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
roun w
d ater table or the limits
9 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
I
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 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 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
:resent 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 .
7
DEPTH �wHi lulu
( Feet) I 2 3 4
0
Topsoil / Soil Soil and Rocks Topsoil Moist Soil/Rocks
_ 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 I Bottom of Hole
SOIL LOGS
Property at: HOWLEY STREET
PEABODY, MA
FIGURE 3
SP IN('
DEPTH LUUAI IUN
( Feet) 5 6 7 g
0 Topsoil /Rocks Soil /Sand Rocks Soil and Rocks Soil and Rocks
- I
Wet Sand Medium Sand Wet Medium Sand
2
3
4
Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hole
Damp Soil Wet Sand Wet Sand Wet Sand
5
6
7 I
SOIL LOGS
Property at: HOWLEY STREET
PEABODY, MA
FIGURE 4
ucr I M
( Feet) 9 IO II 12
0
Soil and Sand Soil and Sand =(Z
Sand/Soil
I
Sand ocs
2
3
I
4
Bottom of Hole Bottom of Hoie 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
L�--sP imp
Mr. Michael Harrington
59 Federal Street DATE:
Salem, MA 01970 10/30/F7
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 Hcle 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 Hale 6
So ' 1
710056 5 . 95 X X X Hole 7 Soil
10058 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
Sample
Sampled on: 10/9/87
Sample Rc ' d: 10/9/87
Sampling Info:
DATE LABORATORY CIRECTOR
Mr. Michael Harrington DATE: 10/30/87
59n Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970 PROJ. NO. :
E. P. Toxicity Sail 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 . Limi-
Arsenic me/1 0 . 37 0 . 027 0 . 027 5 . 0
Barium ma/l <0 . 2 <0 . 2 <0 , 2 100 . 0
Cadmium mg/1 < ) . O1 <0 . 01 0 . 02
1 . 0
zromium mg/1 0 . 02 <0 . 02 <0 . 02
5 . 0
Lead mg/1 <0 . 02 <0 . 02 <0 . 02
5 . 0
Mercury me/1 <0 . 001 0. 013 0 . 012
0 . 2
Selenium mg/l <0 . 001 <0 . 001 <0 . 001 1 . 0
Silver
m /1
g <0 - 005 <0 . 005 <0 . 005 5 . 0
Bulk Metals :
Barium mg/kq <0 . 2 <0 . 2 <0 . 2
Chromium mg/k:; 8 . 87 6 . 05 10 . 39-
Lead ma/ka 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 ?
II� ;
SP , INC .
29 Congress Street
Salem , Massachusetts 01910
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
Arbon tetrachloride ND ND ND
Chlorobenzene ND ND ND
Chloroe_hane ND ND ND
2-Chlcroethylvinyl ether ND ND ND
Chloroform ND ND ND
Chloromethane ND ND ND
Oibro ochloromethane ND ND ND
1 ,2- Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND
1 , 3-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND
1 , 4-Dichlorobenzene ND ND ND
Dicnlorodifluoromethane 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- D4chloropropane 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
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
Total Xylenes ND ND
Date abDirectoLIL
NO = Non detectable
Method Detection Limit = 25 ug/kg
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-Dicnloroethene 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
7-thylbenzene ND ND
"ethylene cnlorideND ND
1 , 1 , 2 , 2-Tetrachloroethane ND ND
Tetracnloroethene 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
r
Date Lab Dire
NO = Non detectable
Method Detection Limit = 25 ug/kg
l
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
A-BHC ND
B-BHC ND
G-BHC NO
ND
D-BHC ND
Chlordane
4.4' - DDD ND
4.41 - DDE
ND
A.11 - rCT ND
Ciel . NDrin ND
Endcs-ulfan I ND
ndcsulfan II ND
Endosulfan Sulfate ND
Endrin ND
Endrin Aldehyde ND
Heptacnlor NO
Heetachlor Epoxide ND
Tcxapnene ND
PCB- 1016 ND
PCS- 1221 NO
PC?- 1232 ND
PC3- 1242 ND
PCS- 12/19 NO
PCB- 1.254 NO
PCs- 1264 ND
t.+ethcd Detection Limit = 1 ug/kg
P+O = Non detectable
Date Laboratory Director
i
9Je�ai�irrenb of�.wu�o�7e�t�G��c�'l� �2g:.zeer�
..2 °lEa� �o�rto>z - ./�irt/zeasb
DEQE
NOW is
I.� .- i�C� ��J� � � / MEDEPAR MENrOF
Daniel S. Greenbaum /'V(IAwy?, Y&zWzx66BPm& 016)01 ENM0UAEN7ALPR0rErn0N
Commissioner
935-2160
Notice of Acceptance Appeal
Mr. Micheal R. Guilmet DATE: October 31, 1989
Allen, DeMurjian, Major & Nitsch TOWN: PEABODY
806 Mass. Ave. DEP File: 55-251
Cambridge, MA 02139 Applicant: Harrington
Dear Mr. Guilmet:
The Department of Environmental Protection is in receipt of your
Appeal dated October 23 , 1989, regarding the above-referenced
wetlands project, and has accepted your Appeal. This Department,
under the provisions of General Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40, will
schedule a field investigation with you and all concerned parties in
the near future to determine if the area is significant to the
interests of the Act and to informally discuss the relevant issues
with parties to the appeal. All parties will receive written notice
of the time and place of the site visit.
No activity may commence on any portion of the project subject to
the jurisdiction of Chapter 131, Section 40 until this Department
issues a superseding Order of Conditions regulating the activity.
When it is this appeal's turn to be heard, a staff person will be
assigned to this case. However, in the interim please contact Ms.
Tracy A. Peter at (617) 935-2160, should you or any party have any
questions.
Very truly yours,
William
,
William A..
Krol, P. E.
Wetlands Section Chief
WAK/TP/kk
cc: Peabody Conservation Commission, Lowell St. , Peabody, MA 01960
Salem Conservation Commission, 1 Salem Green, Salem, MA 01970
Mr. Thomas Pyburn, 20 Howley St. , Peabody, MA 01960
Mr. Micheal Harrington, Ronan, Segal & Harrington, 59 Federal
St. , Salem, MA 01970
Original Printed on Recycled Paper
[E
gZ& c0
u,pJfe, � 0o&o1il -/ � 0
cJ /6TH ei%'2CT/ZGGMQLL�i �i�(,�(/C/uCPj =DEPARUENr
OE
v
C/, � ,, �jf n Daniel 5. Greenbaum /"/'I/'I/r//7U ✓/'J-a&WzX U / O1V01
Commissioner
(617) 935-2160 October 11 , 1989
Mr. Michael Harrington E C L- �y 1 �7 E LRE: WETLANDS/SALEM
Ronan, Segal & Harrington DEP File #64-181
59 Federal Street 1 .: 19 Notice of Department
OCT
Salem, MA 01970 pCCp!J �} {{3s snn Meeting
Dear Mr. Harrington:
The Department of Environmental Protection is holding a
meeting to discuss your request for an expedited review for the
appeal filed against the above referenced project. The purpose
of this meeting is to determine if the project meets the
Departments' criteria for an expedited review process and to
informally discuss those issues relevant to other Departmental
actions. The meeting is scheduled to take place at 10: 00 a.m. ,
on Tuesday, October 24 , 1989 , at the Departments Northeast
Regional Office, 5 Commonwealth Avenue, Woburn, MA 01801. All
other parties are invited to attend.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may
contact Mr. Sabin M. Lord at (617) 935-2160.
V y tr y ours
Sabin M. Lord, Jr.
Reqional Environmental
Engineer for Resource
Protection
SML/TP
cc: Salem Conservation Commission, 1 Salem Green, 2nd Floor,
Salem, MA 01970
Salem Board of Appeals, 1 Salem Green, 2nd Floor, Salem, MA
01970
Peabody Conservation Commission, 24 Lowell Street, Peabody,
MA 01960
Peabody Board of Appeals, 24 Lowell Street, Peabody, MA
01960
Ms. Susan Riess, 30A Silver Street, Salem, MA 01970
Original Printed on Recycled Paper
SALEM CONSERVATION COMMISSION
ORDER OF CONDITIONS FOR 164R BOSTON STREET
1 . Gas traps to be installed at catch basins manholes
and
piping and regularly maintained all to be approved by the
Salem Conservation Commission.
2 . Any changes issued by any other applicable Salem board
( ie : Planning, Appeals, etc . ) affecting the property shall
cause the owner to appear before the Conservation Commission
again for further approval .
3 . No hazardous materials nor salt for deicing purposes may
be used on or stored at- the site .
4 . A landscaping plan shall be submitted for board approval
incorporating a revegitation plan and a fence for the area
along the buffer zone.
5 . The developers must comply with the Board of Appeals' Compre-
hensive Permit and Order of Conditions which shall be attached
to this order of conditions .
6. The Conservation Commission requests a copy of any orders
of conditions issued by any board of the City of Peabody.
7 . The study done by the state of Massachusetts shall be incor-
porated into the Conservation Commissions ' file.
AON c ���
• •lJll
2 O !Y1'►
v z �
Salem. Massachusetts 01970
August 9, 1989
Mr. Mark Gallant
Chairman
Peabody Conservation Commission
Peabody City Hall
24 Lowell Street
Peabody, MA 01960
Dear Mr. Gallant:
I am writing in response to your request for a copy of an
environmental study of the North River identified in Special Condition
#7 of the Salem Conservation Commission's Order of Conditions #64-81 .
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Works
expects to issue written findings of its sediment analysis of the North
River, prepared in connection with the proposed Bridge Street by-pass
project, by the end of this month. An earlier report submitted to the
Conservation Commission by Massachusetts DPW, concerns the level of
wetland disturbance to be created by the proposed by-pass construction
and does not address pollution aspects. - � -
We will forward to the Peabody Conservation Commission the results
of the DPW' s sediment analysis , as soon as it becomes available to us.
I apologize for any confusion caused by the Order of Conditions. Please
do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.
Sincerely,
John G. Vallis
Chairman
CM243
1
y
Conservation Commission
O
Salem. Massachusetts 111970
City of Salem
Conservation Commission
Notice of Meeting
You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will
hold its regular meeting on Thursday, July 13, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. , One
Salem Green, second floor Conference room.
6
John G. Vallis
Chairman
Tentative Agenda:
1. ) Notice of Intent for — Michael J. Harrington
164 Rear Boston Street
2. ) Discussion: Activity in North — Dan Wiggin, Hendrick
River Canal Area Manufacturing Corp.
— Aaron Weinstein, Mason
Realty Trust
3. ) Old/New Business
4. ) Approval of Minutes
CM148
0113 T:D-iJ.ihd
14y a1a11 Ave . I al L3 In Board
at 5-1,214W
of the Acte of 1958 in ac�c rdance '"�l'E'Chap 626.
Jfetl� �o storL - /�o�°tf easy
6s 0ommonwea" _,
Daniel S. Greenbaum !'Vai4e , MavuaC`llL6e > 016'01 E 9 v{�
F
Commissioner
(617) 935-2160 AUj
NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF APPEAL
Ms. Susan L. Riess DATE: August 10, 1989
30A Silver Street TOWN: SALEM
Salem, MA 01970 FILE: #64-181
AAppl . :Michael Harrington
Dear Ms. Riess & abutters:
The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering is in
receipt of your Appeal dated July 27 , 1989, regarding the
above-referenced wetlands project, and has accepted your Appeal .
This Department, under the provisions of General Laws, Chapter
131, .Section 40, will schedule a field investigation with you and
all concerned parties in the near future to determine if the
areas are significant to the interests of the Act and to
informally discuss the relevant issues with parties to the
appeal. All parties will receive written notice of the time and
place of the site visit.
No activity may commence on any portion of the project
subject to the jurisdiction of Chapter 131, Section 40 until this
Department issues a Superseding order of Conditions regulating
the activity.
When it is this appeal 's turn to be heard, a staff person
will be assigned to this case. However, in the interim please
contact Ms. Tracy A. Peter at (617) 935-2160, should you or any
party have any questions.
V truly ours,
/C�irLeG ��"Q��/--
William A. Krol ,
Wetlands Section Chief
WAK/tp/tp
cc: Salem Conservation Commission
Peabody Conservation Commission
Mr. Michael Harrington, 59 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970
Original Printed on Recycled Paper
i_
971& o
=1DEPARTMEANT
�/l / y�Daniel S. Greenbaum /VOiJI!/YLO1d'01
Commissioner
w. , 1 DEP FILE # : 64-181/55-251
City/Town: Salem/Peabody
Applicant: Michael Harrington
(617) 935'-2.160
Form 9
ENFORCEMENT ORDER
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. ch. 131, s. 40
From: The Department of Environmental Protection
To: Michael J. Harrington, Ronan, Segal & Harrington, 59
Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970,
Date of Issuance: December 13, 1989
Property address: Howley Street, Peabody/Salem, MA
Extent and type of activity: Activity has been taking place
within a Wetland Resource Area and within the buffer zone prior
to obtaining a valid Order of Conditions.
The Department has determined that the activity described above
is in violation of the Wetlands Protection Act, G. L. ch. 131
s. 40, and the Regulations promulgated pursuant thereto 310 CMR
10. 00, because:
Said activity has been/is being conducted without a
valid Order of Conditions. The Order of Conditions
issued by the Peabody Conservation Commission and the
Salem Conservation Commission were both appealed to the
Department and are currently under review. Therefore
there is no Order regulating activities on the site.
During the site inspection conducted by a
representative of the Department, it was noted that
activities are taking place within the 100-year flood
plain and buffer zone to a Bordering Vegetated wetland
prior to the issuance of a Final Order of Conditions.
Original Printed on Recvcled Paper
Page 9-2
File #64-181/55-251
Enforcement Order
WARNING:
This Enforcement Order also serves as a notice of
non-compliance under the Administrative Penalties
Act, M.G. L. Chapter 21A, Section 16. Failure to
comply with this Order may result in the
assessment of civil administrative penalties under
the Act.
The Department hereby orders the following:
1) The property owner, his agents, permittees and all others
shall immediately cease and desist from further activity
affecting the wetland portion of this property until a Final
Order has been issued by the Department.
2) The applicant shall mark clearly the boundaries of the
Bordering Vegetated Wetlands and shall be clearly flagged on
the site. The extent of the 100-year flood elevation shall
be clearly staked on the project site. These surveyed
markings shall be installed within twenty-one (21) days from
the date of issuance of this order.
Failure to comply with this Order may constitute grounds for
legal action. Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section
40 provides:
Whoever violates any provision of this section (a) shall be
punished by a fine of not more than twenty-five thousand
dollars or by imprisonment for not more than two years or
both such fine and imprisonment; or (b) shall be subject to
a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars .
Each day such violation continues shall constitute a
separate offense. This Section may be enforced by an
Environmental Police Officer or other Police Officer.
Questions regarding this Enforcement Order should be directed
to: Tracy A. Peter, DEP, (617) 935-2160 , ext. 357 .
Page 9-3
File #64-181/55-251
Enforcement Order
Issued by: Sabin M. Lord, Jr. , Regional Environmental Engineer
for Resource Protection
Signature
P 811 848 077
(Signature of delivery person or certified mail no. )
You are hereby notified of your rights to an adjudicatory
hearing under the Massachusetts Administrative Procedure Act,
G. L. c. 30A, Section 10, regarding this Enforcement Order. In
accordance with the Department's Rules for the Conduct of
Adjudicatory Proceedings, 310 CMR 1. 00, a Notice of Claim for
Adjudicatory Hearing must be filed in writing within twenty-one
(21) days of the date of issuance of this Enforcement Order and
the relief sought, and must be addressed to:
Docket Clerk, Office of General Counsel
Department of Environmental Protection
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
SML/TP/tp
55-EO
cc: Peabody Conservation Commission, 24 Lowell Street, Peabody,
MA 01960
Salem Conservation Commission, 1 Salem Green, 2nd Floor,
Salem, MA 01970
Mr. Michael R. Guilmet, Allen, DeMurjian, Major & Nitsch,
806 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139
Ms. Susan Riess, 30A Silver Street, Salem, MA 01970
RONAN, SEGAL & HARRINGTON
All ORNEYS AT LAW
FIFTY-14INE FEDFRAL 51 REFI
JAMES].RONAN(1922-1987) SALEM,MASSACI INSET IS 01970 63 MIDDLE STREET
MICHAEL J.IIARRINGION GLOUCESTER,MA 01930
JACOBS-SFGAL
MARY PIEMONTE HARRINGTON (508)7440350 (508)283 7432
(50812837435
GEORGE W.AWNS,III VAX(508)744 7493
MICIIFI 1 1101OVAK I IARPISON
OFBRA RAHMII I S11 BERSI FIN
JOHN II.RONAN
PAUL G.CROCHIERE
BRIAN P.CASSIU4 FILE NO..____
ELLEN M.WINKLER
December 22, 1989
Mr. Sabin M. Lord, Jr.
Regional Environmental Engineer
for Resource Protection
Department of Environmental Protection
5 Commonwealth Avenue
Woburn , MA 01801 ;�J t-
RE : DEP File #: 64-181/55-251 n n c^�
City/Town : Salem/Peabody
Applicant: Michael Harrington
Dear Mr. Lord:
This letter is written in response to your notice to me dated December 13,
1989 and received in this office on December 18, 1989. The activity which
was the subject of your Enforcement Order, as you know, was undertaken by
Reynolds Brothers of Canton, MA, the principal contractor for the City of
Peabody in the furtherance of their extensive downtown street and sidewalk
improvement program.
In granting permission to Reynolds Brothers , I did so as an accommodation
to both the firm involved and, primarily, to the City of Peabody which has
been continuously supportive of my efforts to develop housing on the site
in question. The site, as you know, had previously housed a number of
under-utilized and semi-blighted structures.
The activity in question began in early September and ended on approxi-
mately December 13, 1989 when the last of the residual material was
removed. I assume that the cessation of this activity on the part of
Reynolds Brothers along with the removal of the remaining material from
the site in large measure addresses the concerns as outlined in your
enforcement letter to me. Obviously, given weather and ground conditions ,
it will be impossible to restake the site in conformity with your second
expectation until the weather permits my engineering firm to do so.
Let me say in closing that while I remain appreciative of your willingness
to deal with the appeals in question expeditiously, 1 remain puzzled
given your department's prior knowledge of the rationale for the use of
this site as to why the activity in question required the action under-
taken by your department with both the formality and the attendant
notoriety.
Sabin M. Lord , Jr.
December 22, 1989
Page 2
Notwithstanding this last "editorial comment" of mine, it is my intention
to cooperate with your department and the conservation commissions involved
to resolve the remaining outstanding issues so as to enable me to proceed
in timely fashion with the proposed development.
Sincerely,
Michael J. Harrington
MJH:KMB
cc: (Copies not noted on original letter to Mr. Sabin Lord)
Peabod . Conservation Commission, 24 Lowell St. , Peabody, MA 01960
em Conservation Commission, One Salem Green, Salem, MA 01970
Michael R. Guilmet; Allen, DeMurjian, Major & Nitsch;
806 Massachusetts Avenue; Cambridge, MA 02139
Susan Riess , 30A Silver Street, Salem, MA 01970
e
July 21r 1989
Mr. Ralph Kardon
DEQE (Metro Boston/Northwest Region)
5 Commonwealth Avenue
Woburn, Massachusetts 01810
APPEAL FROM ORDER OF SALEM
CONSERVATION COMMISSION,
DATED JULY 18, 1989, RECORDED JULY 19, 1989
164 REAR BOSTON STREET, SALEM, MA
AND HOWLEY STREET, PEABODY, MA
DEOE FILE NO. 64-181
Dear Mr. Kardon:
The undersigned owners of property abutting the above
described site , hereby appeal to the DEQE for a superseding
Order of Conditions consistent with the provisions of M.G.L.
Chapter 131, Section 40 and 310 C.R.M. 10.05.
We invoke the above statutory avenue of review because
1. the proposed work to be done is significant, to public
or private water supply, the ground water -supply, flood
control , storm damage preservation , prevention of
pollution, or the protection of wild life ha¢itat;
2. the proposed work under the Order of Condition is
inconsistent with 310 C . R . M . 10 . 00 and does not
contribute to the protection of the interest identified
under M .G .L . Chapter 131 , Section 40 , the Wetlands
Protection Act; or
3. the Conservation Commissions act was arbitrary ,
capricious, in excess of its authority under the City
of Salems ' Wetland By-Law and/or such action was
unsupported by evidence.
ti 1
Factual basis for our contingent is as follows :
We have lived in the area for many years and have lived
next to the area subject to the proposed work in the
Order of Conditions. For the greater portion of this
time , this area has consistently been defined as a
Wetlands area, it is adjacent to and contains the main
interceptor line from the City of Peabody to South
Essex Sewerage District . It also has contained at
various times, a stream that runs consistently from the
downtown City of Peabody through Salem at this
particular location. We have witnessed, from time to
time, a flooding of this entire area when the volume of
water coming into the area from Peabody overflows the
bank and causes severe flooding. This contention has
recently been born out by the evidence presented to the
Peabody Conservation Commission in connection with this
same project in which the developers admit that this
particular area is subject to flooding and that on
occasion it could be as much as two feet of water at
the first floor level of this particular project and
that the entire parking lot could be flooded. It is
submitted that the City of Salem did not take into
account the total impact of the project , the total
number of units , the total construction work to be
done .
Since
a small portion of this project is in.
Salem, we feel . that the Salem Conservation Commission
concentrated on the Salem portion without having in
mind that the project is a total project consisting of
close to two hundred (200) units of proposed housing
with adjacent parking areas, accessory buildings, etc.
That the total impact of the project was not considered
in the calculations presented and reviewed by the
Board. We feel that this project as proposed poses a
serious threat of flooding and erosion of our property.
We also feel , on the basis of statements made by the
developer to the Peabody Conservation Commission at a
meeting that their is the presence of asbestos on the
site , that the combination of the presence of this
hazardous material on the site together with flooding
that occurs could pose a serious problem to the
surrounding areas in spreading this hazardous material
so as to encroach on adjoining properties and thus
effect the entire area.
I feel all of these matters must be reviewed by your
department and that an appropriate superseding g order should be
issued . There is serious question as to whether this site is
appropriate for building, it is admittedly in a flood area and
construction will adversely effect the entire area. We feel you
are the last hope for the residents of the area in making sure
that this project can be suitably controlled and built, with
proper safe guards and within the requirements of the existing
law.
Very truly yours,
•�'w.ff-.�5 ` ,tom-`=L n - �..—
cc: Michael J. Harrington
John Vallas, Chairman
Salem Conservation Commission
j '
EI _ ^
Daniel S. Greenbaum WOAVYL, 016)01
Commissioner APR 2 1990 q
C April 18, 1990 @� C�hbWdY���� BUT.
Mr. Michael Harrington RE: WET ANDS/PEABODY !Y C
Ronan, Segal & Harrington WEPIANDS/SALEM
59 Federal Street DEP Files #55-251 & 64-181
Salem, MA 01970 Site Inspection Notice
Dear Mr. Harrington:
The Department of Environmental Protection is in receipt of Appeals
dated October 23, 1989 and July 27, 1989 respectively, regarding the
above-referenced projects.
In accordance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 131, Section
40 and in preparation to issuance of a Superseding Order of Conditions,
the Department has scheduled a site evaluation with you and all concerned
parties. The purpose of this site evaluation is to determine if the area
is significant to the interests of the Act and to informally discuss those
issues relevant to the referenced project. Ms. Tracy Peter from the
Division of Wetlands will be on site at 9:00 a.m. , on Wednesday, May 16,
1990. The meeting place will be at the northwestern entrance off Howley
Street.
As requested by the Department in a letter dated Decerber 28, 1989,
additional information should be submitted to all parties prior to the
on-site inspection. It is in the applicants best interest to submit this
information to all parties so that a full and frank discussion of all
issues can be achieved during the site inspection. Copying all parties
will save time on the project review in the long run. If the information
requested by the Department is not received by all parties within one week
prior to the site inspection then the party who did not recieve
information should notify the Division of Wetlands.
No activity may commence on any portion of the project subject to
the jurisdiction of the Wetlands Protection Act, Massachusetts General
Laws, Chapter 131, Section 40 until the Department has issued a
Superseding Order of Conditions and all appeal periods have elapsed.
Original Printed on Recycled Paper
EI
C PAGE TWO
FILE t55-251 & 64-181
SITE INSPECTION NOTICE
If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may contact Ms.
Tracy Peter at (617) 935-2160, ext. 357 .
Very truly yours,
William A. Krol , P.E.
Wetlands Section Chief
WAK/TP/km
cc: Peabody Conservation Commission, 24 Lowell Street, Peabody, MA 01960
Salem Conservation Commission 1 Salem
Green, 2nd Floor, Salem, MA
01970
Mr. Micahel R. Guilment, Allen, DeMurjian, Major & Nitsch, 806
Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139
Mr. Paul Sommer, Sommer Environmental Technologies, Inc. , 65 New
Salem Street, Wakefield, MA 01880
Mr. Christopher R. Mello, Eastern Land Survey Associates, Inc. ,
40 Lowell Street, Peabody, MA 01960
Mrs. Susan L. Riess & abutters, 30A Silver Street, Salem, MA 01970
Ms. Joan M. Sweeney, 22 Silver Street, Salem, MA 01970
Mr. Leonard F. O'Leary, City of Salem, Office of The City Council, 93
Washington Street,. Salem, MA 01970
Mr. Thomas Pyburn, 20 Howley Street, Peabody, MA 01960
�JW�VOUW �WW� WW� VO� ���O V�W�OVy uW VO'
Professional Land Surveyors & Civil Engineers
ESSEX SURVEY SERVICE. 1958 - 1986
OSBORN PALMER, 1911 - 1970
BRADFORD & WEED 1885 - 1972
November 28, 1989
Mr. William A. Krol, P.E.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Quality Eng.
Northeast Region
5 Commonwealth Ave.
Woburn, MA 01801
RE: F 8131
Boston Street
Salem, MA
DEP File #64-181
Dear Mr. Krol,
In regard to your letter dated October 31, 1989 on the subject of the
appeal of the above referenced Order of Conditions, please .note the
following:
1) The 100-year flood limit at the project has been determined as per FIRM
Map 250102.
2) Enclosed are Supplementary Compensatory Storage Computations performed
by Mr. Paul Doran, P.E.
3) Site Development Plan depicting aforementioned review.
If I can be of any further service please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Christopher R. Mello P.L.S.
President
CRM/pa
Enclosure
cc: Salem Conservation Commission
Mr. Michael Harrington
Mr. Paul Sommer
40 LOWELL STREET
PEABODY, MASS. 01960
(508)531-8121
FAX:(508) 531.5920
Form 5
DEQE File No. 64-181
(To be proviaeo by 0EOEI
7 I�� Commonwealth city/Town
, Salem
F1 of Massachusetts Appcwr Michael J. Harrington
Order of Conditions
Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act
G.L. c. 131, §40
From Salem Conservation Commission
- To Mirhaal .T. Harrington Sams
(Name of Applicant) (Name of property ownerl
Address 59 Federal Sr . Address-- SnmA
Salem, MA 01970
This Order is issued and delivered as follows:
LgJ by hand delivery to applicant or representative on July 18, 1989 (date)
❑ by certified mail.return receipt requested on (date)
This project is located at 164 Rear Boston Street. Salem, MA
Howley Street , Peabody, MA
The property is recorded at the Registry of
9096 471-472
Book ggp; Page ji;
8076 377
Certificate(if registered)
The Notice of Intent for this project was filed on .Ti,t„ 5 1 9Ro (date)
The public hearing was closed on July 13, 1989 (date)
Findings
The Salem Conservation Commission has reviewed the above-referenced Notice of
Intent and plans and has held a public hearing on the project. Based on the information available to the
Commission atthistime. the Commission has determined that
the area on which the proposed work is to be done is significant to the following interests in accordance with
the Presumptions of Significance set forth in the regulations for each Area Subject to Protection Under the
Act(check as appropriate):
❑ Public water supply ® Flood control ❑ Land containing shellfish
❑ Private water supply ® Storm damage prevention ❑ Fisheries
❑ Ground water supply ® Prevention of pollution ❑ Protection of wildlife habitat
5.1
Effective 11/1/87
i
Therefore, the Commission hereby finds that the following conditions are
necessary, in accordance with the Performance Standards set forth in the regulations, to protect those inter-
ests checked above. The _1 nmm i sg i on orders that all work shall be performed
in accordance with said conditions and with the Notice of Intent referenced above. To the extent that the fol-
lowing conditions modify or differ from the plans, specifications or other proposals submitted with the Notice
of Intent, the conditions shall control.
General Conditions
1. Failure to comply with all conditions stated herein,and with all related statutes and other regulatory meas-
ures,shall be deemed cause to revoke or modify this Order.
2. This Order does not grant any property rights or any exclusive privileges:it does not authorize any injury
to private property or invasion of private rights.
3. This Order does not relieve the permittee or any other person of the necessity of complying with all
other applicable federal. state or local statutes,ordinances, by-laws or regulations.
4. The work authorized hereunder shall be completed within three years from the date of this Order unless
either of the following apply:
(a) the work is a maintenance dredging project as provided for in the Act:or
(b) the time for completion has been extended to a specified date more than three years, but less than
five years,from the date of issuance and both that date and the special circumstances warranting
the extended time period are set forth in this Order.
5. This Order may be extended by the issuing authority for one or more periods of up to three years each
upon application to the issuing authority at least 30 days prior to the expiration date of the Order.
6. Any fill used in connection with this project shall be clean fill,containing no trash,refuse, rubbish or de-
bris.including but not limited to lumber,bricks, plaster,wire, lath, paper,cardboard. pipe. tires.ashes.
refrigerators,motor vehicles or parts of any of the foregoing.
7. No work shall be undertaken until all administrative appeal periods from this Order have elapsed or, if
such an appeal has been filed. until all proceedings before the Department have been completed.
8. No work shall be undertaken until the Final Order has been recorded in the Registry of Deeds or the Land
Court for the district in which the land is located,within the chain of title of the allected property. In the
case of recorded land,the Final Order shall also be noted in the Registry's Grantor Index under the name
of the owner of the land upon which the proposed work is to be done. In the case of registered land. the
Final Order shall also be noted on the Land Court Certificate of Title of the owner of the land upon which
the proposed work is to be done. The recording information shall be submitted to the 6emm $s 4 era
on the forth at the end of this Order prior to commencement of the work.
9. A sign shall be displayed at the site not less than two square feet or more than three square feet in size
bearing the words. "Massachusetts Department of Environmental Ouality Engineering,
File Number 64-181
10.Where the Department of Environmental Ouality Engineering is requested to make a determination and
to issue a Superseding Order, the Conservation Commission shall be a parry to all agency proceedings
and hearings before the Department.
11. Upon completion of the work described herein,the applicant shall forthwith request in writing that a
Certificate of Compliance be issued stating that the work has been satisfactorily completed.
12.The work shall conform to the following plans and special conditions:
5.2
t
Plans:
Title Dated Signed and Stamoed by: On File with:
Site Development Plan 6/30/89
of i,nnrl r.n,rat ,i in PeahnAy Christopher R. Mello, Salem Conservation Commission
and Salem, MA astern Land Survey Assoc. Inc.
Special Conditions)Use additional oaoer if necessary)
See Attachment A.
.......................................................................................................................................................................................
ILeam Soace 8lenal
5-3A
l
Y
Plans:
'rifle Dated Signed and Stamped by: On File with:
Special Conditions(use additional paper if necessary)
.......................................... .............................................................................
heave Soace Blank)
5.38
NINE
IssueaRv Salem Conservation Commission
Si arets)
/'7tu
I /-A"kA / 1
I
This Order must be signed by a majority of the Conservation Commission.
On this —da
y of t��-` 19 before me
personalty appeared �t ' to me known to be the
person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed
the same/as his/her tree act amenddeed.
c,
Notary Public �.K commission Aires
The f bitumt.the owmer.wiycenion aggnevea by this Order.any owner of tart-abutting ara Irw uOon which ate m000sed work a to
be done or my ton residents of the sly or town in will such fres to Ideated are hereby,notified of thew right to Mount the Daorenent
of Erwwonmento Ouakhy Eriam am sy to issue a Suowsednq Order.Providkq the faintest is made by carbfied mag or hand dallyery a/
the Oeortirom wnMn ten orya Nam me date of isatarwe of this Order.A copy of the request ettaM at the same Orne be Sant by barafia0
Mad or haw de#My to me Conservation Comm ision and the sovocant.
U
C
ar o
E �
L D`
W
C ro 90
3 N N
3 rz s, d
U £
C 00
T C E Detach on dgitrw Iles and cuisine to the prior to eommerwemest of work.
u N M i--I Issuing Authority
cv .� lhl g
Piesaa oa sensed mat the order of Conditions for the orolect at
OF File Number has been recorded al the Registry of and
0
z m has been noted m me Chaof ties of the ahe p
ecterooeny m accordance with Genera Condition 8 on 19_
If recorded land. IhB matrumanl number winch wentilfes this transaction O
If registered land.the document number wniCh identifies this transaCtion is
Signature Applicant
5.4A
f f i
Issued by the Oepartment of Environmental Quality Engineering.
Signature
On this day of 19 , before me
personally appeared to me known to be the person
described in and who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged that he/she executed the same
as his/her free act and deed.
Notary Public My commission expires
The adaoCaflt.ma owner,any taersdn egpnovad by this Suderseanq Order.any owner at lana abutsng the lana upon wrircn me tiro-
paaad ward a m be done r arty ten parsons ounkmt to G.L c.30A.§10A.are nary nou(M of mad ngnt td reduest an aegxuc tart'
hearty pursuant to G.L 30A.S 10,providing the reauset is made by carolled mall or hand deevery,to me Department wittan tan days
from me dap of osanee of the Suosmoosy Order,and is addresses to: Docket Ctrs.Office of General Counsr.Oeoartmant of
Ewwww"wm Quietly Engine/rlq,One Winter street.Boston.MA 02108.A copy of the request rest at me Same rime as sent by
CerCllad motor none dekv«y 10 ate C MlMfysaat Cammasaon,the endocar t,"any other parry.
A Notice Of Claim tar an Adiudicatiary 1lerey Snell cornpry with trio Deprbnenrs Rules tar Adluacamry Proceeangs.31 D CMR
1.01(8).are area conn u e Idlowry ntomamon:
lel the DEOE Wetlands File Number.name of me appadarrtaria address of ms farplest:
(III the eornapp risme,address are plepflplla number of the pony filing the request.and.it represented by.:ounsed.the name and
address of the Shamey:
(e) me nines and addresses W as ower parties.it known;
(d) a der and donees sisternom of 11 I the facts when are grounds tar the proceeding,(2)the oblectume to mos Supereedng Order.
"Cludry specifically the torn/in whish It is aaeges to be aeanamest with ten 000arMWt's Wella ds Requtatons(310 CMR
10.001 and 0008 not eantiebule a me protection Of ms Interests adsnried in the Act.and 131 the most sought through the adlw
dicatory nearing,among spat ficast,the Changes desired in me suprsedry Order.
(e) a statement mat a copy of the request nas been sent to the applicant.ms conservaten commission and each other parry or neo-
resentatrve of such parry.if known.
Failure to submit at necessary Information may resuu m a aismrssa ov the department of me Notice of Claim for an Adiudicatary Nearing.
Detach an dotted line and submit to the
prior to commencement of work.
To ISsumnq Authonry
Please 00 edwsed that the Order of Conditions for the project at
File Number has been recorded at the Registry of and
has been noted in the Chan of tine of the affected property in accordance with General Condition 8 on 19_
If recorded land.the instrument number which IdenMies this transaction is
If registered lana,the document number which identifies this transaction is
Signature Applicant
5.4B
l
Attachment A
Special Conditions Michael J. Harrington
164 Rear Boston Street
1. All work shall conform to the above—referenced plans . Any change
made or intended to be made in the approved plans shall require the
applicant to file a new Notice of Intent or to inquire of the
Conservation Commission in writing whether the change is substantial
enough to require a new filing.
2. All catch basins shall be fitted with oil and gas traps. A regular
schedule for maintenance of catch basins including traps , manholes and
piping shall be developed and submitted to the Commission for approval.
3. Use of salt as a de—icing agent on roadways or parking areas within
the project is prohibited. No salt or hazardous material shall be
stored on site.
4. A plan for landscaping and maintenance of vegetation for the buffer
- zone area shall be developed and submitted to the Commission for its
review and approval prior to commencement of work.
5. All work shall comply with conditions set by the City of Salem Board
of Appeals ' decision to grant a Comprensive Permit.
6. Any decision issued by the City of Peabody Conservation Commission
relating to this project, shall be submitted to the Salem Conservation
Commission for inclusion in their files.
7. A copy of an environmental study of the North River prepared by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts in connection with the proposed
construction of the Bridge St. by—pass project, shall be incorporated
with this filing.
8. No commercial vehicles , trailors , boats , or vehicles having more
than two axles shall be parked or stored on the premises with the
exception of vehicles necessary for maintenance and repair on the
premises and commercial vehicles on—site during the period of
construction.
9. Members and agents of the Salem Conservation Commission shall have
the right to enter and inspect the premises to evaluate compliance with
the conditions stated in this order, and may require the submittal of
any data deemed necessary by this commission for that evaluation.
10. Upon completion of the project, the applicant shall submit with
their request for a Certification of Compliance, an affidavit prepared
by a professional engineer or land surveyor registered in the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, stating that the site has been developed
in accordance with the requirements of this Order of Conditions and the
referenced site plan.
11. This Order shall apply to any successor in control or successor in
interest of the property described in the Notice of Intent and
accompanying plans.
r273
J .
--------- - -.__.
------- -.----------------------------
----------
a603-465-2123 C R HARRY INC --------------------------------------------------------
012 P03 NOV 17 '89 14:57
COMPENSATORY FLOOD STORAGE ANALYSIS
HARRINGTON PROPERTY PEABODY/SALEM
Per the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, CMR 10 .57 4.a:
Bordering land subject to flooding ---- Performance Standards
i . Compensatory storage shall be provided for all storage volume that
Will be lost as a result of a proposed project within Bordering Land
Subject to Flooding, when . said
will contribute loss will cause an increase or
incrementally �to an increase in the horizontal extent
and level of flood waters during peak flows.
Compensatory storage shall mean a volume not previously used for
flood storage and shall be incrementally equal to the theorectical
volume of flood water at each elevation up to and including the 100
Year flood elevation . Such volume shall have an unrestricted
hydraulic connection to the waterway and shall be provided in the
same reach of the river or stream.
The proposed site plan calls for the filling of a portion of the site
for the proposed building and parking area at contour elevation 10.
Also, the site plan shows an extensive area of cut into the contour
elevations of 10, 11 and 12.
The methodology , used to compute
"The Conic the theorectical flood volumes was
Method for Reservoir Volumes" . This was done for both
existing and proposed conditions at one foot incremental levels
between a base elevation of 8.0 and an elevation of 12 .0, which was
the maximum flood elevation reported by the Firm Maps for the area.
All existing and proposed contour areas were planimetered for
accuracy. The results are shown on Tables 1 - 3 following this
narrative.
Tables 1 & 2 show that the proposed site plan does not properly
compensate for the flood volumes between the base elevation of 8.0
and 9.0. Thus modification to the site plan to provide more storage
is required .
We suggest that additional length of retaining wall be added to the
proposed retaining wall at the southeast portion of
Salem) . By doing so, the property ( in
additional compensatory storage is gained .
Table 3 shows that this additional storage meets the requirements of
the Wetlands Protection Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ri BARRY INC 012 PO4 NOV 17 189 14:57
POND-2 Version: 4.02
S/N: 88020543
PROPERTY OF MICHAEL HARRINGTON * * TABLE 1 *** **
PEABODY/SALEM MASSACHUSETTS NEAR THE BURIAL GROUND
WETLANDS -- COMPENSATORY STORAGE ANALYSIS
DEP FILE # 64-181 ***** EXISTING CONDITIONS * **
CALCULATED 11-17-1989 14:52:59
DISK FILE : C:HARITN-E.VOL
Planimeter scale: 1 inch = 40 ft .
*
Elevation Planimeter Area Al+A2+sgr(A1*A2) Volume Volume Sum
( ft) (sq.in. ) (acres) (acres) (acre-ft) (acre-ft)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
B.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9.00 57.70 2. 12 2. 12 0.71 0.71
10.00 82.30 3.02 7,67 2. 56 3.26
11 .00 91 .90 3.38 9. 59 3.20 6.46
12.00 127.00 4.66 12.01 4.00 10.46
* Incremental volume computed by the Conic Method for Reservoir Volumes.
Volume = ( 1/3) * (EL2-ELS ) * (Areal + Area2 + sp .rt. (Areal*Areal) )
where: ELI, EL2 Lower and upper elevations of the increment
Areal,Area2 = Areas computed for ELI , EL2, respectively
Volume = Incremental volume between ELI and EL2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
603-465-2123 C A BARRY INC 012 P05 NOV 17 '89 14:58
POND-2 Version: 4.02
S/N: 88020543
PROPERTY OF MICHAEL HARRINGTON *** **** TABLE 2 ** *******
PEABODY/SALEM MASSACHUSETTS NEAR THE BURIAL GROUND
WETLANDS -- COMPENSATORY STORAGE ANALYSIS
DEP FILE N 64-181 ***** PROPOSED CONDITIONS ****
CALCULATED ll-17-1989 14: 50:21
DISK FILE : C:HARRIN-P.VOL
Planimeter scale: I inch = 20 ft.
Elevation Planimater Area Al+A2+sgr(A1*A2) . Volume Volume Sum
( ft) (sq. in. ) (acres) (acres) (acre-ft) (acre-ft)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9.00 107.00 0.98 0.98 0.33 0.33
10.00 335.00 3.08 5.80 1 .93 2.26
11 .00 492.00 4.52 11.32 3.77 6.03
12.00 647.00 5.94 15.64 5.21 11 .25
* Incremental volume computed by the Conic Method for Reservoir Volumes.
Volume = ( 1/3).. * (EL2-ELI ) * (Areal + Area2 + sq .rt. (Areal*Areal) )
where: ELI, EL2 = Lower and upper elevations of the increment
Areal ,Area2 = Areas computed for ELI , EL2, respectively
Volume = Incremental volume between ELI and EL2
r
------------------------------------------------ ----------------------- ----------------------
603-465-2123 C BARRY INC 012 P06 NOV 17 189 14:58
POND-2 Version: 4.02
S/N: 88020543
PROPERTY OF MICHAEL HARRINGTON * *** TABLE 3 **********
PEABODY/SALEM MASSACHUSETTS NEAR THE BURIAL GROUND
WETLANDS -- COMPENSATORY STORAGE ANALYSIS --- AEP FILE 64 - 181
* *** MODIFICATIONS TO PROPOSED CONDITIONS * * * *
CALCULATED 11-17-1989 14:55:45
DISK FILE : C:HARITN-P.VOL
Planimeter scale: 1 inch = 40 ft.
Elevation Planimeter Area Al+A2+sgr(A1*A2) Volume Volume Sum
( ft) (sq. in. ) (acres) (acres) (acre-ft) (acre-ft)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9.00 68.30 2.51 2.51 0.64 0.84
10.00 106.80 3.92 9. 57 3. 19 4.03
11.00 125.60 4.61 12.79 4.26 8.29
12.00 167.60 6.16 16. 10 5.37 13.66
Incremental volume computed by the Conic Method for Reservoir Volumes.
Volume = ( 1/3) * (EL2-EL1 ) * (Areai + Area2 + sq.rt. (Area1*Area2) )
where: ELI , EL2 = Lower and upper elevations of the increment
Areal ,Area2 = Areas computed for ELI , EL2, respectively
Volume = Incremental volume between ELI and EL2
`.��ON Cpi,
z Conservati Il Commissim
Salem. Massachusetts 01970
F r�
.t�.ytssnCNC-
CITY OF SALEM
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
On Thursday, July 13, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. , the Salem Conservation
Commission will hold a public hearing under the Wetlands Protection Act ,
Mass. G.L. Chapter 131 , Section 40, at the request of Michael J.
Harrington, 59 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970.
The proposed work involves construction of a forty-eight unit
multi-family residential dwelling with parking area, utilities and
driveway to be located at 164 Rear Boston Street near the Salem-Peabody
line. Portions of the proposed project are located within a wetland
buffer zone. The hearing will be held at One Salem Green, second floor
conference room.
John G. Vallis
Chairman
July 6, 1989
r251
EL
iS9�
July 21, 1989
Mr. Ralph Kardon
DEQE (Metro Boston/Northwest Region)
5 Commonwealth Avenue
Woburn, Massachusetts 01810
APPEAL FROM ORDER OF SALEM
CONSERVATION COMMISSION,
DATED JULY 18, 1989, RECORDED JULY 19, 1989
164 REAR BOSTON STREET, SALEM, MA
AND HOWLEY STREET, PEABODY, MA
DEQE FILE NO. 64-181
Dear Mr. Kardon:
The undersigned owners of property abutting the above
described site , hereby appeal to the DEQE for a superseding
Order of Conditions consistent with the provisions of M.G.L.
Chapter 131, Section 40 and 310 C.R.M. 10.05.
We invoke the above statutory avenue of review because
1 . the proposed work to be done is significant to public
or private water supply, the ground water supply, flood
control , storm damage preservation , prevention of
pollution, or the protection of wild life habitat;
2. the proposed work under the Order of Condition is
inconsistent with 310 C . R .M . 10 . 00 and does not
contribute to the protection of the interest identified
under M .G .L . Chapter 131 , Section 40 , the Wetlands
Protection Act; or
3. the Conservation Commissions act was arbitrary,
capricious, in excess of its authority under the City
of Salems ' Wetland By-Law and/or such action was
unsupported by evidence.
Factual basis for our contingent is as follows :
We have lived in the area for many years and have lived
next to the area subject to the proposed work in the
Order of Conditions. For the greater portion of this
time , this area has consistently been defined as a
Wetlands area, it is adjacent to and contains the main
interceptor line from the City of Peabody to South
Essex Sewerage District . It also has contained at
various times, a stream that runs consistently from the
downtown City of Peabody through Salem at this
particular location. We have witnessed, from time to
time, a flooding of this entire area when the volume of
water coming into the area from Peabody overflows the
bank and causes severe flooding. This contention has
recently been born out by the evidence presented to the
Peabody Conservation Commission in connection with this
same project in which the developers admit that this
particular area is subject to flooding and that on
occasion it could be as much as two feet of water at
the first floor level of this particular project and
that the entire parking lot could be flooded. It is
submitted that the City of Salem did not take into
account the total impact of the project , the total
number of units , the total construction work to be
done . Since a small portion of this project is in
Salem, we feel that the Salem Conservation Commission
concentrated on the Salem portion without having in
mind that the project is a total project consisting of
close to two hundred (200) units of proposed housing
with adjacent parking areas, accessory buildings , etc.
That the total impact of the project was not considered
in the calculations presented and reviewed by the
Board. We feel that this project as proposed poses a
serious threat of flooding and erosion of our property.
We also feel , on the basis of statements made by the
developer to the Peabody Conservation Commission at a
meeting that their is the presence of asbestos on the
site , that the combination of the presence of this
hazardous material on the site together with flooding
that occurs could pose a serious problem to the
surrounding areas in spreading this hazardous material
so as to encroach on adjoining properties and thus
effect the entire area.
f N
I feel all of these matters must be reviewed by your
department and that an appropriate superseding order should be
issued . There is serious question as to whether this site is
appropriate for building, it is admittedly in a flood area and
construction will adversely effect the entire area. We feel you
are the last hope for the residents of the area in making sure
that this project can be suitably controlled and built with
proper safe guards and within the requirements of the existing
law.
Very truly yours ,
cc: Michael J. Harrington
John Vallas , Chairman
Salem Conservation Commission
�UA'jl
A
tkosi Cay
j GC1I1Se2'Vc'i 1�I1cotI1,11.1issim
r.� Saiem. Massachusetts 01970
�d Sti
City of Salem
Conservation Commission
Notice of Meeting
You are hereby notified that the Salem Conservation Commission will
hold its regular meeting on Thursday, July 13, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. , One
Salem Green, second floor Conference room.
John G. Vallis
Chairman
Tentative Agenda:
1. ) Notice of Intent for — Michael J. Harrington
164 Rear Boston Street
2. ) Discussion: Activity in North — Dan Wiggin, Hendrick
River Canal Area Manufacturing Corp.
— Aaron Weinstein, Mason
Realty Trust
3. ) Old/New Business
4. ) Approval of Minutes
CM148
r'U ULA.
=1tY Hail Eve . isullj. ri,r1 Boarev,
at / S'd vai Sas . n l„ `�
P ' in n accorrdance 1 1/9f3�
Of the Acte Of 1958. 11 Chan. 626 .
NOTICE OF CLAIM
PERSON/PARTY MAKING REQUEST APPLICANT:
Michael J. Harrington Michael J. Harrington
59 Federal Street 59 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
508/744-0350 Salem, MA 01970
SECTION 1 -- GENERAL INFORMATION
PROJECT LOCATION: 164R Boston Street, Salem
and Howley Street, Peabody
DEP FILE NUMBER: 64-181,
DATE LOCAL OR SUPERSEDING
ORDER/DETERMINATION ISSUED: December 13, 1990
li
SECTION 2 -- NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF ALL PARTIES
Peabody Conservation Commission, Town Hall, 24 Lowell St. , Peabody,
MA 01960
j
Salem Conservation Commission, City Hall, One Salem Green, Salem,
MA 01970
j Joan M. Sweeney, 22 Silver Street, Salem, MA 01970
f Susan L. Riess, 30A Silver Street, Salem, MA 01970 I
Michael Guilmet, Allen, DeMurjian, & Major, 806 Massachusetts
Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139
{ SECTION 3 -- STATEMENT OF APPEAL
The proposed project meets the general performance standards
of 310 CMR in that:
1. Proposed compensatory flood storage is adequate.
(_ 2 . Horizontal extent and level of flood waters are not
increased by the proposed project.
3 . The proposed project does not impact the stability of the
North River bank.
i
i I i
i
i
NOTICE OF CLAIM -- December 21, 1990 -- Page 2 -- DEP File #64-181
4 . The proposed project does not impact wildlife habitat.
5 . The proposed project enhances an existing blighted area
and will provide enhanced and improved resource areas .
A copy of this claim has been sent to the Conservation
Commissions and each of the parties or representative of such party
known to the undersigned applicant.
i
ichael W. Hakringtofr�
i
I
i I
I
{ j
I
I RECEIVED
RDQUFST FOR DEPARTMENTAL ACTION FEE TRANSMITTAL FURMDE C 211990
DEPARnMIT OF ENV1RaII+1FSlTAL PR0IBCTION
' DIVISION OF WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS SALEM PIAINPiI G DEPT.
PERSON/PARTY MAKING REQUEST: APPLICANT:
(If appropriate, name the citizen (As shown on Notice of Intent
i
group's representative) or Request for Determination)
i
Name Michael J. Harrington Name Michael J. Harrington
Street 59 Federal Street Street 59 Federal Street
'i city/Town Salem city/Town Salem
L
State MA Zip Code 01970 ate MA Zip Code 01970
Phone Number 508/744-0350
Boston Street,
pRa= LOCATION: Salem and Howley DEI+ F= NUMBER 64-181
Street, ea o y
DATE LOCAL OR SUPERSEDING ORDER/DETERMINATIONUED
ISSDecember 13, 1990',
Amount of Filing Fee Attached: $ 200.00
INSTRUCTIONS
WHEN ME THE DEPARIMESS 1TTAL ACTION REQUESTED IS A: (check one)
Request for Superseding Order of Conditions ($50)
Request for Superseding Determination of Applicability ($50)
1. Send this form and a check or money order for $50.00, payable to the . i
I Commonwealth of Massachusetts, to the DEP Inck Box at:
Dept. of Environmental Protection
Box 4062
Boston, MA 02211
6+; 2. Send a air y of this form and a copy of the check or money order with the
Request For Department Action to the appropriate DEP Regional Office:
DEP/Northeast Regional Office DEP/Southeast Regional Office
5 Commonwealth Avenue Lakeville Hospital, Route 105
1l_
Woburn, MA 01801 Lakeville, MA 02347
' DEP/Central Regional Office DEP/Western Regional Office
75 Grove Street 436 Dwight Street
Worcester, MA 01605 State House West, 4th Floor
i Springfield, MA 01103
WHEN THE DEPARIME111AL ACTION REQUESTED IS A: (check one)
XX Request for Adjudicatory Hearing ($200)
Request to Intervene in Adjudicatory Proceeding ($100)
Request for a variance ($4,000)
1. Send this form and check or money order, payable to the Comnonwealth'of,
Mass. , in the indicated amount to the DEP Lock Box (at above address) and;
2. Send a copv of this form and a copy of the check or money order with' the
Request for Departmental Action to:
Docket Clerk
Office of General Counsel
1 Winter Street
11/10/89 Boston, MA 02108
f
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Execufive Office of Environmental Affairs.
`Departmen# of
' Environmental Protection
WIIIIam F. Weld
Goem«:
Daniel&Greenbaum
Canmi�bner:
May 7 , 1993
In: The Matter' Of ) Docket No. 90-262
File No. 64-181.
MICHAEL J. HARRINGTON ) PEABODY
ORDER OF DISMISSAL.
On March 24, 1993 , I issued an Order to Show Cause directing
thepetitionerin this case to file, within ten- days of the date of
the Order and upon pain of dismissal, a statement showing cause why
his appeal should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution. No
such statement has been filed by the: petitioner. Accordingly, this
appeal is DISMISSED for lack of prosecution pursuant to 310 CMR
1.. 01(7) (d) (2.) . The Superseding Order of Conditions (Denial) issued
by the Department on December 13 , 1990 is now final.
The parties to this proceeding are notified of their right to
file. a Motion for Reconsideration of this. Decision and Order
pursuant to 310 CMR 1. 0L(10) (p) . Such a motion must be filed
within ten (10) calendar days of the: postmarked dateof this
Decision and Order and must. include a statement. of` all matters
alleged' to have been erroneously decided and,. if applicable, a
statement as to any newly discovered matters. or circumstances that,
have: arisen subsequent to this: Decision and Order. Any such motion
one,Winter Street 9 Boston,.Massachusetts 02108: 0 FAX(617)556-1049w e, Telephone.(6M 292-55W-
shall be- filed with. they Docket. Clerk. of the= Office, of
Administrative Appeals- and shall be: served on all parties!_.
The, parties to: this proceeding are notified further that any
party may appeal this Decision and Order to the- Superior Court
pursuant to M.G.L. a.30A, §14 (1) . The complaint must be filed in.
the-. Court, within thirty (30) days of receipt of. this Decision and
Order. nn
Kris in M.. Palace.
Administrative Law Judge
I adopt this Decision as my Final Decision in this matter.
bafiiel,t. Greenbaum
Commissioner
Service List. - Docket # 90-261
Michael S. Harrington Applicant\Petitioner
59= Federal Street,
Salem, MA 01970'
Peabody Conservation Commission
Town Hall.
Z4 Lowell Street.
Peabody, MA" 0.1960-
Salem; Conservation Commission
City Hall
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Joan M. Sweeney
22 Silver Street.
Salem, MA 01970
Susan L. Riess
30A Silver Street
Salem, MA 01970
i
i
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs #4# A
Department of �, X41
Qpj
Environmental Protection �rQ11110
William F. Weld aeAt
Daniel S.Greenbaum
March 24, 1993
In The Matter Of ) Docket No. 90-262
File No. 64-181
Michael J. Harrington j PEABODY (Harrington)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
On February 17, 1993 I sent a letter to the parties in this case
directing them to submit, within 21 days of the date of the letter
and upon pain of dismissal, a written statement indicating if they
still wished to proceed to an adjudicatory hearing. No response
has been received from the Petitioner in the case. Therefore, the
Petitioner is ORDERED to show cause why this appeal should not be
dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 310 CMR 1. 01
(7) (d) (2) . Petitioner's response must be postmarked not later than
10 days from the date of this order and served upon all parties.
If no such statement is filed and served within the time
specified above, the appeal will be dismissed and the Superseding
i Order of Conditions or the Superseding Determination of
Applicability, as the case may be, will become final.
-ep (
y Kristin M. Palace
Administrative Law Judge
j One VAnter Street a Boston,t#assachusetts 02106 a FAX(617)656-1049 a Telephone(617)292-5500
i
Service List - Docket # 90-262
Michael J. Harrington Applicant\Petitioner
59 Federal Street
Salem, MA 01970
Peabody Conservation Commission
Town Hall
24 Lowell Street
Peabody, MA 01960
Salem Conservation Commission
City Hall
One Salem Green
Salem, MA 01970
Joan M. Sweeney
22 Silver Street
Salem, MA 01970
Susan L. Riess
30A Silver Street
Salem, MA 01970
CITY OF SALEM
CONSERVATION COMMISSION
On Thursday, July 13, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. , the Salem Conservation
Commission will hold a public hearing under the Wetlands Protection Act,
Mass . G.L. Chapter 131, Section 40, at the request of Michael J.
Harrington, 59 Federal Street, Salem, MA 01970.
The proposed work involves construction of a forty-eight unit
multi-family residential dwelling with parking area, utilities and
driveway to be located at 164 Rear Boston Street near the Salem-Peabody -
line. Portions of the proposed project are located within a wetland
buffer zone. The hearing will be held at One Salem Green, second floor
conference room.
John G. Vallis
Chairman
July 6, 1989
r251
Professional Land Surveyors & Civil Engineers
ESSEX SURVEY SERVICE, 1958 - 1986
OSBORN PALMER 1911 - 1970
BRADFORD & WEED 1885 - 1972
July 5, 1989
Ms. Kathy Winn
Salem Conservation Commission
1 Salem Green
Salem, Ma 01970
RE: E 8131
Howley Street
Peabody/Salem, MA
Dear Ms. Winn,
Please find enclosed several copies of the above referenced Site Dev-
olopnent Plan and Notice Of Intents forms for filing with the Commission.
Also enclosed is a check for $25.00 for the filing fee. The applicant
would like to be on the Commission's next meeting.
Sincerely,
Christopher R. Mello P.L.S.
President
CRM/pa
Enclosure
cc: DEQE
Mr. Michael Harrington
40 LOWELL STREET
PEABODY, MASS. 01960
(508) 531-8121
FAX: (508) 531-5920
_, ��ar(inuzb fc iutiiCif7n7e/Jlalla�l�- ciyulecrvr�
�:� " cS✓� C�Of/(ii[Ol�UCClI��/ ,�WUuIV
r
Daniel S. Greenbaum //-�OIJt!/vL, _�I,CISBIJ.C�ZIIJ'CI.CJ' om)ol
Commissioner
617/935-2160 � 9�t� !F•'...-.� v
DATE: July 21, 1989 t RE: NOTIFICATION OF FILE NUMBER: 64-181
WETLANDS/ Salem
city Lown
This Department is in receipt of the following application filed in accordance
with the Wetlands Protection Act (M. G . L. Chapter 131 , Section 40) :
APPLICANT: Michael J. Harrington OWNER OF LAND: same
ADDRESS : 59 Federal St. ADDRESS :
Sal-em, MA 01479
PROJECT LOCATION: Howley St. , Peabody/Salem, MA
Althoughafile = is being issued, the possible following deficiency ( ies)
in the filing have been noted:
No File _ will be assigned to this project until the following missing informa-
tion is sent to. this office to complete the filing in accordance with the Act :
( ) Notice of Intent ( ) Locus Mau ( ) Plans
( ) Title 5 Plan ( )Appendix A Documentation
COMMENTS :
( ) Application has been forwarded to the Waterways Licensing Program to deter-
mine if a Chapter 91 License is required.
( ) Appl Kant is advised to forward a Copy of the Notice of In-ent t0 the A-^
Ccrp=_ of Engineers for Sec. 404 review (Call 1-800-362-4367 for further
infcrmaticnj .
( ) Project may require a Water Quality Certificate. A.policant is advised to
Contact the DEQE Division of Water Pcllution Control ( 1 Winter SL . , Boston,
PA, 02105 ; tel : ( 617) 292-5673) for forms and further information .
ISSUANCE OF A. FILE NUMBER INDICATES ONLY COMPLETENESS OF FILING SUBMITTED, NOT
APPRO`<"AL OF APPLICATION .
cC: ( X) Conservation Commission
conies also sent to:
DEQE Division of Water Pollution Control
L . S .Army Corps of Enqineers , Regulatory Branch
City or Town Board of Health
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Owner
For the Commissioner
Section Cilie_
Issued by the Depa^men! c. Envnon "em Prol_ lion
Sionalufe
Dn this cat, o' DfOcember i 4 90 . belore me
Dersona0,atmea,ed Sabin M. Lord Jr, ioDn iyn�ee }�t�o,�-,my.e known to be the Denson
pe5_rloed in an.wno e.ecule^_ the loreooino 1n5if n1 NQyQtllri,yyil�I�i e+'nee5ne execuleo the same
as ms.her Ire= t,1 and dee^
G�77
Z
y
Public 64y m Isslon exDdeS
Teean1,the or.any Person a oreeeC by the SubarseoinC Orcef,any D.ner DI Is"sourcing the lane uPom wMcn me DTAsr.'
�'DrR rS IO De OD^!,pr any 1!n DarSOn!PVrSUa^I IC G.L.C.3pA 110A.Pe heraM nDVbeD DI tnpr nbnl lD reDVeTI N epIVOiCTIpry binne
Pursuant to G.L.E.30A. 510.Drone,no Ine request Is meet by'confined III or nano bmw"to in,Department.wen me nopfconme film,lee
and some Trenemr AI Foam es vror,DCe in 310 CMR 10.=7).whin ten days Iron Ins Due of Isouanoa of this SuDersecm0 Orem.one is
ADMI se4 to Docket Me-,O160e of G.maru Counsel,Deoammern of E^yevnmentaf Prgteagn.One winter Sliest. Sw on.MA 0210e.
A coot,by the Idol shalt at Ime same tome De sent Dy CentbeD mall b none Delwery IO Ina COnservelron OpnmlST,Ina applicant.one eny
What pare'
A Nonce of Claim for an Aductalwy Nea,mc Small Comply with the De Danmeml S slides for ADIUpralory Pr OCeepm^S.31 C. ?AD
1 D 1161 no small contain the labwmo mlormehpT
lal Ina CEP Wallan0;File Numbm,name of tree anchib m one Access of the Dromn.
!toe CCMDtete mame,,Dore SS and letepnohe number of the caT'tiling Me reaVeSI.ane,11 remesenlee by Counsel,the name ane
ad Ore SS 01 ins allornel':
ICl fns names and 200fe SSeS C'a1:one,panfe5.it known:
IC; a CM37 and CDndlSe SlatemeM Of I I I the IaC:S wnlCh are g:OVDDS for In!-OZeedmg,(21 the ObIi Cn DhS ID this su=erseem:
III Sbetm:ally Inc manne,In wmdn i11s eeeoed ID be e,conslslenl emm lee Deeanment's wenanes Aeguial,DmS 131 D CIAR
IT DDI ane SOTS tool Comrloule 1D In.prple Cimn of the mteresti i0entolieO In the FCL and 131 the relief SOUOni Int Pudn Ine 2ml'
01datory hemmg.in-WOmI soecdr_aIfy the changes cevreo in the S,Delseamg Oroer.
tel a slalelnen:,•.d:O cOdq bi Ine'C0'J^_sI nes been S,ml tD In,Z,of,.;o,I In,ComServalion COMMISSi^n an0 each other Carty 0,re,
reSematwe bl such dant,,it kno,yn.
Failure 10 sUDmn all necessary Inlorfhanpn may result in a Dismissal by'me Deparlfinem oI ne Notre of Claim lo,an Ad1U0rabP HeamnD
c
rj
=�=_tot
' •'Deiesn en'bgneo'lin anC SuDmlt lD tai:" onDf to Cpmmen[ement Of wortCf .
=Um;AL'InDnty
Please De ao.,seC mal the Oroer of Comor.ons ter lee D,peCt 2'
sae Nurh"t mals beeh'feewdR at Me registry 0! and
has b»n IIOTOIn the Cnam UI'toe 01'he alle led aooem on a==O,C.Mer wim General CMdYnon e.
It,-:-De: Ian:. I'M i^srtumenl Humor, -torn.bennllee this transa:uDn Is
I•L___ .^_cin! he CY_um.n1 nu'ipr• ,+nips Orn"le mss Z'1ss_nDn 1'
Sicnaau,e
Dpt.d and
11/IO o4
31.D CHR 25D.9Co'
Commonwealth of Massachusetts FFB
Executive Office of Environmental Affairsd 3
Department of *7' n
Environmental Protection 0e0r
William F. Weld
G
Daniel S..Greenbaum SALEM I_'ONSERVA-110N CO<~MISS310N
Comminaelonerewer C I T'Y MALI_
GIME SALEN GREEN
SALE°I . MA 01 970--
Doc#: 90--262 File #: 64--IBI
February 17, 1993
Dear Parties:
The Department of Environmental Protection is reviewing all pending
wetlands permit appeals for adjudicatory hearings in an effort to
evaluate and improve the efficiency of its administrative process.
As you may know, the large number of wetlands appeals filed in
recent years and the limited extent of the Department's resources
have created a backlog of cases. These cases may wait many months
before they can be finally resolved.
The Department is committed to solving this backlog problem. As a
first step, the Department is seeking to identify and close
moribund wetlands permit appeals by asking all parties to submit
a
written statement, within 21 days of the date of this letter,
answering the following questions:
1. Has this appeal been settled?
2 . Is the project in question still being proposed or
has it been withdrawn?
3. Do you still wish to proceed to an adjudicatory
hearing or do you wish to withdraw your appeal?
_ The Department will dismiss those cases where the petitioner no
longer wishes to proceed, or where the Department receives no
response to this letter within the required time frame.
Please address all correspondence to me, care of the Office of
General Counsel, at the address which appears below. You must
include the docket number shown above .on any correspondence. If
you do not include the docket number, your response can not be
processed. If your address has changed, please provide us with
your current address. Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly y��o//urs,
K)sti Pa ace G�
Administrative Law Judge
One Winter Street • Boston, Massachusetts 02108 • FAX(617)556.1049 • Telephone(617)292-5500