Loading...
111 NORTH STREET - BUILDING INSPECTION (2) SuperTab® NOW Folders 90%Larger Label Area I EE-0 /// I 5 M EAD KEEPING YOU ORGANIZED No.10301 FOWPoodke w I@ In USA GET ORGANOED AT SMEAO.COM 1d itmam COww 10%POst4)wls MER ` 1 i Lorayne Black ASLA Landscape Architect Date: August 7, 2012 To: Mr.Thomas J.St. Pierre, Inspectional Services Director City of Salem Inspectional Services 120 Washington St. 3i°. Floor Salem, MA 01970 Project: Plantings at I I I North Street Salem, MA Reference: Summary of Planting Installation Dear Mr. St. Pierre, Attached, please find the updated Planting Plan for I I I North Street in Salem.reflecting the installed plant locations noted as of July 13,2012. The proposed plantings were installed during May and June 2012. The original plan specified twenty-six (26) Red Maple saplings and one (I) 3'to 3.5" caliper Red maple. There now aie twenty-six (26) red maple saplings, fifteen (15) 2"to 2.5"caliper red maple, and one (I) 3"to 3.5" caliper red maple. The remaining plants listed on the original plant list have been installed The plan of March 2,2012 has been substantially completed. Sincerely, Loiayne Black,A Cc. Mr. Bob Sidiropoulcs Mr,Joseph Correnti phone:(978) 302-0448 EMAIL LBLac'k@gmton,org FO. Box 595.Groton.MA 01450 www.loiayneblackcom I I 1 I GEWZ&NOTES pG a.�� I! II � I is r I � ir:--. ■ -`, .�m.,wam.�.r.,«>a,..ff,..,®,m,�.,�..,wM��,.m,.n�.,...Ka.. r ..._ ._. l _..... _.._ %Af '� ���\1 jj � Ili. � �' nmixrws umaarr®nwnorom¢aaee v.rair rmr'wemF3m u� li PRQPOSED ELLDW III ' mrm.w�mm.��u®.mu.wnv �� I I ' � 1 I Y .v'�oaaEam m,o..rm�wwaauwrc rturousms�rc��m.�: _ -{- °ev��,E�a���is�oeacrmsw aw�-.m.v�a'Ruu ve•�rmnwcrton Y �(j y y� ORiN _ < . �r:Y _ � 4 111 NOAM1 6heel 7RRF£FlAMIv'C OETAL I w RESr�ATM S®W v arra>"• Planting Plan : m.e..r.....«.tea...........'.:.—..7..u.�.�.; ...m.m..� Ill m...,w mur" +ri II ♦y4 4 mow.... ..o. 4a'n OCT.rvd.E WM!/JV NME FSS LWI Ig1B ��, c,s.w ma. rj.•J �� Y m.n<n w® CKpA�IS l4we rw l� iG M9NG SY✓S i 4i.M1R�lF/� an wML W11EEi0.i94W WffiSFOLL fbN,b Pr til � i emeaava ®xu� s ssIIr6rx em wmE Fu arce ieerwm. F- "j,, `✓Hrdffi.M ®WAE Y31N5 Nn. wm'E Fdt race YBlrleA, Fr. mnmw. mpe t'4 wn ms� n Fnsl®+w.r�� iawr ae rum�_Fasr scvmsF.snar�nuo�wwi rs Fr 6� �riT r�f_aq, �®•_•m �••„.'.�: w wworsenusraseoawea�exema re as wr cera wmo moeawron,oea�aa�azoxoFr .,. _..� ��� Baas .� ec uexu�urvwa� r ss wR wi.srer ss wve w,.re F.ar soraarms Fu�mm.aFr. ..,..�.. ...,�.. _ ' � eeecr rar®m' miss m+r. wme wFreums era®asaasrt ,mm -- {l W 'J BRWL90.uJ W.UrH PY Pi P,pJ]IBR 'ICi. 9B INIM1f VF WM010.G F66131F0.5I 9MWlµP Fl. 2 sae r�wmG oeru L.1 v w wuw.mrmu anmuwreaM +•cerci a9 wmc wi.vrireao-rers.�Fau macersn ae ............. ..m..+a..�......e Lorayne Black ASLA Landscape Architect Date: August 7, 2012 To: Mr.Thomas]. St. Pien-e, Inspectional Services Director City of Salem Inspectional Services 120 Washington St. 3". Floor Salem.MA 01970 Project: Plantings at I I I Nath Street Salem,MA Reference: Summary of Planting Installation Dear Mr. St, Pierre, Attached, please find the updated Planting Plan for I 1 1 North Street in Salem, reflecting the installed plant locations noted as of July 13,2012. The proposed plantings were installed during May and June 2012. The original plan specified twenty-six(26) Red Maple saplings and one (I) 3"to 35"caliper Red maple. There now are twenty-six (26) red maple saplings, ((teen(15) 2"to 1.5'coliper red rnople, and one (1) 3"to 3.5" caliper red maple The remaining plants listed on the original plant list have been installed. The plan of March 2, 2012 has been substantially completed. Sincerely, Lo yne Black,AS6R Cc, Mr. Bob Sidiropoulos Mr.Joseph Correnti phone:(978) 302-0448 EMAILLBLack@groton.oig P.O.Box 595, Groton.MA 01450 www.loi ayneblack.com G9NERAL NOTES .. ✓l��ll r { naNrnc na1. IT ALL n=s� TAA— mre� ,.w srro:nnw.. ATTALTu— -si.:.s� � s4 ',. ... .n1nw w:mws uevmrok.wwax rcwrsue.uwseT.eceti®rua n�nEs�c wl�.s .• xw.w�eavaau�wx.womonure.rowwmmsamnrnn�s.wrrvn un was uu x ___ _ ,.-� ■ o o.mresa unwmmrw.umraanwnnamruawwuemnu.. k tLr:., ..: agoi�wawrtIxoaumsweru.mwwurtwu>vaore�uvav uwresu. AL_aco.ro I A, vm mraa>amaw.w wnvrswums ., nw'ry®v.eucaarv.r wnnaure�reruevu wm.mw.°I,, w, arvas _ ♦ .mem�w.am.aanwevaann.ax.s:oamm•sw.m '.,s' �:, t i�. r.u_�swsemwusw�wnmummn.ee.-®wu.avnawa¢w.m�mmmna.m 111 ATIAT—T.IT­AAAAA { ,• %/ AAL—wwasw�msv..m.xuwwn®zm nc`rmxrmaos®nEr¢�miarcrwuw {l�t ����_� Ili � � �� { o¢rwem.u:an•mww.wrvoxmexm remwewe.rwuw PROPOSID 9,LDNG .. mmmwwu1 w.anu.x..,am. 1. .�,xe�,®� ae,.w,xo..x .wIT ATI. Y f ID In NORTH IT All P * e _ - jh� _ v.saewrvm.+ ernemmnmsvrew tR F Y 3 a q\ �� - ` «` iii Nmnsa�ei I p �b� R peraNplrenl (11Rff RpNINC,�EfP1 sa..,.w RESrMp110N SEED W Ll Planting Plan mccu Nu.E cawavrw.e s� eoor wrEs ac ueroc+�cnwaxs mar oaw.wRsiFen e® wme war�rowr sF.w aa'les ruk cam.aa tT��� _. m e�aaeu ®I.wE a'-ss'uu as wrrxe Fau arm,.�rxewr mFr. 4q -� x n�eFwx. Nm wwE srarvs♦ orv. wrr rru cace rerwmrwn wks��s �s�+vsr�arE rswr sa wm=_vasr amxc em�nowu,wwrrs Fr ••••�••• « •{ ��I-�4 .ui dW x�� '•"..`.^.. �ma�n waooae+rasrave' ou.umr ecas,Rce ew7 as Nem:maw um..r our:ora�s�kmxasr � .,_,,.. °«` � - � �� � - �. n6 M9p1p@CMY0T4 9Y.Y8�r 5'd Wf.WR'Sldl NCTh£WRE FIY-i 3<•SRMYS FIY WLN.bFl rm�-+ crvwv w _ µ aw vmme areecfe mvxru.�r nrss mmi ,All & -- y emmenw uwxw x�nr axv®uw srwr, as IwRh.ux�xovacrvvvasi arnmkv n. (7l'uFR.B P�PNING�Efp1 v n vamu w.Fmw aswuwreau Fs wr as wme wr.wFreaa�awaFeu caw aFr. e,n a.«,x«... ..,..,,,,.�.«#..,.., U �.� SOVEREIGN • t . December 17,2012 Via eDEP Electronic Submittal Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office 2056 Lowell Street Wilmington,Massachusetts 01887 Re: CLASS A-2 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME STATEMENT and METHOD 1 RISK CHARACTERIZATION Former Shell-Branded Service Station#137838 111 North Street Salem,Massachusetts RTN 3-26179 To Whom It May Concern: i On behalf of Motiva Enterprises LLC, Sovereign Consulting Inc. is submitting the attached Class A-2 Response Action Outcome Statement (RAO) and Method 1 Risk Characterization (M1RC) Report regarding the above-referenced disposal site. This report was prepared in accordance with the Massachusetts Contingency Plan and summarizes response actions conducted at the disposal site and the achievement of a condition of "No Significant Risk' for Release Tracking Number 3-26179. i If you have any questions regarding this submittal,please feel free to contact the undersigned. Sincerely, SOVEREIGN CONSULTING INC. 2 4k_R___ Tamara Hagie David G. Billo,LSP Project Manager Senior Project Manager Attachments: Class A-2 RAO Transmittal Form BWSC-104 cc: With Attachments: Robert Rule,Motive Trickett Realty Trust,H.Sidiropoulos,Trustee Sovereign File-2R814 4 Open Square Way, Suite 307 • Holyoke, MA 01040 •Tel: 413-540-0650 • Fax: 413-540-0656 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC104 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT Release Tracking Number Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1000(Subpart J) - 26179 a - For sites with multiple RTNs,enter the Primary RTN above. A. SITE LOCATION: 1. Site Name/Location Aid: FORMER SHELL-BRANDED SERVICE STATION __ __— ___ 2. Street Address: [1i f NORTH ST SALEM � � 19700000 0 3. City/Town: _ 4. ZIPCode: v____.____..________.__.____( 5. Check here if a Tier Classification Submittal has been provided to DEP for this disposal site. 7 a. Tier IA E] b. Tier IB ❑ c. Tier IC 0 d. Tier II 6. If a Tier I Permit has been issued, provide Permit Number: B. THIS FORM IS BEING USED TO: (check all that apply) 1. List Submittal Date of RAO Statement(if previously submitted): mm/dd/yyyy 2. Submit a Response Action Outcome(RAO)Statement a. Check here if this RAO Statement covers additional Release Tracking Numbers (RTNs). RTNs that have been previously linked to a Tier Classified Primary RTN do not need to be listed here. b. Provide additional Release Tracking Number(s) ❑ _ ❑ _ covered by this RAO Statement. 3. Submit a Revised Response Action Outcome Statement a. Check here if this Revised RAO Statement covers additional Release Tracking Numbers(RTNs), not listed on the RAO Statement or previously submitted Revised RAO Statements. RTNs that have been previously linked to a Tier Classified Primary RTN do not need to be listed here. b. Provide additional Release Tracking Number(s) ❑ _ ❑ _ covered by this RAO Statement. 4. Submit a Response Action Outcome Partial(RAO-P)Statement Check above box, if any Response Actions remain to be taken to address conditions associated with this disposal site having the Primary RTN listed in the header section of this transmittal form. This RAO Statement will record only an RAO-Partial Statement for that RTN. A final RAO Statement will need to be submitted that references all RAO-Partial Statements and, if applicable, covers any remaining conditions not covered by the RAO-Partial Statements. Also,specify if you are an Eligible Person or Tenant pursuant to M.G.L. c.21 E s.2,and have no further obligation to conduct response actions on the remaining portion(s)of the disposal site: L_J a. Eligible Person r�j b. Eligible Tenant Ell 5. Submit an optional Phase I Completion Statement supporting an RAO Statement ❑ 6. Submit a Periodic Review Opinion evaluating the status of a Temporary Solution for a Class C-1 RAO Statement,as J specified in 310 CMR 40.1051 (Section F is optional) 7. Submit a Retraction of a previously submitted Response Action Outcome Statement(Sections E&Fare not required) (All sections of this transmittal form must be filled out unless otherwise noted above) Revised: 02/28/2006 Page 1 of 7 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC104 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT Release Tracking Number - 26179 '. Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1000(Subpart J) Ll C. DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE ACTIONS: (check all that apply;for volumes, list cumulative amounts) 1. Assessment and/or Monitoring Only ' 2. Temporary Covers or Caps 3. Deployment of Absorbent or Containment Materials ❑ 4. Treatment of Water Supplies Ll5. Structure Venting System D 6. Engineered Barrier L 7. Product or NAPL Recovery 17 8. Fencing and Sign Posting El9. Groundwater Treatment Systems i 10. Soil Vapor Extraction 0 11. Bioremediation 0 12. Air Sparging 13. Monitored Natural Attenuation El 14. In-situ Chemical Oxidation 15. Removal of Contaminated Soils ❑✓ a. Re-use, Recycling or Treatment ❑ i.On Site Estimated volume in cubic yards ❑✓ ii.Off Site Estimated volume in cubic yards 70.75 iia. Facility Name: MTS Town: CHICHESTER State: NH iib. Facility Name: Town: State: iii. Describe: SOIL FROM OWS EXCAVATION b. Landfill ❑ i.Cover Estimated volume in cubic yards Facility Name: Town: State: ii. Disposal Estimated volume in cubic yards Facility Name: Town: State: �j 16. Removal of Drums,Tanks or Containers: a. Describe Quantity and Amount: b. Facility Name: Town: State: c. Facility Name: Town : State: 017. Removal of Other Contaminated Media: a. Specify Type and Volume: b. Facility Name: Town: State: c. Facility Name: Town: State: Revised: 02/28/2006 Page 2 of 7 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC104 L( .RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT Release Tracking Number T Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1000(Subpart J) C. DESCRIPTION OF RESPONSE ACTIONS(cont): (check all that apply; for volumes, list cumulative amounts) Ej 18. Other Response Actions: Describe: 19. Use of Innovative Technologies: Describe: D.SITE USE: 1. Are the response actions that are the subject of this submittal associated with the redevelopment, reuse or the major expansion of the current use of property(ies)impacted by the presence of oil and/or hazardous materials? a. Yes b. No 0 c. Don't know 2. Is the property a vacant or under-utilized commercial or industrial property("a brownfield property")? II a. Yes D b. No [ c. Don't know 3. Will funds from a state or federal brownfield incentive program be used on one or more of the property(ies)within the disposal site? 0 a. Yes b. No Cl c. Don't know If Yes, identify program(s): 4. Has a Covenant Not to Sue been obtained or sought? (7, a. Yes EJ b. No 0 c. Don't know 5. Check all applicable categories that apply to the person making this submittal: a. Redevelopment Agency or Authority b. Community Development Corporation c. Economic Development and Industrial Corporation d. Private Developer [] e. Fiduciary C] f. Secured Lender g. Municipality h. Potential Buyer(non-owner) 0 i. Other, describe: This data will be used by MassDEP for information purposes only,and does not represent or create any legal commitment, obligation or liability on the part of the party or person providing this datato MassOEP. E. RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME CLASS: Specify the Class of Response Action Outcome that applies to the disposal site,or site of the Threat of Release. Select ONLYone Class. 1. Class A-1 RAO: Specify one of the following: a. Contamination has been reduced to background levels. b. A Threat of Release has been eliminated. LS 2. Class A-2 RAO: You MUST provide justification that reducing contamination to or approaching background levels is �--' infeasible. 3. Class A-3 RAO: You MUST provide an implemented Activity and Use Limitation(AUL)and justification that reducing contamination to or approaching background levels is infeasible. 4. Class A4 RAO: You MUST provide an implemented AUL, justification that reducing contamination to or approaching background levels is infeasible, and justification that reducing contamination to less than Upper Concentration Limits (UCLs) 15 feet below ground surface or below an Engineered Barrier is infeasible. If the Permanent Solution relies upon an Engineered Barrier, you must provide or have previously provided a Phase III Remedial Action Plan thatjustifies the selection of the Engineered Barrier. Revised: 02/28/2006 Page 3 of 7 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC104 P q RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT Release Tracking Number M 1 - 2617L9 Pursuant to 310 CR 40.1000(Subpart J) E. RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME CLASS(cont.): 5. Class B-1 RAO: Specify one of the following: ❑ a. Contamination is consistent with background levels ❑ b. Contamination is NOT consistent with background levels. 6. Class B-2 RAO: You MUST provide an implemented AUL. I—y 7. Class B-3 RAO: You MUST provide an implemented AUL and justification that reducing contamination to less than tJ Upper Concentration Limits(UCLs) 15 feet below ground surface is infeasible. ❑ 8. Class C-1 RAO: You must submit a plan as specified at 310 CMR 40.0861(2)(h). Indicate type of ongoing response actions. ❑ a. Active Remedial System b. Active Remedial Monitoring Program ❑ c. None ❑ d. Other Specify: CI 9. Class C-2 RAO: You must hold a valid Tier I Permit or Tier II Classification to continue response actions toward a Permanent Solution. F. RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME INFORMATION: 1. Specify the Risk Characterization Method(s)used to achieve the RAO described above: 21 a. Method 1 0 b. Method 2 L] c. Method 3 d. Method Not Applicable-Contami nation reduced to or consistent with background, or Threat of Release abated 2. Specify all Soil Category(ies)applicable. More than one Soil Category may apply at a Site. Be sure to check off all APPLICABLE categories: a. S-1/GW-1 d.S-2/GW-1 g.S-3/GW-1 b. S-1/GW-2 e.S-2/GW-2 h.S-3/GW-2 O c. S-1/GW-3 f. S-2/GNI-3 E] i. S-3/GW-3 3. Specify all Groundwater Category(ies)impacted. A site may impact more than one Groundwater Category. Be sure to check off all IMPACTED categories: ❑ a. GW-1 F✓ b. GW-2 Z c.GW-3 F� d. No Groundwater Impacted . Specify remediation conducted: a. Check here if soil remediation was conducted. b. Check here if groundwater remediation was conducted. 5. Specify whether the analytical data used to support the Response Action Outcome was generated pursuant to the Department's Compendium of Analytical Methods(CAM)and 310 CMR 40.1056: �✓ a. CAM used to support all analytical data. E] b.CAM used to support some of the analytical data. El c.CAM not used. o6.Check here to certify that the Class A, B or C Response Action Outcome includes a Data Usability Assessment and Data Representativeness Evaluation pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1056. 7. Estimate the number of acres this RAO Statement applies to: 07717. Revised: 02/28/2006 Page 4 of 7 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC104 - Tracking Number6179 l L( ease f RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT Re __ 1 Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1000(Subpart J) G. LSP SIGNATURE AND STAMP: I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that I have personally examined and am familiar with this transmittal form, including any and all documents accompanying this submittal. In my professional opinion and judgment based upon application of(i)the standard of care in 309 CMR 4.02(1), (ii)the applicable provisions of 309 CMR 4.02(2)and (3), and 309 CMR4.03(2), and (iii)the provisions of 309 CMR 4.03(3),to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, > if Section 8 indicates that either an RAO Statement,Phase I Completion Statement and/or Periodic Review Opinion is being provided,the response action(s)that is(are)the subject of this submittal (i)has(have)been developed and implemented in accordance with the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,(ii)is(are)appropriate and reasonable to accomplish the purposes of such response action(s)as set forth in the applicable provisions of M.G.L.c.21 E and 310 CMR 40.0000,and (iii)comply(ies)with the identified provisions of all orders, permits, and approvals identified in this submittal. I am aware that significant penalties may result, including, but not limited to, possible fines and imprisonment, if-I submit information which I know to be false, inaccurate or materially incomplete. 1. LSP#: F1978 2. First Name: 3. Last Name: 4. Telephone: 5083393200 ^ - 5. Ext.: 6. FAX: 5083393248 7. Signature: David C Billo h ofF,fas�£ 12/17/2012 _ 8. Date: 9. LSP Stamp: mm/dd/yyyy 0CtCOIIIG v' e H. PERSON MAKING SUBMITTAL: 1. Check all that a a. change in contact name r b. change of address c. change in the person apply: Ll 9 G--� 9 undertaking response actions _. .__....._.. .--- ..___ ___..__.._W.____ MO _._..___. 2. Name of Organization: TIVAENTERPRISESLLC 3. Contact First Name: ROBERT 4. Last Name: RULE 5. Street: 3139 VILLAGE DRIVE 6.Title: SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER AYN ESBO RO VA 22980-0000 7. CityfTown: IW ___..� 8. State: _.-.. 9. ZIP Code: L, ... 10. Telephone: 540.9438468 -1 C ...._ 11. Ext.: �..t 12. FAX: _„— Revised: 02/28/2006 Page 5 of 7 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC104 Lki RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT Release Tracking Number Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1000(Subpart J) kms... .. ... I. RELATIONSHIP TO RELEASE OR THREAT OF RELEASE OF PERSON MAKING SUBMITTAL: 1. RP or PRP a. Owner 0 b. Operator 0 c. Generator d. Transporter 171 e. Other RP or PRP Specify: FORMER OWNER 2. Fiduciary, Secured Lender or Municipality with Exempt Status(as defined by M.G.L. c.21 E,s.2) 3. Agency or Public Utility on a Right of Way(as defined by M.G.L.c.21 E,s.50)) 4. Any Other Person Making Submittal Specify Relationship: L _ J. REQUIRED ATTACHMENT AND SUBMITTALS: 1. Check here if the Response Action(s)on which this opinion is based, if any,are(were)subject to any order(s), permit(s) and/or approval(s)issued by DEP or EPA. If the box is checked,you MUST attach a statement identifying the applicable provisions thereof. Ei2. Check here to certify that the Chief Municipal Officer and the Local Board of Health have been notified of the submittal of LJ an RAO Statement that relies on the public way/rail right-of-way exemption from the requirements of an AUL. z7- 3. Check here to certify that the Chief Municipal Officer and the Local Board of Health have been notified of the submittal of a RAO Statement with instructions on how to obtain a full copy of the report. 4. Check here to certify that documentation is attached specifying the location of the Site,or the location and boundaries of the Disposal Site subject to this RAO Statement. If submitting an RAO Statement for a PORTION of a Disposal Site, you must document the location and boundaries for both the portion subject to this submittal and,to the extent defined,the entire Disposal Site. 5. Check here to certify that, pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1406, notice was provided to the owner(s)of each property within the disposal site boundaries, or notice was not required because the disposal site boundaries are limited to property owned by the party conducting response actions. (check all that apply) ❑ a. Notice was provided prior to,or concurrent with the submittal of a Phase II Completion Statement to the Department. © b. Notice was provided prior to, or concurrent with the submittal of this RAO Statement to the Department. ❑ c. Notice not required. d. Total number of property owners notified, if applicable: 2 6. Check here if required to submit one or more AULs. You must submit an AUL Transmittal Form (BWSC113)and a copy of each implemented AUL related to this RAO Statement. Specify the type ofAUL(s)below: (required for Class A-3,A-4, B-2, B-3 RAO Statements) D a. Notice of Activity and Use Limitation b. Number of Notices submitted: ❑ c. Grant of Environmental Restriction d. Number of Grants submitted: ❑ 7. If an RAO Compliance Fee is required for any of the RTNs listed on this transmittal form,check here to certify that an RAO Compliance Fee was submitted to DEP, P. O. Box 4062, Boston, MA 02211. I—e 8. Check here if any non-updatable information provided on this form is incorrect,e.g.Site Address/Location Aid. Send L.I corrections to the DEP Regional Office. 9. Check here to certify that the LSP Opinion containing the material facts,data, and other information is attached. Revised: 02/28/2006 Page 6 of 7 L Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC104 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME (RAO) STATEMENT Release Tracking Number �� _ y6179 Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1000(Subpart J) L'.j K. CERTIFICATION OF PERSON MAKING SUBMITTAL: 1. I,'Robert E. Rule ,attest under the pains and penalties of perjury(i)that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information contained in this submittal, including any and all documents accompanying this transmittal form, (ii)that, based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information,the material information contained in this submittal is,to the best of my knowledge and belief,true, accurate and complete,and(iii) that I am fully authorized to make this attestation on behalf of the entity legally responsible for this submittal. I/the person or entity on whose behalf this submittal is made am/is aware that there are significant penalties, including, but not limited to, possible fines and imprisonment, for willfully submitting false, inaccurate, or incomplete information. Robert E. Rule SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER 2. By: 3. Title: L._.._�__ ...�_. Signature �MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC 12/17/2012 4. For: I 5. Date: (Name of person or entity recorded in Section H) mm/dd/yyyy 6. Check here if the address of the person providing certification is different from address recorded in Section H. 7. Street: 8. City/Town: 9. State: 10. ZIP Code: 11. Telephone: 12. Ext.: 13. FAX: YOU ARE SUBJECT TO AN ANNUAL COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE FEE OF UP TO$10,000 PER BILLABLE YEAR FOR THIS DISPOSAL SITE. YOU MUST LEGIBLY COMPLETE ALL RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THIS FORM OR DEP MAY RETURN THE DOCUMENT AS INCOMPLETE. IF YOU SUBMIT AN INCOMPLETE FORM,YOU MAY BE PENALIZED FOR MISSING A REQUIRED DEADLINE. Date Stamp(DEP USE ONLY:) Received by DEP on 12/17/2012 3:18:20 PM Revised:02/28/2006 Page 7 of 7 [1hhE I� �d SOVEREIGN CONSULTING INC . Science . Service . Solutions . s G „ ,�d as tea' t,E ,t, EE CLASS A-2 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME STATEMENT wil. AND METHOD 1 RISK CHARACTERIZATION 2 s -� `- Former Shell-Branded Service Station , �E 111 North Street _ Salem, Massachusetts �� h EEEi a Location #137838 MassDEP RTN 3-26179 ii rye' v.^slull 3 - I i 29i� tI'I' I I i�irif tI i gg L + 9� ,t]31[y A9If it F Preparedfor: MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC 3139 VILLAGE DRIVE ,. WAYNESBORO,VA 22980 >d Prepared by: IES s{EEt1{it _h Sovereign Consulting Inc. 4 Open Square Way, Suite 307 Holyoke, MA 01040 , b�E .39�'il3i1I91 December 17, 2012 5 A #4t�t y 1 Illttl l *2e:?}n:_ . . ,Al�IdI ItlY x 1HiEuE _= Project Number:2R814 ii .a�� Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................1 2.0 FACILITY BACKGROUND............................................................................................................1 2.1 Facility Description and Surrounding Properties ......................................................... 1 2.2 General RAO Information ............................................................................................. 2 2.3 Facility Use History and OHM Storage......................................................................... 3 2.4 Utility Layout.................................................................................................................. 3 3.0 POTENTIAL RECEPTORS .............................................................................................................4 3.1 Public Drinking Water Supplies.................................................................................... 4 3.2 Private Drinking Water Supplies................................................................................... 4 3.3 Surface Water Bodies and Environmental Receptors.................................................... 4 3.4 Potential Human Exposure ............................................................................................ 4 3.5 Basements, Schools and Institutions ............................................................................. 4 4.0 DISPOSAL SITE HISTORY............................................................................................................5 4.1 RTNs 3-26179,3-26256 and 3-26378 ................................................................................ 5 4.2 Other Releases at the Disposal Site............................................................................... 6 5.0 ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES...............................................................................6 5.1 Soil Assessment Activities.............................................................................................. 6 5.2 Analytical Data............................................................................................................... 7 6.0 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL WASTES REMOVED FROM THE DISPOSAL SITE ...........7 7.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (OHM)....................7 8.0 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN.............................................................................................7 8.1 Soil and Groundwater Classifications........................................................................... 8 8.2 Definition of Background.............................................................................................. 8 8.3 COCs in Soil................................................................................................................... 9 8.4 COCs in Groundwater ............................................................:...................................... 9 9.0 MCP DATA QUALITY REVIEW...................................................................................................9 9.1 Field Quality Control Elements................................................................................... 10 9.1.1 Sample Collection Techniques.................................................................................................................10 9.1.2 Sample Cmitainer Selection Preservation and Method Holdin TQ imes.................................................10 9.1.3 Field Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures and Samples.................................................10 9.1.4 Laboratory Analvtical Method Selection.................................................................................................11 9.2 Presumptive Certainty.................................................................................................. 11 9.3 CAM Compliance Assessment..................................................................................... 12 9.3.1 CAM Compliant Data..............................................................................................................................12 9.3.2 CAMNon-CompliantData......................................................................................................................12 9.4 Data Usability Assessment for Future Risk Assessments and/or MCP Decision Making..................................................................................................................................... 12 i Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts 10.0 SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL.....................................................................................................12 10.1 Previous OHM History ................................................................................................ 12 10.2 Geologic Setting........................................................................................................... 13 10.3 Hydrogeology............................................................................................................... 13 10.4 Known and/or Likely Sources of Impact and Release Mass....................................... 13 10.5 Release Timeframe....................................................................................................... 13 10.6 Extent of Impacted Media............................................................................................ 13 10.7 Release Fate and Transport.......................................................................................... 14 10.8 Receptors ...................................................................................................................... 14 11.0 METHOD 1 RISK CHARACTERIZATION..............................................................................14 11.1 Exposure Point Concentration Calculations................................................................ 14 11.1.1 Soil EPCs.................................................................................................................................................15 11.1.2 Groundwater............................................................................................................................................15 11.1.3 Indoor Air................................................................................................................................................15 11 14 Surface Water..........................................................................................................................................15 11.1.5 Sediment...................................................................................................................................................15 11.2 Identification of Current and Reasonably Foreseeable Site Use................................ 15 11.3 Potential Receptors and Exposure Potential................................................................ 16 11.3.1 Human.....................................................................................................................................................16 11.3.2 Ecoloeical................................................................................................................................................16 11.4 Exposure Potential for Future Use ............................................................................... 16 11.5 Substantial Release Migration,Imminent Hazards,and Critical Exposure Pathways 16 11.5.1 Critical Exposure Pathways(CEPsl........................................................................................................16 11.5.2 Conditions of Substantial Release Migration(SRM)...............................................................................17 11.5.3 Imminent Hazard.....................................................................................................................................18 11.6 Characterization of Risk of Harm to Safety................................................................. 18 11.7 Characterization of Risk of Harm to the Environment and Public Welfare............... 18 12.0 FEASIBILITY EVALUATION......................................................................................................19 12.1 Feasibility to Approach Background Conditions........................................................ 19 12.1.1 Conditions of Categorical Feasibilitv......................................................................................................19 12.1.2 Conditions of CategoricalInfeasibility....................................................................................................20 12.2 Conditions Approaching Background in Soil,Persistent Compounds...................... 20 12.3 Conditions Approaching Background in Groundwater,Persistent Compounds....... 20 12.4 Feasibility Conclusions................................................................................................ 20 13.0 REPRESENTATIVENESS EVALUATION.......................................:........................................21 13.1 Conceptual Site Model................................................................................................. 21 13.2 Field Screening Data.................................................................................................... 21 13.3 Sampling Spatial and Quantity Evaluation................................................................. 21 ii Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts 13.4 Temporal Data.............................................................................................................. 22 13.5 Field Completeness...................................................................................................... 22 13.6 Data Inconsistency ....................................................................................................... 22 13.7 Summary of Data Quality Review............................................................................... 22 14.0 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS........................................................................................................23 15.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................24 16.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT.............................................................................................................25 iii Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts FIGURES Figure 1 Site Locus Map Figure 2 Site Plan Figure 3 Surrounding Land Use Map Figure 4 Groundwater Contour Map Figure 5 MassGIS Site Scoring Map TABLES Table 1 Summary of Soil Analytical Data-Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons Table 2 Summary of Soil Analytical Data-Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Table 3 Summary of Soil Analytical Data-Volatile Organic Compounds Table 4 Summary of Soil Analytical Data- Metals Table 5 Summary of Soil Analytical Data-Polychlorinated Biphenyls Table 6 Summary of Soil Analytical Data -VPH Exposure Point Concentrations-Area 1 Table 7 Summary of Soil Analytical Data -VPH Exposure Point Concentrations-Area 2 Table 8 Summary of Soil Analytical Data-EPH Exposure Point Concentrations Table 9 Monitoring Well Gauging Data Summary Table 10 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data-Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons Table 11 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data-Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons Table 12 Summary of Groundwater Analytical Data-Volatile Organic Compounds Table 13 Summary of Groundwater Quality Field Data-Natural Attenuation Parameters Table 14 Data Summary Table For Data Usability Assessment ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Boring Logs Attachment B Laboratory Analytical Reports Attachment Waste Documentation Attachment D Public Notification Letters iv Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts 1.0 INTRODUCTION Sovereign Consulting Inc. (Sovereign) prepared this Method 1 Risk Characterization (M1RC) and Class A-2 Response Action Outcome (RAO) Statement on behalf of Motiva Enterprises LLC (Motiva). The report concludes that site conditions demonstrate the achievement of a condition of"No Significant Risk" (NSR) at the disposal site as defined by the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). For the purpose of this investigation, the "facility" is defined as the area located within the property boundaries of 111 North Street in Salem, Massachusetts. The"disposal site" is defined as the facility and other properties where oil and/or hazardous material (OHM) has come to be located as a result of the release. A Site Locus Map, depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) is included as Figure 1. A Site Plan depicting pertinent information is included as Figure 2. In accordance with 310 CMR 40.1036, a Class A-2 RAO shall apply to sites where response actions were conducted at a site, a Permanent Solution was achieved, the level of OHM in the environment has not been reduced to background, and the implementation of an Activity and Use Limitation(AUL) is not required to maintain a level of NSR. In order to achieve a Class A-2 RAO or Permanent Solution, it must be demonstrated that there is a level of NSR for both current and future uses of the disposal site. An M1RC was completed in accordance with the requirements outlined in the MCP,310 CMR 40.0970,and is applicable to the disposal site since: • The presence of OHM at the disposal site is limited to soil and/or groundwater; • OHM detected at the disposal site are listed in 310 CMR 40.0974 and 40.0975 of the MCP; and • Materials known to bioaccumulate are not expected to be in soil within 2 feet of the groundwater surface and environmental receptors have not been identified pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0922. The risk characterization is based on current and reasonably foreseeable disposal site uses and conditions and applies to the disposal site identified as RTN 3-26179. 2.0 FACILITY BACKGROUND 2.1 Facility Description and Surrounding Properties The facility is currently a vacant gasoline filling station. Redevelopment of the facility by the new owner for continued use as a gasoline filling station is currently in progress. The facility consists of a 0.717-acre parcel of land developed with a 2,408 square foot, single-story, steel and masonry structure with a flat roof over a concrete slab foundation, constructed in approximately 1972. The building is situated in the southwestern portion of the lot with dispenser islands located in the approximate center of the parcel. The interior of the building while operated as a Shell-branded station included a small office and convenience store area, a storage room, restroom, and two automotive service bays. The office area of the building was finished with composite wall board,ceramic type floor tiles, and drop-type acoustic ceiling tiles. 1 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts Prior to divestment of the property by Motiva in 2006, the oil-water separator, hydraulic lifts, and floor drains associated with former automotive service activities were excavated, removed, and/or abandoned,as applicable. Gasoline was previously stored in two 6,000-gallon and one 8,000-gallon gasoline, single- walled, reinforced fiberglass underground storage tanks (USTs) and routed to four dispensers through underground fiberglass dispenser piping extending from the UST area to the dispenser canopy. According to the City of Salem Fire Department records, these tanks were installed in approximately 1995. The USTs, dispensers, and associated piping were removed in September and October 2006. From November through December 2008, the current property owner installed a new UST system in approximately the same location as the system that was removed in 2006. The facility has not been in operation since the USTs were removed in 2006. The facility is situated in a mixed commercial and residential area of Salem, Massachusetts. Surrounding properties include the following: Northeast: North Street beyond which is a 7-11 convenience store and Alexandra Liquors, a liquor store; Southeast: A residence beyond which is a TV repair shop; Southwest: Residential properties;and Northwest: A residence beyond which is A&A carpentry services. A Site Location Map, depicted on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Salem, MA quadrangle is included as Figure 1. A Site Plan depicting former facility features is included as Figure 2. 2.2 General RAO Information General site information to which this RAO applies is presented below. Facility/Facility Owner: Trickett Realty Trust 1180 Main Street Tewksbury, MA 01876 MassDEP Release Tracking Numbers: RTNs 3-26179,3-26256 and 3-26378 Potentially Responsible Party (PRP): Motiva Enterprises LLC 3139 Village Drive Waynesboro, VA 22980 Facility location and disposal site: Former Shell-Branded Service Station 111. North Street Salem, MA 01970 2 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts Client Contact: Mr. Robert Rule, Senior Project Manager Motiva Enterprises LLC USGS Quadrangle: Peabody,Massachusetts Longitude,Latitude: 70°54'06"W,42°31'36"N UTM Coordinates: 19T E343775,19T N4709805 Zoning of Site: Business Neighborhood (Bl) Facility SIC# 5541 Gasoline Service Stations County: Essex County Assessor's Information: Map 26, Lot 348 Current Use of Facility: A gasoline filling station 2.3 Facility Use History and OHM Storage As discussed above in Section 2.1, the facility has been operated as a retail gasoline station and automotive repair facility since 1972. Based on records obtained from the Salem Building Department, former gasoline USTs were located in the approximate center of the property in the vicinity of the current dispenser island and a former service station building was located on the far southeastern portion of the property. This building was razed in 1972 when the current facility was constructed. Prior to the divestment of the property by Motiva, in 2006, the oil- water separator, hydraulic lifts, and floor drains associated with former automotive service activities were, excavated, removed, and/or abandoned, as applicable. Gasoline was previously stored in two 6,000-gallon and one 8,000-gallon gasoline, single-walled, reinforced fiberglass underground storage tanks (USTs) and routed to four dispensers through underground fiberglass dispenser piping extending from the UST area to the dispenser canopy. According to the City of Salem Fire Department records, these tanks were installed in approximately 1995. These USTs, dispensers, and associated piping were removed in September and October 2006. From November through December 2008, the current property owner installed a new UST system in approximately the same location as the system that was removed in 2006. 2.4 Utility Layout Potable water is provided to the property by the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA) and the City of Salem through a connection from North Street. Sanitary sewage is directed to the MWRA sewer system through a sewer main on North Street. Other utilities include overhead telephone and electrical services and underground natural gas services which enter the facility from North Street. Surface water runoff flows to the northeast towards catch basins located along North Street. 3 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts 3.0 POTENTIAL RECEPTORS 3.1 Public Drinking Water Supplies According to the City of Salem Board of Health and Department of Public Works, the MWRA provides all public drinking water to the City of Salem. The MWRA obtains potable water from the Quabbin Reservoir, approximately 90 miles west of Salem. The disposal site is not located in a Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) approved Zone II Wellhead Protection Area or an Interim Wellhead Protection Area. A medium-yield aquifer is located approximately 100 feet south of the property. This Non-Potential Drinking Water Source Area (NPDWSA) aquifer is not considered suitable for potable water supplies due to the densely developed nature of the overlying land. 3.2 Private Drinking Water Supplies There are no drinking water wells located within the City of Salem. As discussed above, potable water is obtained from the Quabbin Reservoir. 3.3 Surface Water Bodies and Environmental Receptors According to the MassDEP 21e Site Scoring Map (Figure 3), there are no estimated habitats of rare wildlife, certified vernal pools, priority sites of rare species habitats, exemplary natural communities, or areas of critical environmental concern (ACEC) located within 500 feet of the disposal site. There is a protected unnamed open space located approximately 980 feet northwest, and two cemeteries located approximately 1,600 feet southwest and 1,100 feet north of the disposal site. The nearest surface water body is the North River, located approximately 850 feet southeast of the subject property. This river flows to the north towards the confluence with the Danvers River at Beverly Harbor(Atlantic Ocean). 3.4 Potential Human Exposure Potential human receptors to releases at the disposal site may include future customers and employees (the property is currently vacant), construction workers, and service-related workers. The future use of the property upon re-development will be a gasoline station and future use of the facility is expected to remain a gasoline station. Customers, including adults and children,are expected to be present for short periods of time on the premises. 3.5 Basements,Schools and Institutions The Kiddie Keep Day Care Center is located 200 feet east of the subject property at 11 Foster Street, Salem, Massachusetts. There are no schools or hospitals known to be located within 500 feet of the disposal site boundaries. Two schools, the Cogswell School and the Sheridan School, are located approximately 1,000 feet northeast and 1,200 feet northwest of the disposal site, respectively. 4 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts Several residential basements are located in the vicinity of the subject property and one residence borders the property to the southeast. This residence has a basement and is located within 20 feet of the property line. 4.0 DISPOSAL SITE HISTORY 4.1 RTNs 3-26179,3-26256 and 3-26378 Review of historical reports prepared for the disposal site by previous environmental consultants, in addition to reports prepared by Sovereign, revealed that six reportable releases, each assigned an RTN, have been documented. Two of the RTNs (RTN 3-4743 and RTN 3- 24819) have been closed. For further information on these historic releases, please refer to the July 13, 2007, Phase I Initial Site Investigation and Tier Classification prepared for RTN 3-26179, previously submitted to the MassDEP. The following is a summary of the release descriptions and associated regulatory statuses for the four remaining RTNs. Subsequent to a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared by EnviroTrac in March 2006, Sovereign conducted a Phase II ESA dated August 31, 2006, which included the advancement of soil borings, field screening and laboratory analysis of soil samples, installation of groundwater monitoring wells, and laboratory analysis of groundwater samples. Analytical results revealed concentrations of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and dibenz(a,h)anthracene above RCS-1 Reportable Concentrations (RCs). As a result, Sovereign completed and submitted a Release Notification Form (RNF) to the MassDEP on August 28, 2006. The MassDEP subsequently assigned RTN 3-26179 to the release condition. On September 26, 2006, during excavation of the inactive gasoline USTs which was conducted in accordance with a Release Abatement Measure (RAM) Plan for RTN 3-26179, a total organic vapor (TOV) reading of 206 parts per million by volume (ppmv) was detected in the immediate vicinity of the USTs. The measurement constituted a 72-hour reporting condition and verbal notification was made to the MassDEP on September 26, 2006. The MassDEP subsequently assigned RTN 3-26256, and verbally approved immediate response actions (IRAs). During station decommissioning activities conducted in accordance with the RAM Plan referenced above, an oil-water separator located adjacent to the station building was excavated and removed in September 2006. Analytical results of confirmatory sidewall and bottom samples indicated concentrations of contaminants of concern (CDCs) above the applicable RCS- 1 concentrations. An RNF was submitted to the MassDEP on November 8, 2006, and the MassDEP subsequently assigned RTN 3-26378 to the oil-water separator release. On July 13, 2007, a Phase I Initial Site Investigation Report and Tier II Classification were submitted to the MassDEP. RAM and IRA activities discussed above were completed prior to the submittal of the Phase I report; therefore, transmittal form BWSC-107 was submitted to link RTNs 3-26256 and 3-26378 to RTN 3-26179. In July 2009, A Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment (CSA) and Phase III Remedial Action Plan (RAP) were submitted to the MassDEP. Based upon results from the Phase II investigation, a condition of No Significant Risk did not exist for the disposal site. The Phase III indicated that monitored natural attenuation (MNA) was the most appropriate remedial action alternative for the disposal site based on soil and 5 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shdl-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts groundwater conditions. A Phase IV Remedy Implementation Plan (RIP) was submitted to the MassDEP in July 2010. The Phase IV RIP detailed the continued sampling, analysis, and monitoring of groundwater quality at the disposal site on a routine basis in order to evaluate MNA. A Phase IV Final Inspection Report (FIR) and Initial Phase V Remedy Operation Status (ROS)Opinion were submitted to the MassDEP on July 12, 2011. 4.2 Other Releases at the Disposal Site In May 2011, Sovereign was notified by the facility owner that the area behind the building was scheduled to be re-sloped as part of redevelopment activities. In preparation for this, on June 10, 2011, a composite soil sample was collected behind the building at a depth of 2 to 3 feet below ground surface (bgs) and submitted for asphalt recycling characterization parameters to evaluate soil conditions for potential off-site recycling. Results of the soil samples documented a total polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) concentration of 4.55 milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg), above the RCS-1 Reportable Concentration of 2 mg/Kg. A Release Notification Form (RNF) was submitted to the MassDEP on October 12, 2011, and MassDEP assigned RTN 3-30381 to the release. On November 16, 201.1, a Release Abatement Measure (RAM) Plan was submitted to the MassDEP. The RAM Plan described soil removal and monitoring activities which commenced on December 7, 2011. The excavation and off-site disposal of approximately 785 cubic yards of soil occurred between December 2011 and April 2012. A summary of RAM activities is included in the RAM Status and Completion Reports that were submitted to the MassDEP on March 16 and September 13,2012, respectively. Based upon data collected after the soil removal, PCB concentrations in soil and groundwater were below the applicable Method 1 Standards. A Class A-2 RAO Statement and Method 1 Risk Characterization were submitted to the MassDEP on October 10, 2012. 5.0 ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES 5.1 Soil Assessment Activities On July 6 and 9, 2012, a soil assessment program consisting of the advancement of three soil borings (B-504 through B-506) was conducted at the disposal site to refine the delineation of the horizontal and vertical extent of soil impacts. Prior to drilling, the first ten feet of each soil boring was cleared utilizing vacuum excavation in order to identify potential subsurface utilities and obstructions. Soil samples were collected during pre-clearing activities at 2-foot intervals using a hand auger. At depths beyond 10 feet, each boring was completed using Geoprobe® direct-push drilling techniques. Soil samples were collected at 5-foot intervals utilizing a 2-inch by 5-foot direct push sampler with an acetate liner to a maximum depth of 20 feet below ground surface (bgs). All soil samples were field-screened for the presence of total organic vapors (TOVs) using a photoionization detector (PID) and standard headspace screening techniques. PID readings ranged from less than 1.0 to 128.5 ppmv in soil sample B-504 (8-10'). Based upon the results of this drilling event, on September 7, 2012, one additional soil boring SB- 507 was advanced to the east of B-504. Boring logs,which include subsurface lithology and field- screening data,are included as Attachment A. Selected soil samples from each boring during the July and September drilling events were submitted to Accutest Laboratories (Accutest) of Marlborough, Massachusetts for laboratory 6 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,117 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts analysis of VPH. Soil analytical results are summarized in Table 1. Copies of soil laboratory analytical reports are included as Attachment B. 5.2 Analytical Data Laboratory analytical results document VPH concentrations in soil boring B-504 above the Method 1 S-1 Standards. As mentioned above, one additional boring, SB-507, was advanced to the east of B-504 to complete horizontal delineation. Results for the sample collected from SB- 507 (9.5-10') document VPH concentrations below the Method 1 S-1 Standards. Soil analytical results are summarized in Table 1. 6.0 SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL WASTES REMOVED FROM THE DISPOSAL SITE On October 4,2012,one 55-gallon drum of soil that was generated as part of the September 2012 drilling activities was removed and transported by EQ Northeast (EQNE) of Wrentham, Massachusetts to Northland Environmental, Inc. of Providence, Rhode Island. A copy of the waste manifest is included as Attachment C. 7.0 NATURE AND EXTENT OF OIL AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (OHM) Based on the available sampling and monitoring points, the extent of soil and groundwater impacts are defined and include the following: Known Extent of OHM Impacts Above Established Standards " Media `i nLocation Estimated Volume;'; . ., �;� Soil Former OWS Area 99 cubic yards I0x12x14feet Former/Current Gasoline UST Area 10x10x10feet Groundwater None currently known or None expected. Sediment None currently known or None expected. Surface Water None currently known or None expected. Soil Vapor None currently known or None expected. Indoor Air None currently known or None expected. 8.0 CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN All chemicals detected at a disposal site are considered COCs, unless there is a specific, justifiable rationale for eliminating the contaminant as a COC. Contaminants may be eliminated from the list of study compounds if they are: 1) detected at concentrations at or below background concentrations identified by MassDEP or by site specific data; 2) laboratory 7 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts contaminants; or 3) detected infrequently at low concentrations with respect to the detection limit. COCs observed in soil and groundwater have been summarized in Sections 8.3 and 8.4. 8.1 Soil and Groundwater Classifications Applicable soil and groundwater categories for this disposal site include: • GW-2 and/or GW-3: The GW-2 groundwater classification applies to groundwater within 30 feet of a structure that is or will be occupied, as the average annual depth to groundwater is less than 15 feet below ground surface (bgs). GW-3 applies to all groundwater within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. • S-1: S-1 soil standards apply to this disposal site as the depth to soil impacts is less than 15 feet bgs and the future use of the disposal site is unrestricted. 8.2 Definition of Background As defined in the MCP, 310 CMR 40.0006, background concentrations are defined as those levels of oil and/or hazardous material that would exist in the absence of the disposal site of concern which are either: • Ubiquitous and consistently present in the environment and in the vicinity of the disposal site of concern; • Attributable to coal ash or wood ash associated with fill material; • Releases to groundwater from a public water supply system; or • Petroleum residues that are incidental to the normal operation of motor vehicles. For this release, the following COCs are considered eliminated because concentrations met background or the detected concentration was low or infrequent: Sec-Bu tylbenzene Benzo (b) fluoranthene Isopropylbenzene Dibenzo (a,h) anthracene 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Indeno (1,2,3-cd) pyrene p-Isopropyltoluene 2-Methylnaphthalene 1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene Arsenic n-Propylbenzene Barium Tetrachloroethene Chromium 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene Lead Benzene Mercury As indicated in the attached Table 3, sec-butylbenzene, tert-butylbenzene, isopropylbenzene, p- isopropyltoluene,n-propylbenzene, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene and/or 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene were detected in soil samples collected from B-206, OWS Bottom, and OWS North. However, these compounds are included as part of VPH concentration (C5-C8 aliphatics) calculations as indicated in the Implementation of the MassDEP VPH/EPH Approach October 31, 2002, Policy 8 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts #WSC-02-411; therefore, it is not necessary to address these compounds in a Method 1 Risk Characterization. 8.3 COCs in Soil COCs detected within soil at the disposal site include the following: Ethylbenzene Xylenes Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) Naphthalene Cs-Cs Aliphatics C9-C12 Aliphatics C9-Cm Aromatics C9-C18 Aliyhatics C19-C36 Aliphatics Cil-C22 Aromatics Tables 1 through 5 summarize soil analytical data. 8.4 CDCs in Groundwater COCs detected within groundwater at the disposal site include the following: Benzene Toluene Ethylbenzene Xylenes MTBE Naphthalene C5-C8 Aliphatics C9-C12 Aliphatics C9-Cro Aromatics Tables 10 through 12 summarize groundwater analytical data. 9.0 MCP DATA QUALITY REVIEW In accordance with Sections 310 CMR 40.0017 and 310 CMR 40.0191 of the MCP, a Data Usability Assessment is required to more formally document that data is scientifically valid and defensible, and of a sufficient level of precision and accuracy and completeness to support "Presumptive Certainty." Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0191 of the MCP, the analytical data used to support this report was reviewed utilizing procedures outlined in MassDEP's Compendium of Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Requirements and Performance Standards for Selected Analytical Methods (CAM) (WSC-02-320.July 1, 2010). 9 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts As discussed previously, field sampling, QA/QC requirements and laboratory testing and QA/QC procedures are consistent with the CAM presumptive certainty requirements regarding the data quality and/or demonstrate compliance with the Remedial Action Performance Standards (RAPS) set forth in 310 CMR 40.0191 of the MCP. In addition, the data utilized and relied upon in this report was evaluated per the guidance set forth by MassDEP WSC Polio #07-350 MCP Representativeness Evaluations and Data Usability Assessments of September 19, 2007. 9.1 Field Quality Control Elements Evaluation of the field component of the data quality objectives includes the consideration of sample collection techniques, sample container selection and sample preservation, sample collection in accordance with holding times, field QC sample collection, and potential issues arising from such techniques (i.e. review of field QC sample results). Potential issues include but are not limited to proper field sampling techniques, appropriate sampling containers, and the proper handling and management of samples collected while en-route to the laboratory, equipment cross-contamination, and sample collection accuracy/precision. 9.1.1 Sample Collection Techniques Sample collection techniques include methodology, notations on sample collection, deviations from the scope of work (i.e. weather, sample point conditions, and/or inability to access sample points), as applicable. These components are a measure of accuracy and precision in the field. Based on a review of field notes,no concerns are noted. 9.1.2 Sample Container Selection, Preservation, and Method Holding Times Sample container and preservation selection must be in accordance with each respective analytical method for the media being sampled. Additionally, samples must be collected and submitted to the laboratory for subsequent analysis within method holding times. Based on a review of the Chains-of-Custody which notate sample containers, sample preservation, and sample delivery times, no concerns are noted. The laboratory case narratives attached to this report do not denote any holding time compliance problems. 9.1.3 Field Quality Assurance and Quality Control Procedures and Samples In order to verify that sampling techniques and field procedures result in representative samples, field QA/QC procedures are implemented. These QA/QC procedures include proper decontamination of field sampling equipment and the collection of field QC samples. Sovereign personnel performed the following decontamination procedure in order to ensure proper decontamination of field equipment during groundwater sample collection: 1- Physical debris removal 2- Non-phosphate detergent wash 3- Methanol rinse 4- Tap water rinse 5- Deionized water rinse 10 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts The following field QC samples were collected during sample collection between the June 2011 and July 2012 drilling events and the June and November 2011 and March and May 2012 groundwater sampling events: • Field blank samples (one per day or one per 10 or fewer samples per matrix, whichever is more frequent): Field blank samples are collected to check for procedural contamination at the facility which might cause sample contamination and should result in no detection for target COCs; • Trip blank samples (one per each shipment container of VOC samples): Trip blanks are collected to assess the potential for contamination of samples due to contaminant migration during sample shipment and storage and should be no detection for target COCs (each VOC analysis); and • Field duplicate samples (one per every 10 or fewer samples): Duplicate samples are collected to evaluate reproducibility of sampling results and should resemble COC concentrations of the prime sample within 50% +/-; and • Matrix Spike (MS)/MS Duplicate (MSD) samples: (one MS/MSD per every 20 or fewer samples): MS/MSD samples provide information about the effect of the sample matrix on the digestion and measurement methodology and should be within RPD limits for each analysis method employed. 9.1.4 Laboratony Analytical Method Selection COCs related to RTNs 3-26179, 3-26256 and 3-26378 include gasoline-related compounds. In order to evaluate the nature and extent of the release, the following analytical methods were selected for soil and groundwater media sampled at the disposal site: • MassDEP VPH and/or EPH - selected for soil and groundwater samples in accordance with the MassDEP VPH/EPH Approach guidance document (Implementation of the MADEP VPH/EPH Approach October 31, 2002, Policy #WSC-02-411). • Gasoline oxygenates and ethanol via EPA Method 8260 - selected for groundwater samples. Method 8260 was selected as it provides a method detection limit (MDL) below the applicable GW-1 Standard. 9.2 Presumptive Certainty In accordance with WSC-02-320, laboratory data sets that meet Presumptive Certainty status will satisfy the QA/QC requirements set forth in 310 CMR 40.0017 and 40.0191 "regarding the scientific defensibility, precision and accuracy, and reporting of analytical data" and may be used in data usability and representativeness assessments consistent with the guidance described in the MassDEP Policy #WSC-07-350. In accordance with the WSC #07-350, CAM compliant data are of known accuracy, precision and sensitivity and therefore should not require an Analytical Data Usability Assessment. Presumptive certainty as defined in WSC-02- 320 includes the following: • Compliance with all CAM Requirements. 11 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts • Responded "Yes" to Questions A through F on the MassDEP Analytical Protocol Certification Form. • Responded either "Yes' or "No" to Questions G through I on the MassDEP Analytical Protocol Certification Form. • Signed and dated MassDEP Analytical Protocol Certification Form. The following laboratory reports met Presumptive Certainty for the listed sampling events: • Soil sampling events for the following years: - 2006:June,September and October - 2009:January - 2011:June - 2012:July and September • Groundwater sampling events for the following years: - 2011:June and November - 2012: March and May 9.3 CAM Compliance Assessment 9.3.1 CAM Compliant Data Based on a review of laboratory data analyzed in accordance with CAM and included in this Class A-2 RAO, each laboratory report for the samples below was determined by the laboratory to meet the CAM for VPH, EPH and VOC analyses. Therefore, Presumptive Certainty was achieved for each sample analyzed by these methods. 9.3.2 CAM Non-Compliant Data There is no CAM Non-Compliant data that is considered for this Class A-2 RAO. 9.4 Data Usability Assessment for Future Risk Assessments and/or MCP Decision Making As indicated in Table 14, some samples were designated to have a potential high or low bias. Data with a high or a low bias qualifier have been further reviewed and are determined to be acceptable in future risk assessments and/or MCP decision making. Unless otherwise noted, all data reviewed did not have major QA/QC issues resulting from either field collection procedures or laboratory processes that would affect data usability; therefore, all data is acceptable and will be used as part of this RAO. 10.0 SITE CONCEPTUAL MODEL 10.1 Previous OHM History Refer to Section 4.0 for site history. 12 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts 10.2 Geologic Setting The overburden geology at the facility was characterized during several assessment activities between 2006 and 2012. Subsurface soil is comprised of well-sorted fine sand and silt with some clay from beneath the asphalt surface to a maximum explored depth of approximately 20 feet bgs. Subsurface soil in the vicinity of the facility documented by others in the investigation of nearby disposal sites depicts a subsurface geology of fine sand and silt with clay. Bedrock has not been encountered during any site activities to date. Based on review of the Bedrock Geologic Map of Massachusetts (E-an Zen, 1983), bedrock underneath the disposal site consists of Precambrian diorite and gabbro with metavolcanic rocks and intrusive granite and granodiorite. 10.3 Hydrogeology Depth to water measurements have been collected during groundwater monitoring events between 2006 and 2012. Based on current and historic gauging data, the depth to groundwater at the disposal site ranges from 5 to 14 feet bgs. Refer to Figure 4 for a groundwater contour map from data collected on June 1, 2011. Groundwater flows in a southeasterly direction at a horizontal gradient of 0.025 feet per foot. Hydrogeological testing conducted as part of initial assessment activities in April 2007 at the disposal site indicates a site-specific potential groundwater flow velocity of approximately 58 feet per year. 10.4 Known and/or Likely Sources of Impact and Release Mass The source of the soil and groundwater impacts is most likely due to the facility's historical use as a retail gasoline and automotive repair facility. 10.5 Release Timeframe As part of site assessment activities in 2006, soil and groundwater samples were collected during drilling activities. Analytical results revealed concentrations of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and dibenz(a,h)anthracene above RCS-1 RCs. In addition, as part of station decommissioning activities in 2006, two reportable conditions were encountered during the removal of the OWS and during the removal of the gasoline USTs. The timeframe for which the release has occurred at the disposal site has not been determined; however, was likely associated with the historic use of the facility as a retail gasoline station and automotive repair facility. 10.6 Extent of Impacted Media Vertical and horizontal extents of COC soil impacts have been defined through subsurface investigations conducted at the disposal site and are limited to the former OWS area and to the 13 Class A-2 RAO and Ml RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts former and current gasoline UST area at a depth of 10 to 14 feet bgs. Based on groundwater analytical data, COC concentrations are below the Method 1 GW-2 and/or GW-3 Standards. 10.7 Release Fate and Transport Migration pathways for this release include the following: • Vertical migration of COCs from soil in the vadose zone. Pathway for COCs at depths of 10 to 14 feet bgs to the water table ranging from 5 to 14 feet bgs. • Vertical migration of COCs deeper into the aquifer. Pathway is not likely based upon chemical properties of COCs and by the analytical results from groundwater sampling and analysis of monitoring well MW-204D. • Lateral migration of COCs at the water table. Pathway is not likely. Groundwater flow is to the southeast. COCs in groundwater in off-site downgradient monitoring well MW-301 have not been detected above the Method 1 Standards. Degradation considerations for this release include the following: • The source of COCs in soil and groundwater is associated with the use of the facility as a retail gasoline station and automotive repair facility. The majority of gasoline-related COCs do not degrade into daughter CDCs, but rather carbon dioxide and water. MTBE can degrade into TBA under anaerobic subsurface conditions. MTBE has previously been detected at the disposal site. Groundwater is sampled for the presence of TBA and other gasoline oxygenates on an annual basis. TBA has not been detected at the disposal site since 2008. • There are no other degradation/daughter CDCs of concern for this release. 10.8 Receptors Potential receptors for this release are summarized in Section 3.0. 11.0 METHOD 1 RISK CHARACTERIZATION The purpose of this risk characterization is to evaluate and characterize the potential risk to human health, public welfare, safety, and the environment that may be posed by the residual soil and groundwater impacts at the disposal site. The risk characterization is based on current and reasonably foreseeable disposal site use and conditions and was completed in accordance with the requirements outlined in 310 CMR 40.0970 of the MCP. This risk characterization applies to the disposal site as depicted on Figure 2. Receptor and exposure potential for RTN 3- 26179 are discussed in the sections below. 11.1 Exposure Point Concentration Calculations Exposure point calculations (EPCs) were performed on soil data sets. In each case, EPC calculations were conducted in accordance with guidance set forth in the MCP per 310 CMR 40.0926. 14 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts 11.1.1 Soil EPCs COCs detected in soil are listed in Section 8.3. Soil EPCs were generated by calculating the arithmetic average of the analytical results from individual soil borings located at similar depths at the disposal site. Where analytical data results were below the laboratory method detection limit (MDL), one-half of the MDL was used to calculate the EPC. For this disposal site, EPCs were calculated for VPH and EPH compounds in the area of the former OWS, identified as EPH and VPH EPC Area 1, at depths ranging from 9 to 15 feet bgs. EPCs were also calculated for VPH compounds in the area of the current and former gasoline USTs, identified as VPH EPC Area 2, at depths ranging from 8 to 15 feet bgs. Refer to Tables 6 through 8 for a summary of soil EPCs. 11.1.2 Groundwater CDCs detected in groundwater are listed in Section 8.4. COC concentrations in groundwater were not detected above the Method 1 GW-2 and/or GW-3 Standards; therefore each groundwater COC detection was evaluated as a single point EPC. 11.1.3 Indoor Air A soil gas survey was not conducted since groundwater concentrations have not been detected above or approaching applicable Method 1 GW-2 standards. Similarly, volatile COCs in soil at the disposal site are at low levels that do not indicate an indoor air migration concern. 11.1.4 Surface Water As stated in Section 3.3, the nearest surface water body is the North River, located approximately 850 feet southeast of the disposal site. COC concentrations in groundwater are below the Method 1 Standards; therefore, groundwater impacts to surface water bodies are not expected. 11.1.5 Sediment Since COCs have not migrated to the surface water, impacts to sediment are not anticipated related to this disposal site. 11.2 Identification of Current and Reasonably Foreseeable Site Use The facility is currently occupied by a retail gasoline station which is currently not in operation located in a commercial and residential area. The station is anticipated to open in late 2012. For the purpose of this risk characterization, future use of the facility is expected to remain commercial; however, potential future uses of the disposal site are not restricted and no such restrictions on future use were assumed in the determination of risk associated with this portion of the facility. Utility upgrade and/or construction involving excavation activities are possible to occur as part of future activities at or nearby the disposal site. Residential exposures were considered in the risk characterization as a potential future use. 15 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts 11.3 Potential Receptors and Exposure Potential 11.3.1 Human The facility is currently utilized as a retail gasoline station that is not in operation;however, it is anticipated to open in late 2012. Potential human receptors to impacts related to the disposal site include adults and children visiting the facility and on-site workers. On-site workers include up to four full time employees between normal business hours of 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM. Adults and children are expected to be present for short periods of time on the premises. Occupants and residents of the nearby residential properties may also be potential receptors to impacts related to the disposal site. To date, there is no evidence of a complete exposure pathway to these potential receptors, since COCs in groundwater are below the GW-2 standards. 11.3.2 Ecological As discussed in Section 3.3, there are no estimated habitats of rare wildlife, certified vernal pools, priority sites of rare species habitats, exemplary natural communities, or ACEC located within 500 feet of the disposal site. There is a protected unnamed open space located approximately 980 feet northwest, and two cemeteries located approximately 1,600 feet southwest and 1,100 feet north of the disposal site. The nearest surface water body is the North River, located approximately 850 feet southeast of the disposal site. This river flows to the north towards the confluence with the Danvers River at Beverly Harbor (Atlantic Ocean). 11.4 Exposure Potential for Future Use Future use of the facility is expected to remain commercial. However, exposure potential was evaluated for all future use scenarios in the risk characterization. Ingestion,inhalation, or direct contact exposures are unlikely for all future receptors based on the average exposure point concentration of soil impacts below Method 1 Standards and depth to impacted soil. 11.5 Substantial Release Migration,Imminent Hazards, and Critical Exposure Pathways 11.51 Critical Exposure Pathwatls (CEPS) Vapor Phase Emissions The Kiddie Koop Day Care Center is located 200 feet east of the subject property at 11 Foster Street, Salem, Massachusetts. There are no schools or hospitals known to be located within 500 feet of the disposal site boundaries. Two schools, the Cogswell School and the Sheridan School, are located approximately 1,000 feet northeast and 1,200 feet northwest of the disposal site, respectively. Several residential basements are located in the vicinity of the subject property and one residence borders the property to the southeast. This residence has a basement and is located 16 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts within 20 feet of the property line. Based on the lack of groundwater impacts, soil vapor emissions to any of these potential receptors are unlikely. Drinking Water Exposures According to the MassGIS Map included as Figure 5, the facility is not located within the boundaries of a medium or high yield aquifer, an Interim Wellhead Protection Area, a Potentially Productive Aquifer, or a Zone II wellhead protection area. A medium-yield aquifer is located approximately 100 feet south of the property. This Non-Potential Drinking Water Source Area aquifer is not considered suitable for potable water supplies due to the densely developed nature of the overlying land. According to the City of Salem Board of Health and Department of Public Works, the MWRA provides all public drinking water to the City of Salem. The MWRA obtains potable water from the Quabbin Reservoir, approximately 90 miles west of Salem. There are no drinking water wells located within the City of Salem. Based on this data and the lack of groundwater impacts, drinking water impacts associated with the disposal site are unlikely. 11.5.2 Conditions of Substantial Release Migration (SRM) Discharges of Separate-Phase Oil and/or Hazardous Materials There was no evidence of separate-phase petroleum product observed during subsurface investigations conducted at the site. In addition, separate-phase product has not been observed in any of the monitoring wells located at the disposal site. Releases to Ground Surface or Vadose Zone Likely to Exacerbate Groundwater Impacts There are no records of releases directly to the ground surface. The release condition was determined based on elevated COCs detected in soil and groundwater during exploratory drilling and excavation activities. Releases That Have or Are Expected to Migrate Greater Than 200 Feet Per Year COC concentrations in groundwater at the disposal site are below the Method 1 GW-2 and/or GW-3 Standards and a groundwater flow velocity during initial assessment activities in 2007 was calculated to be 58 feet per year. Remaining soil impacts are at a depth of 8 to 14 feet bgs and are covered with concrete and/or asphalt. The residual concentrations associated with the release at the disposal site are not expected to migrate greater than 200 feet per year. Releases Likely to Be Detected in a Water Supply Within One Year No protected water supply areas are located in the vicinity of the disposal site. 17 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012. Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts Releases Likely to Be Detected in Surface Water, Wetlands, or Public Water Supply Reservoirs Within One Year Based on the lack of groundwater impacts, the release is not likely to be detected in a surface water body, wetland, or reservoir within one year. Releases to Groundwater Likely to Result in Vapor Discharges to a School or Residence The Kiddie Koop Day Care Center is located 200 feet east of the subject property at 11 Foster Street, Salem, Massachusetts. Two schools, the Cogswell School and the Sheridan School, are located approximately 1,000 feet northeast and 1,200 feet northwest of the disposal site, respectively. Several residential basements are located in the vicinity of the facility and one residence borders the property to the southeast. This residence has a basement and is located within 20 feet of the property line. Based on the lack of groundwater impacts,soil vapor emissions are unlikely. 11.5.3 Imminent Hazard Imminent hazards are not known to exist at the disposal site. In addition, based on current and historical data from the facility, an imminent hazard is unlikely to exist as a result of this release. 11.6 Characterization of Risk of Harm to Safety Conditions of risk of harm to safety as defined by the MCP, including conditions that will pose a threat of physical harm or bodily injury to people have not been identified on-site. No rusted or corroded drums or containers are located on the disposal site, no weakened berms are present on the disposal site, and no explosive vapors resulting from the release of oil and/or hazardous material have been detected on the disposal site. No unsecured pits, ponds,lagoons, or other dangerous structures, or any uncontained materials have been identified on-site for the storage of reactive chemicals. There are no open or on-going excavations at the disposal site and all wastes generated as part of remedial actions have been removed from the disposal site. Existing monitoring wells all have flush-mounted bolt-down road boxes in good repair. The maximum well diameter at the disposal site is four inches. Therefore, a condition of "No Significant Risk" to safety exists at the disposal site. 11.7 Characterization of Risk of Harm to the Environment and Public Welfare There are no nuisance odors currently at the disposal site and none are anticipated in the future. The concentrations of contaminants at the disposal site are not likely to produce nuisance odors during potential future uses. Use of the facility for livestock is not anticipated. The disposal site has not degraded the resources of the community. The disposal site has not produced the loss of active or passive use of the property and no non-pecuniary effects are expected. The areas of impact are not expected to negatively impact the usefulness of the property. In 18 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts addition, COC concentrations are below the UCLs. Therefore, a condition of "No Significant Risk" to the Environmental and Public Welfare exists at the disposal site. 12.0 FEASIBILITY EVALUATION As required by 310 CMR 40.0860, an evaluation of the feasibility of reducing the concentrations of OHM at the disposal site to levels that achieve or approach background was conducted. Exposure point concentrations demonstrate that COC concentrations in the vicinity of the release are not present above applicable Method 1 Standards; therefore a condition of "No Significant Risk" exists at the disposal site. 12.1 Feasibility to Approach Background Conditions As required by the MCP, the feasibility of implementing additional remedial action alternatives (RAAs) and/or extending the operation of existing RAAs in order to reduce COC concentrations to background conditions must be considered. Sovereign evaluated the feasibility to approach background conditions as part of this Class A-2 RAO as outlined below. This evaluation was conducted in accordance with MassDEP policy WSC-04-160, drafted on July 16, 2004, Conducting Feasibility Evaluations Under the MCP. This policy outlines MassDEP's position related to conditions of categorical feasibility to achieve background conditions, conditions of categorical infeasibility to achieve background conditions, and conditions which meet the definition of approaching background. 12.1.1 Conditions of Categorical Feasibilihd Conditions of categorical feasibility include site conditions whereby a level of "No Significant Risk" is reached and the remaining impacts are limited to 20 cubic yards or less of petroleum product impacted soil where such soil is: • Located less than three feet below ground surface. • Not covered by pavement or a permanent structure. • Is not located within a sensitive environment(i.e. wetlands). • And is not located in an area where soil removal would substantially interrupt public or threaten public safety. COCs in soil above the Method 1 S-1 standards are limited to the area of the former OWS and the area of the current and former gasoline USTs. The total volume of impacts based on the delineated impacted soil areas is 99 cubic yards. The location of the soil impacts are in the area of the former OWS located to the east of the on-site building and in the area of the current and former gasoline USTs. These impacts are located in close proximity to an entrance to the facility which may be a safety hazard if excavation activities were to occur. Based on the depth of contamination ranging between 8 and 14 feet logs, the current volume and the location of the soil impacts, direct removal (i.e. excavation) of remaining soil impacts would not be considered categorically feasible. 19 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts 12.1.2 Conditions of Categorical Infeasibilih1 Conditions of categorical infeasibility include the following site conditions: • Excavation beneath a permanent structure. • Remedial actions that would substantially interrupt public service or threaten public safety. • Remediation of degradable non-persistent contaminants. • Remediation of persistent contaminants located in S-2 and S-3 soils. Impacted soil at the disposal site in the area of the former OWS and current and former gasoline USTs is located at a depth of 8 to 14 feet bgs and is covered by asphalt. As indicated above, the soil impacts are located within an entrance to the facility which may be a safety hazard if excavation activities were to occur. Soil removal in the UST area would substantially interrupt the business operating at the facility when the retail gasoline station becomes operational; therefore, remediation of remaining COCs in soil is considered categorically infeasible. 12.2 Conditions Approaching Background in Soil, Persistent Compounds The MassDEP guidance document defines conditions approaching background in soil in areas classified as S-1 if the concentration of each persistent contaminant at each sampling location is at or below the Method 1 S-1 Standards. For this disposal site, the there are no persistent soil compounds in excess of the applicable Method 1.S-1 Standards. 12.3 Conditions Approaching Background in Groundwater,Persistent Compounds The MassDEP background feasibility guidance document defines conditions approaching background in groundwater if EPCs or concentrations of persistent contaminants in groundwater are below 1/2 the applicable Method 1 Groundwater Standard. The last MTBE exceedance at the disposal site was detected in 2007 in former monitoring wells MW-4 and MW- 204. Since 2007, the maximum MTBE concentration detected in groundwater at the disposal site is 1,660 micrograms per liter in monitoring well MW-204R on March 17, 2009, which is well below 1/2 the Method 1 GW-3 Standards. 12.4 Feasibility Conclusions Sovereign reviewed disposal site conditions, remedial actions performed to date, and reviewed conditions of categorical feasibility, infeasibility, and conditions approaching background outlined in the MCP guidance document WSC-04-160. Based upon these evaluations, the following conclusions are presented: • Current disposal site conditions meet a condition of "No Significant Risk," as documented in this Class A-2 RAO and Method 1 Risk Characterization report. • Soil impacts are limited to the area of the former OWS and the current and former gasoline USTs. The total volume of impacts based on the delineated impacted soil areas 20 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem, Massachusetts is 99 cubic yards and the location of the soil impacts in the gasoline UST area are within close proximity to,the facility entrance which may be a safety hazard if excavation activities were to occur; therefore, soil removal is not feasible. • Natural attenuation is expected to reduce concentrations of non-persistent compounds in soil and groundwater to conditions approaching background. Further reduction of non-persistent compounds to background is considered categorically infeasible; therefore, consideration of additional remedial actions to reach background is not required. • The maximum MTBE concentration in groundwater is well below 1/2 the applicable Method 1 GW-3 Standards. Therefore, no additional RAA evaluation is necessary as the compounds meet the definition of approaching background. 13.0 REPRESENTATIVENESS EVALUATION The following representativeness evaluation demonstrates the adequacy of the spatial and temporal data sets relied upon for this Class A-2 RAO and the adequacy of the data set to evaluate conditions against the conceptual site model(as discussed in Section 10.0). 13.1 Conceptual Site Model As part of site assessment activities in 2006, soil and groundwater samples were collected during drilling activities. Analytical results revealed concentrations of methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and dibenz(a,h)anthracene above RCS-1 RCs. In addition, as part of station decommissioning activities in 2006, two reportable conditions were encountered during the removal of the OWS and during the removal of the gasoline USTs. Based upon subsurface investigations since 2006, COC impacts in soil above Method 1 Standards are located in the former OWS area and the current and former gasoline UST area. COC concentrations in groundwater are below the Method 1 Standards. Vertical and horizontal extents of COC impacts in soil and groundwater have been defined. 13.2 Field Screening Data During subsurface investigation activities conducted at the disposal site, in addition to visual and olfactory observations, a PID was used to screen soil samples to assess the potential for gasoline-related impacts. At each monitoring well/soil boring location, samples were collected at selected intervals and subsequently screened with a PID to determine if collection depth was sufficient to delineate COC vertical impacts. Laboratory analytical data and field-screening data collected during the monitoring well/soil boring events demonstrate that sufficient depths were reached to ensure vertical delineation and a sufficient number of soil borings were installed to demonstrate aerial/horizontal delineation of soil impacts at the disposal site. 13.3 Sampling Spatial and Quantity Evaluation Monitoring wells MW-2R, MW-3, MW-104R, MW-204R, MW-204D, MW-301 and MW-302 are deemed sufficient for the characterization of groundwater affected by the release. In addition, during recent groundwater sampling events, duplicate groundwater samples were collected from MW-204R for QA/QC to assess lab precision and accuracy. Refer to Figure 2 for 21 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts monitoring well locations and Tables 10 through 12 for a summary of groundwater analytical data. During each soil sampling event, samples were collected at selected intervals from each boring to assess the vertical and areal extent of soil impacts at the disposal site. The locations and depths of soil borings are considered sufficient to define the horizontal and vertical extent of impacts in soil. Refer to Tables 1 through 5 for a summary of soil analytical data. 13.4 Temporal Data The groundwater analytical database used to support this Class A-2 RAO was collected over a series of comprehensive sampling events and specifically targeted groundwater sample results from June and November 2011 and March and May 2012. 13.5 Field Completeness There are biased results for soil samples OWS Bottom, OWS North, SB-206 11-12, SB-402 10- 125, SB-402 12.5-15', SB-402 15-17.5', SB-403 10-12.5', SB-403 15-17.5', SB-404 10-12.5', SB-404 12.5-15' and SB-404 15-175. In addition, there were biased results for groundwater samples collected on June 1 and November 21, 2011.. Based upon a review of the data, it was determined that the data is usable for closure and rejection of sample data analyzed in accordance with CAM did not occur. Therefore, 100% completeness was achieved for the database relied upon to support this Class A-2 RAO with a M1RC. 13.6 Data Inconsistency No inconsistent data were identified since both field-collected data and laboratory analytical data were consistent. The data set size is acceptable due to limited area of soil and groundwater impacts. 13.7 Summary of Data Quality Review Data relied upon for this Class A-2 RAO resulted from samples collected during assessment activities which were field screened and submitted for laboratory analysis using methods appropriate to assess for COCs related to a gasoline release. As outlined in Section 9.0, the analytical data used to support this Class A-2 RAO were reviewed utilizing procedures outlined in MassDEP's Compendium of Qualihj Control Requirements and Performance Standards for Selected Analytical Protocols (WSC #10-320), effective date July 1, 2010 (CAM). There were no data set limitations identified during the CAM review. Pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1056(2)(k), the data are scientifically valid and defensible. Additionally, the precision, accuracy and completeness of the data set are sufficient to support the RAO. The table below summarizes how the data supports the specific RAO requirements set forth in 310 CMR 40.1000. 22 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts SUMMARY OF RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME REQUIREMENTS Class A RAO ,` Descriptio of Com haiice for this RTN ar` _a i '—tF Groundwater horizontal and vertical delineation obtained via source area,upgradient, Delineation of disposal site boundaries downgradient and crossgradient monitoring wells MW-2R, MW-3, MW-104R, MW-204R, MW-204D, MW-301 and MW-302. Soil exceedances appear to be limited to the former OWS area and current and former gasoline UST area. Characterization of Risk o Exposure pathways summarized in Section o Identification of Exposure 11.3. Pathways and Receptors o There were no Hot Spots identified. o Identification of Hot Spots o EPCs calculated in Section 11.1. o Calculation of EPCs o Background identified in Section 8.2. o Identification of Background Elimination/control of OHM source(s) There are no continuing sources of OHM for RTNs 3-26179,3-26256 and 3-26378. Evaluation and elimination of SRM, CEP,IH As summarized in Section 11.5. None exist. and substantial hazards,harm to safety, and harm the public and the environment. Achievement of background,to the extent As discussed in Section 12.0. Requirement met. feasible (for Class A RAOs) Achievement of"No Significant Risk" Yes 14.0 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS This report, the investigations that support it, and the data collected, are subject to uncertainties, which accompany all investigations. The uncertainties are often a result of the limitations of available technology, the feasibility of further investigation, human error, instrument malfunction, weather, unknown subsurface conditions, safety, data interpretation, dated information, and a number of other factors. The scope of investigations at this and all disposal sites is limited to that necessary to address conditions based on the levels and nature of contaminants encountered, potential receptors, and the physical characteristics. The limitations on investigations are related to: financial expenditure vs. value of data collected; physical features (buildings, roadways, utilities); time, and safety concerns during the completion of investigations. No investigation can sample the entire volume of any media (groundwater, soil, air, sediment, or surface water) at a disposal site. The investigations presented in this report were appropriate in scope and magnitude to address the impacts of COCs reported for this release and the potential receptors of the release. 23 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts Soil samples were limited to areas of accessible soil. Soil samples could not be collected from beneath the existing building. Sufficient soil samples were collected to accurately represent conditions on this portion of the disposal site. Groundwater samples are considered sufficient to characterize groundwater quality at the disposal site. Analytical data is subject to a multitude of uncertainties related to sample collection, weather, containers, sample handling, contamination (from non-site related sources), instrument variability and error, etc. QA/QC data (surrogate recoveries, matrix spikes, duplicates, and blanks) help to limit uncertainties. QA/QC data provided with laboratory reports are reviewed to determine compliance with the method requirements. Data which fails to meet QA/QC requirements is evaluated to determine its usability. The quantity of data collected increases the confidence in the results provided. Repetitive groundwater sampling events increase the certainty of results based on a review of data trends. Sampling events for soil and groundwater by different samplers on different dates and analyzed in different batches at the laboratory serve to counter potential errors by individuals and instrumentation. Review of multiple sites data over years of service with samplers and laboratories helps to identify and eliminate many uncertainties. Anomalies in data trends and poor QA/QC data often necessitate re-sampling to confirm results. While uncertainties do exist in data collection and analysis presented in this and all reports, appropriate conclusions can be formulated with this data. 15.0 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Based upon the results of the Method 1 Risk Characterization and previous investigations, the requirements for a Class A-2 RAO are achieved as outlined below: 1. The facility is located at 111 North Street in Salem, Massachusetts and is currently occupied by a retail gasoline station that is not operational. As part of site assessment activities in 2006, soil and groundwater samples were collected during drilling activities. Analytical results revealed concentrations of MTBE and dibenz(a,h)anthracene above RCS-1 RCs. In addition, as part of station decommissioning activities in 2006, two reportable conditions were encountered during the removal of the OWS and during the removal of the gasoline USTs. 2. The source of the soil and groundwater impacts is most likely due to the facility's historical use as retail gasoline and automotive repair facility. 3. S-1 standards apply to this disposal site as the depth to impacted soil is less than 15 feet bgs, and the future use of the disposal site is unrestricted. Soil impacts above the Method 1 standards are limited to the former OWS area and to the current and former gasoline UST area. 4. Because groundwater at all disposal sites shall be considered a potential source of discharge to surface water, GW-3 Standards apply to the disposal site. COC 24 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts concentrations in groundwater are below the Method 1 Standards and groundwater flows in a southeasterly direction. 5. According to the MassGIS Map included as Figure 5, the facility is not located within the boundaries of a medium or high yield aquifer, an Interim Wellhead Protection Area, a Potentially Productive Aquifer, or a Zone II wellhead protection area. A medium-yield aquifer is located approximately 100 feet south of the property. This Non-Potential Drinking Water Source Area (NPDWSA) aquifer is not considered suitable for potable water supplies due to the densely developed nature of the overlying land. According to the City of Salem Board of Health and Department of Public Works, the MWRA provides all public drinking water to the City of Salem. The MWRA obtains potable water from the Quabbin Reservoir, approximately 90 miles west of Salem. There are no drinking water wells located within the City of Salem. 6. According to the MassDEP 21e Site Scoring Map, there are no estimated habitats of rare wildlife, certified vernal pools, priority sites of rare species habitats, exemplary natural communities, or ACEC located within 500 feet of the disposal site. There is a protected unnamed open space located approximately 980 feet northwest, and two cemeteries located approximately 1,600 feet southwest and 1,100 feet north of the disposal site. The nearest surface water body is the North River, located approximately 850 feet southeast of the subject property. This river flows to the north towards the confluence with the Danvers River at Beverly Harbor (Atlantic Ocean). 7. The Kiddie Koop Day Care Center is located 200 feet east of the subject property at 11 Foster Street, Salem, Massachusetts. There are no schools or hospitals known to be located within 500 feet of the disposal site boundaries. Two schools, the Cogswell School and the Sheridan School,are located approximately 1,000 feet northeast and 1,200 feet northwest of the disposal site, respectively. Several residential basements are located in the vicinity of the subject property and one residence borders the property to the southeast. This residence has a basement and is located within 20 feet of the property line. 8. Indoor air exposures are not anticipated at this disposal site since COC concentrations are below the GW-2 Standards. 9. Based on data collected at the disposal site,SRM, CEP, and IH conditions do not exist at the disposal site. 10. Based upon the results of the Method 1 Risk Characterization, a condition of "No Significant Risk' to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment exists for current and future disposal site use scenarios. 16.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The City of Salem Mayor and Board of Health officials were notified in writing of the availability of all documents relating to activities performed to achieve a Permanent Solution at 25 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts the disposal site, in accordance with 310 CMR 40.1403(3)(f). In accordance with 310 CMR 40.1406, the property owners within the disposal site boundaries were also notified of the submittal of the RAO. A summary of the conclusions of this Class A-2 RAO is included in the notification letters. Public notification letters are included as Attachment D. 26 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts FIGURES I !N,a ` •"�. x -1tI Ma h �. ems`' ,SEI° I Yytt4, i ((P��C�ri il'S4, ti xx �''a ✓✓rrid,.a �.'�(}}'' ll RAFL��� `t � x � r �x � ' F� � �� �s ♦, aG t bb 4 E t F P4,G�" V...Twee F" I a{ htr L �'�� t`A :� y„i �� It{{�� �*� � � ,.,BiMi `c t•4� Y• �,�,�Z. � ��" } t � � j t tg FY t i �t"w.,t" x � tSGft E a �I f i� 4� 1 N S W+ !.z j1r w a s �.j�Itr i • r ,-'+Pills 9 "t� d E a, ,t s x,j >i i Yf � t�Np +r— a t riv " Eiliel � . ss �r ^•!�` .! 4!! s a a .! o !t'`7"iho Nr CT `�` `�•",� "' ' i '` !c"1Ri `mss ,.. - i� �vajIa SOVEREIGN CONSULTING INC. Reference:Salem, MA Quadrangle-USGS 1985 FIGURE 1 Contour Interval = 3 meters SITE LOCATION MAP Shell-Branded Service Station#137838 420 31' 36"N Latitude, 700 54' 06"W Longitude 111 North Street(Rt114),Salem,MA UTM:4709805N 343775E Zone 19 Sovereign Scale(approx.) Job No. 1"=1000' EQ814 LFGENNO A,1 A \ --�®•I—-` • MONrtoRING ILL LOCAn oNW% VENT W,D ASi SOIL BORING DISPOSAL SITE BOUNDARY TELEPHONE POLE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE MW-105 FO/MER/ ROUND// /LIFT/T/ pZHZT❑N BVILDINCi MONITORING WELL NOT LOCA TED ON 6/29/09 DUE ro SITE REDEVELOPMENT Acnvines L soE WELLS (a7 /- • R � OIL DESiOPYED MONITORING WELL EPH and L Ba oMi(BT TTL smewnLL (y) A VPH EPCMw-101 �� � • zoos SITE GzcGMlssw arvG SOIL SAMPLE AREA 1 ( '�- / i �� VPH EPC ------- LIMITS CG EXCAVATION H-591 a �q 5B1 H-296 AREA 2 \� 8-20> MW 2 B OWZ NORTH (10') \p DISPOSAL SITE ROUNDARY Opmh-I \ OWS BOTTOM (14FORMER ') PRE-1972 NIH-z ®404`DORMER - Rsos '\\ _ -'. FORMER un SE AWATER p sB3 PRAiOR BUILDING �e-10z PENS R ISLAND - ® NW z 9sm[wau ` \, rvoiE Mw-Boz AND sB-401 TO se-409 B-20B V H®09 FORMER _ LOCATIONS ARE APP RO%IMATE FROM JUNE 2011 PRE-1972 sonm DRILLING ACTIVITIES.®H-10B LISTS ESToA01 I_«a}T(4j I C01)rH 1 ELI • -T• B-493 I Pis(4)Pu(a)1 BOTTOMI (1a) L..... ............. ' ® 1 1 fid:' 1 - •1- NORM CDNCREiE J FORMER 1 ; .• N i1 SIDEW L RETAINING h MW -� PROOUCi 1 11 (1T WALL MW 302 LINE I 1 I I l"A I y P19L4]Y P1BS41 SOU I H-soz I__ sFOCw LL ED H I (12 EAST I _DOIIOM MW-201 •• FORMER GSi B-408 20 0 20 40 MW-4 VAPOF ml-S�BD LINE SIOEWALL -4 ® '. B06 (12') ® XI H-401 B-505 APPROXIMATE SCALE MW4D40 + Iv MW-1D4 ® a FIGURE 2 Y H-s04 NRB MW-204R MW 209 MW 104P LANDSCAPE 0 B 50>�_ -' 1 SI TE PLAN NRB FORMER SHELL-BRANDED SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT LPN SCAPE LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE — — — — — — — — — — 111 NORTH STREET Em-1 SALEM, MA PREPARED FOR ®_ MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC ODm,-] C PREPAREIT LA Bv. MP9 NORTH STREET (ROUTE 114) SOVEREIGN'CONSULTING INC 4 OPEN SQUARG WAY,SUITE 309 HOLYOKE,MAOINO :�4c TEL:(413)5400650 2 > 0 'BOJ Wil � 01 O� �O✓ O'P R `ITN. ® Op4P "l 'ph p"^y© "^ ® b� "^pip• O "^ p2yO s2ss d 3 4M1 oyo "R J °s R R ,°2e ® te?E \$e V 6- 35e •� �+ J q ® ® 27-0312 ® .pGy ® •PS' ® ° © OSh , O °N® ♦ �6 26-03]6 26-0353 O QP M1p� 26-0R354 h p'ah p,5y0 `'Pf `OJS ry 0`'• Oyq ® \ b °� ® O ryh�OR �P y'(1 gyp M1 J "yi py ryy� J°a�� 6 yyyy 26, ryh� 260362 ® iB 'a7 Ary '1 O SITE Js°Jpq r 26-0363 IrrruD �z 56 R s C 'e M10 o yO O Ph. e U © ® RESDENn b h 0} ® ryy 'LO 4 pY' p "5'( 0}y0 ® CNC "yi "60$ R © CONNEflCILL © y0"O ,g O INDtI5RtU1 J�, Oyy P° 'W, "6i ® '{ry, by �'3, s $.• "pi I 2 ° yA� ® 1y' O1s p O s 2 „p o" WNBOXINeuE IN Olt,' o 1" �� =- FIGURE 3 0 ® eO $ss � 1 Sovereign Consulting Inc. SURROUNDING LAND USE MAP I °s 1 � 40pe0 Square Way,Suite 301 I `'s c,MA 01040° FORMER SHELL:BRANDED SERVICE STATION OO' (413)5 -'x ` s ` e^f'I (4U)540-0650 Cu.(413)540.0656 111 NORTH STREET NOM ORIGINM MPP PREPMED BY ENNROi BAHD 3/15/06. 9]DN `�OB p,ojen rve. Epela Eilr.SnLEM-NOani�VlEYrg Wir.1lN9 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS LEGEND" MONITORING WELL LOCATION ® SOIL BORING f j�/ / / / /�/ • TELEPHONE POLE W/0 AST V/ VENT _-a-----— OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE '/ NW 2+ MRI ONITONG WELL NOT LOCATED ON Sl. — // OISPOS/L SIZE BOUNDARY DUE TO SITE REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES FORMER UNDERGROUND - OESTORYEO MONITORING WELL \ l / /GROUND / // NW-ID6 "06 SITE OEGOMI5910NINGSOIL SAMPLE i L 90 PLL6 (00 LL ——————— LIMITS OF EXCAVATION i EPH and L e M,(e)� L'soEWwus (4q / DlsvosaL slrE eoarvoanr VPH EPC 'Mv, lol '�� AREA 1 VPH EPO ,i FORMER UST B 5°I H 2°J® 4°1 H 2°6 AREA 2 S3.781 GROUNDWATER ELEVATION(IN FEET) MW 2 B 40022 NORTH --1 ® ! O (10'J® 90GROUNDWATER ELEVATION CONTOUR O ® OWS BOTTOM (14') FORMER BNN 2 6-4°4 FORMER 9 -'9-5°6 F' PRE 1972 OIL/WATER O H-sa3 SEPARATOR NV-z2 WEsr BUILDING B 102 - 9 DISPENSER ISLAND '" - -"SIDEWALL B-208 FORMER _ B-409"I' -- NorE: se-wl TO se-ws Loc4nons NW-20. p B 103 PRE-1972 } —8_209 H 210„ �9° 1 ----- f 11 * NORTH ARE APPROXIMATE FROM JUNE 2011 '11-103 U$Ts 6 - -- amm'__ 11 1 EST/ , BOTTOM DRILLING ACTIVITIES. M02 1 a� P15(4)P13(41)I 50(ITR ; B(T"M 1 (14') B-403 ___- P13N 1 BOTTOM 1 •1 ' ® I I I (14)' , j •1 NORTH FORMER I I 1 SIBEWALL CONCRETE I 1 1 RETAINING NW I 'I PRODUCT 1 I yl Ati 1 (12) WALL MW-302 LINE I I _y Y I P21(4')1'-� 1 - X �' Iv P gJ L-- sauTM < I __ _ -SIOEWALL H-s0® H 21 fB° i (iz)t _. ea ITT oM 1 j I I nv-20 14') 4_--___- ----�' 20 0 20 40 ` FORMER 72 -__- -- B-408 i EM m''-4 ISI EWALL` ` VAPOR �N B-40y11V ® ® "1 APPROXIMATE SCALE UNE B-406 (127 B-sus nW-2B4D MW U34 ® ', FIGURE 4 MW 104 B-504 My-2° Ies,e`R H-sBT GROUNDWATER CONTOUR MAP CURB MW-2040. LANDSCAPE N '•, ,, _�.•. - JUNE 1, 2011 CURB(e]fiEi _ " FORMER SHELL-BRANDED SERVICE STATION LANDSCAPE LANOSCAPE LANDSCAPE LOCATED AT 111 NORTH STREET SALEM, MA ® PREPARED FOR MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC DNM-a rAdl B9 N PUN PREPAROD 6Y 13 12 BY:NPB SOVEREIGNCONSULTINGINC. 4 OPENSQUARF WAY,SUITE 307 W-•'' HOLYOKE,MA 01040 p' TEL:(413)540-0650 MassDPP MCP Numeric Ranking System Map Page 1 of 1 Mss EP - Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup s3te;Nfe,rm-tjod: MCP Numerical Ranking System Map: 500 feet & 0.5 Mile Radii FORMER SHELL-BRANDED STATION TrI n - n s dvV, e of 4 111 NORTH STREET SALEM,MA 4I Ir,Is 4 (.# NAJ3:Uir N bro: l,, 4it00ssDEP 25 N J4JT98mE tZone:t9) bF t p 1 y JY r IIl}. �. ni�1't C .i d.:ca Seurembr 11.2012 v. it �tlur.f til"Ir. rsf,osa Gltp:/Nr WVIsny55.00'mn1.I'I51. t1 SUN R7sE 0P rz t{,i;#f fl�?r i 4( � d .g,. '-' ,3�4T!Ut-Asook, TV i v $i y7I $ I 3 rr"ks.Tayrr s. h ��� t. Y t .4•c �' Ff cx i 3 1P 11 �% 7' r ultT .. rar sr L, i ; ��11 999999 e " t t } •Y I. a 11 If CO i', tisra kf r.i. £ i F - P 13 `v, soap?s i4u'r {T'` r �n (X v xV p sa'.-k t fs 4g ` d ',.� .s t «'� rNn Sn< 5: i f �..,,. 1 "E. SFftE£ A L liq p3 'rt 4 fi y f { Ah A r >'� 'y¢ �O t ,y' it G N�iNO3i For ���4Yy" � KAY PT d !t11 w 0gp' j 4_r 4. �rc x yrt eT, fr� tt' in >6,6 yd ;a 'Hai p� F Via` 'i. e T '£ c A ti P `knaec.0 �. H yr �e -ta�tg y o'"vy sOlii 1-1J MAIN � � ' + I� � �Is c;�',v � av"` � H?,xw �D y � ;� p��r 'x l p ��> �•"�+q �Fr�� 1J..J YS,�{fit. r sAl a I t 41Y d ^ ' ssaeR.0 z er z 'f { ..�.uL ce.lnt f Y Rf t s I i e pad v�e8 m n+ t > -: V dT1,t,t. Ni �k{Or'jill. IIvd SryudvY�P'T` 1 as sM'r y gy i � y sqt+'^ 4 fUi a i ' s, i hp� i rt 4 R �t � �- c aR i� i� a S:• @ Y K {Spw^zurt,3 3 4"^Yts�j` k 1 1•Iu" o T -tg X' Aa sjs ply [ f 6fiiw{' sTtt� y„+"'♦ ",{ y 9 ,r1. r w,y ee a I vn Fd 41, f r ! f"1 ! tA"F A �'pf. .1{ .+jF i1 ' l� I p'"(�F4i m4 9NhHxLR 51114Yr H3 $ L M�19mEEt k Sag par Jr j a3lxeRolx'smRF n 000t �MVt v.-,4 iii I1±{­Mi C $-Fnl nig, tririn�. Roads.Limited Access,Divided,Other HIM,Major Road,Minor Road,Track,Trail PWS Protection Areas:Zpne II,IWPA,Zone A............ l�•iF Boundaries:Town,County DEPRegien;Train;Powerline Pipeline;Aqueduct Hydmgraphy'.Open Water,PWSResemoir Tidal Flat.....)=y MOO ---7 -- Wetlands.Freshwater,5altivate,r,C ranb erry 8 og.........� 0 Basins:Major,PWS; Streams Perennial, ntermluent,Man Made Shore,Dam FEMA 100yr Floodplain;Protected Open Space;ACEC....O Aquifers:Medium Yield,High Yield,EPA Sole Source......000 Est Rare Wetland Wildlife Had,Vernal Pool:Cert,Potential Non Potential Drinking Water Source Area:Medium,Highimeld) .=M Solid Waste Landfill;POS.Can GW,SW,Emem.,Non-Com'�..0 http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/images/dep/mcp/mep.htm 9/11/2012 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts TABLES TABLE SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA VOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Former Shell-Branded Service Station x137838 111 North Street Salem,Massachusetts Method 1 Ethyl- Total Cs Cs C'Cu C�Cro Standards Benzene Toluene benzene Xylenes MTBE Naphthalene Aliphaties Aliphatics Aromatics (-Wl,g) (mfg) (mg/kg) (mfg) (mg/kg) (-e/kg) (-g/kg) (-g/kg) (mg/kg) S-1/GW-2 30 500 300 300 100 40 100 1,000 100 S-1/GW-3 30 500 500 500 100 500 100 1,000 100 S-3/GW-2 700 2,000 1,000 300 100 40 5,000 5,000 500 S-3/GW-3 900 3,000 3,000 3,000 500 3,000 5,000 5,000 500 UCL Standards 9,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 20,000 5,000 j �yI P 3 aL hSP I �i i� " P Sample Data Usability Depth(ft) Sample E�714i „3 P vrj 41 § � ine Identification Assessment Bias Date ,a,IIr., .....ar .. .._r.: :.r_ B/MW-101 None 9-10 6/5/2006 10.0272 10.0815 <00272 10752 <0.0815 <0136 12.72 <2.72 <272 B-102 None 10-11 6/5/2006 10.0385 <0.116 100385 107854 <0116 10.193 <3.85 13.85 <3.85 &103 None 10612.5 6/5/2006 10.0325 <0.0976 <00325 <0.0781 195 <0.163 <325 13.25 <3.25 B/MW-104 None 10-12 6/5/2006 0.0483 <00982 <0.0327 <0.1965 12.9 <0.164 4.85 <3.27 <327 B/MW-105 None 8-9 6/5/2006 <0.0223 <0.0668 <0.0223 101336 <00668 <0.111 12.23 <223 12.23 B/MW-201 None 10-12 10/30/2006 <0.0751 <0225 <0.0751 10.150 16.1 10.375 <7.51 17,51 17.51 B/MW-202 None 14-16 10/30/2006 <0.775 <0232 100775 <0.155 0,438 <0.387 <775 <7.75 <775 B/MW-203 None 1 12-14 10/30/2006 -0.847 <0254 100847 <0.339 0118 10.424 <847 <847 <8.47 "B/MW-204 None 12-14 10/30/2006 <0.0896 10269 <0.0896 <0179 21.7 <0448 <8.96 <8.96 18.96 B-205 None 11-12 10/26/2006 <0.436 10131 <0.436 <0218 4.95 <0.218 <436 <4,M 14.36 B-206 High I1-12 10/26/2006 1 <0,0442 <0.133 1 0.94 0.756 0.0477 2.19 11 <4.42 272 105 B-207 Nonc 10-11 10/26/2006 1 <0.0360 <0108 <0.0360 <0.180 0.109 <0.180 <3.60 <3.60 <3.60 B-208 None 11-12 10/26/2006 100535 <0.161 10.535 <0.107 <0535 <0.268 <5.35 1535 15.35 B-209 None 5-6 10/27/2006 <060517 <0.155 <0.0517 0.674 <0.0517 <0.259 64.7 19.1 9.64 B-210 None 5-6 10/27/2006 <060425 <0.127 10.0425 <0212 10.0425 <0212 <425 <425 <425 B-211 None 5-6 10/27/2006 <060452 <0.136 <0.0452 <0.226 <0.0452 <0.226 <452 1452 <4.52 B-212 None 5-6 10/27/2006 <0.0452 <0.136 10.0452 <0226 <0.0452 <0.226 <452 <4.52 <452 SB-2R None 10 1/21/2009 10.32 <0.32 <032 <0.64 <0.064 <0.32 <6.4 <64 <6.4 SR-204R None 4 1/21/2009 10.34 <0.34 1034 <0.68 <0.068 <0.34 <6.8 <6S <6.8 SB-204D None 12 1/22/2009 <044 <0.44 <044 <0.88 <0.089 <044 <8.9 <89 <8.9 SB-204D None 15 1/22/2009 ...<03. 1 <0.31 10.31 <062 1.47 <031 <63 <63 <6.3 SB-1048 None 12 1/22/2009 <0.30 <030 <0.30 <0.60 0201. <030 <5.9 147 47.8 Page I of 4 TABLE SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA VOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Former Shell-Branded Service Station#137838 111 North Street Salem,Massachusetts Ethyl- Total Cs-Cs Cg-Cu C9 Cia Benzene Toluene benzene Xylenes MTBE Naphthalene Aliphatics Aliphatics Aromatics (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mglkg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mfg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) 30 500 300 300 100 40 100 1,000 100 30 500 500 500 100 500 100 1,000 100 700 2,000 1,000 300 100 40 5,000 5,000 500 [SE-3/GW-3 900 3,000 3,000 3,000 500 3,000 5,000 5,000 500 OCL Standards 9,000 10,0110 10,000 10,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 20,000 5,000 15- yS" pMyt t it I -.-9h ig I E,�%4 t i i Sample Data Usability Depth ft Sample rj,! - Ip�� i `` Identification Assessment Bias Datesal MW301None 10 3/9/2009 10.33 1033 1033 '066 10.065 10.33 16.5 16.5 16.5 East Bottom 14' NC 14 9/29/2006 00453 10.0708 195 21.02 0.304 5.61 92.2 111 175 v=.-+ East Sidewall 12' NC 12 9/29/200 10.0465 10,140 <00465 10.2791 18 '0233 14.65 <965 1465 North Bottom 14' NC 14 9/29/2006 <0.0395 <0.119 10.0395 10.2371 0.488 <0.198 13.95 13.95 <3.95 North Sidewall 12' NC 12 9/29/2006 <0.0382 10.115 10.0382 <0.2295 0.639 <0.191 1382 13.82 <3.82 South Bottom 14' NC 14 9/29/2006 10.0438 10,131 0.0916 0.208 5.1 <0.219 14.38 <4.38 <4.39 South Sidewa1112' NC 12 9/29/2006 <0.169 <0507 0.257 <1015 6.17 <0.846 <169 <169 <16.9 West Bottom 14' INC 14 9/29/2006 <0.0356 <0.107 0.178 0.408 4.29 10.178 8.49 4 3.91 West Sidewall 12' NC 12 9/29/2006 <0.0318 10.0953 <0.0318 10.1906 2.06 10.159 <3.18 <3.18 13.18 P-13 None 4 10/3/2006 10.0397 <0.119 <0.0397 <07383 10.0397 <0.198 <397 <3,97 <3.97 P-15 None 4 10/3/2006 1 <0.0399 1 <0.120 <0.0399 1 <0.2999 <0.0399 1 <0200 <399 1 <3,99 <3.99 P-17 None 4 10/3/2006 10.0482 <0145 <01i482 <0.2894 <0.0482 <0.241 <4.82 <4.82 <4.82 P-18 None 4 10/3/2006 <0.0401 <0.120 <0.0401 <0.2402 <0.0401 <0.201 <401 <4.01 <4.01 P-19 None 4 10/3/2006 <0.0403 10.121 <0.0403 <0.2415 <0.0403 <0201 <403 <4.03 <4.03 11-21 None 4 10/3/2006 <0.0306 <0.0918 <0.0306 <0.1832 <0.0306 <0.153 <306 <3.0 <306 OWS Bottom High 14 10/5/2006 <0.0431 10,129 0.521 1.087 0.126 15 <4.31 317 293 tams. OWS Nbrth High 10 10/5/200 <0.0389 10117 0.82 0.204 <0.0389 4.74 <3.89 877 au 192 MW-30210-12.5' None 10-12.5 6/22/2011 <040 <0.40 <040 <0.80 <0B80 <040 <8.0 <8.0 <8.0 MW-302125-15 None 12.5-15 6/22/2011 <038 <0.38 <0.38 <0.76 <0.077 <0.38 <7.7 17.7 <7.7 MW-30215-17.5' None 15-175 6/22/2011 <039 <0.39 <0.39 <078 <0.078 <0.39 <7S <7.8 <7.8 SB40110-12.5' None 10-12.5 6/22/2011 10.38 <0.38 <038 <0.76 <0.075 1038 1 <7.5 <7.5 <7.5 SB-40112.5-15' None 12.5-15 6/22/2011 1 <0.38 1 <038 <0.38 1 1076 <0077 1 038 <7.7 177 17.7 S640115-175' None 15-17.5 6/22/2011 1040 <0.40 10.40 <0.80 <0.080 10.40 <8.0 <8.0 <8.0 SF40210-125' None 10-12.5' 6/22/2011 1040 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.079 <040 <7.9 <79 <7.9 SB40212.5-15' None 12515 6/22/2011 <0.38 <0.38 <0.38 <0.76 <0.076 <0.38 <7.6 <76 176 SB4021517.5' None 15175 6/22/2011 <0.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.78 <0.078 <039 178 <7,8 7S SR40310-12.5' None 10-12.5 6/22/2011 <0.39 <0.39 1039 1078 <0.079 10.39 <7.9 <7.9 <7.9 SB40312.5-15' None 12515 6/22/2011 10.39 <0.39 10.39 10.78 <0.078 10.39 <7.8 <7.8 <73 584031517.5' None 1517.5 6/22/2011 10.39 <0.39 <0.39 <0.78 <0.078 <039 178 <7S <8A 56-40470.129 None 1012.5 6/22/2011 <0.40 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.080 <090 <SO <8.0 <8.0 5"04 12.5-15' None 115-15 6/22/2011 1040 <0.40 <0.40 <0.80 <0.079 <0.40 <79 <7.9 17.9 9B4041517.5' None 15.-17.5 6/22/2011 <039 <0.39 <0.39 <0.78 <0.078 <039 17.8 <7d 178 Psge2of4 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA VOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Fenner Shell-Branded Service Station#137838 111 North Street Salem,Massachusetts Method 1 Ethyl- Total Cs-Cs CrCax c1cot Standards Benzene Toluene benzene Xylenes MTBE Naphthalene Aliphatics Aliphatics Aromatics (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mgtkg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) S-1/GW-2 30 500 300 300 100 40 100 LOW 100 S-1/GW-3 30 500 500 500 100 500 100 LOW 100 S-3/GW-2 700 2.000 1,000 300 100 40 5,000 5,000 500 S-3/GW-3 900 3,000 3,000 3,000 500 3,000 5,000 5,000 500 UCL Standards 9,000 10,000 10,00 10,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 20,000 5,000 WIN Sample Data Usability Depth(ft) Sample ,h I 'h A I � v I,. Idefication m Assessent Bias Date d ��„y,.. S 4 I ntiF SB40610-12.5' None 1012.5 6/22/2011 1039 10,39 1039 1078 <0.078 10.39 <7.8 <7.8 17.8 SB40612.515' None 125-15 6/22/2011 1040 10.40 <0.40 <0.80 10.080 1040 18.0 <8.0 <8.0 SB-40615-17.5' None 15-17.5 6/22/2011 <0.43 <0.43 <0.43 10.86 10.087 <043 187 <87 <87 SB-40710-12.5' None 10-12.5 6/22/2011 <0.41 <0.41 <041 '0181 10.082 <0.41 <8.2 17.6 22.4 5 6407 12 515' None 12515 6/22/2011 <0.41 <041 <041 10.81 <0.081 10.41 <8.1 <8.1 <8.1 664071517.5' None 15-17.5 6/22/2011 <042 <0.42 <0.42 10.84 '0.085 <0.42 18.5 18.5 18.5 SB40810' None 10' 6/20/2011 <1.7 <1.7 <1.7 <3.4 <0.34 32.5 -,l0jhss 268 F� w6mu SB40810-12.5' None 10-12.5 6/22/2011 <0.40 10.40 <0.40 10.80 10.079 <0.40 11.6 374 512 SB-40812.5-15' None 125-15 6/22/2011 <0.39 10.39 <039 <0.78 10.078 <0.39 178 <78 <7.8 SB40815-175' Nonc 15-17.5 6/22/2011 <0.39 <0.39 <039 10.78 <0.079 <039 17.9 <79 <7.9 SB40910-12.5' None 10-12.5 6/22/2011 1 <0.38 1 <0.38 1038 1 <0.76 <0.077 <038 1 7.7 <7.7 1 <7.7 SB409125-15' None 12515 6/22/2011 <0.38 <0.38 <038 <0.76 <0.076 <0.38 <76 <7.6 <7.6 SB40915-17.5' None 1517.5 6/22/2011 <0.39 <0.39 <039 <078 <0.078 <0.39 <7.8 <7.8 <7.8 B-5048-10' None 8-10' 7/6/2012 <0.73 <0.73 <073 <146 <015 5.74 27.7 151 M&-134 ikoP: B-50412.5-15' None 12.5-15' 7/9/2012 <0.35 10.35 <035 <070 <0.070 <0.35 <7.0 <7.0 <7.0 B-5058-10' None 8-10' 7/6/2012 <0.41 <041 <041 <0.82 10.083 <0.41 <8.3 <8.3 <8.3 B-50510-12.5' None 10-125' 7/9/2012 <043 10.43 1043 <086 <0.085 <0.43 <8.5 18.5 <8.5 B-5068-10' None 8-10' 7/6/2012 <0.39 <0.39 1039 <078 <0.079 <0.39 <7.9 <7.9 <7.9 B-50610-12.5' None 10-125' 7/9/2012 <0.37 <0.37 <037 <074 <0,074 <0.37 <7.4 <7.4 <7.4 SB-5079.5-10' None 4510' 9/7/2012 <0.44 <044 <044 <088 <0.087 <044 <8.7 <8.7 <8.7 DUP None NA 6/22/2011 <0.39 <039 <039 1078 <0.078 <0.39 17.8 1 <73 <7.8 DUPLICATE None NA 7/6/2012 <0.73 1073 1073 <1.46 <0:15 6.27 30.1 164 QF--1424S5e DUPLICATE None NA 9/7/2012 1043 10.43 10.43 <0.86 10.086 10.93 18.6 1816 <86 FIELD BLANK None NA 6/20/2011 <025 <025 10.25 <O50 <0.050 10.25 15.0 150 <5.0 FIELD BLANK None NA 6/21/2011 <0.25 <025 10.25 <0.50 <0.050 <0.25 15.0 15, 15.0 FIELD BLANK None N.4 6/22/2011 <0.25 <025 <0.25 <0.50 <0.050 <025 <5.0 150 <5.0 Page 3 of 4 TABLE SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA VOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Former Slne6-Branded Service Station#137838 111 North Street Salem,Massachusetts Method 1 Ethyl- Total C,-Cs CsCrz Cg Cro Standards Benzene Toluene benzene Xylenes MTBE Naphthalene Aliphalics Aliphalics Aromatics (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (m€/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mgjkg) (mglkg) S-1/GW-2 30 500 300 300 100 40 100 1,000 100 S-1/GW-3 30 500 500 500 100 5W 100 1,000 100 S-3/GW-2 700 2,000 1,000 300 100 40 5,000 5,000 500 S-3/GW-3 900 3,000 3,000 3,000 500 3,000 5,000 5,000 500 UCL Standards 9,000 10,000 10,000 10,0(10 5,000 10,000 5,000 20,000 5,000 lna phi I��3i3)�r _ iO Sample Data Usability Depth(ft) Sample Identification Assessment Bias Date FIELD BLANK None NA 7/6/2012M<2.O <2.0 7 <027 10.54 <0.053 1027 153 <5.3 15.3 FIELD BLANKS None NA 7/9/20127 <027 <0.54 <0.I153 1027 <5.3 15.3 15.3 SOLVENTBLANK None NA 6/21/20110 <2.0 14.0 <1.0 <3.0 <50 150 150SOLVENT BLANK4 None NA 7/6/201227 <0.27 <0.54 <0.053 <0.27 <5.3 <5.3 153SOI.VENT BLANK5 Low NA 7/9/201227 <0.27 <0.54 <0.053 10.2] 153 15.3RINSATE BLANK4 None NA 7/6/2012 .0 <20 14.0 11.0 <30150 <50 <RINSATE BLANKS None NA 7/6/2012 .0 <2.0 <4.0 Q.0 13.0 <5p <5p 150 NOTES: mg/kg-milligrams per kilogram(parts per million(ppm)) MTBE-methyl tert butyl ether GSD-Not detected above method detection limit(MDL). MDL included S-1-Massachusetts Contingency Plan(MCP)Method 1 Soil Standard for category S-1 soil(with GW-1,GW-2&GW-3 Groundwater Standards) S-3-MCP Method 1 Soil Standard for Categorey S-3 soil(with GIN 1,GW-2&GW-3 Groundwater Standards) Bold font indicates concentration exceeding applicable MCP Method Soil Standard MCP Soil Standards for this table are current as of February 2008 Wave III Update UCL-upper concentration limits NE-not established MassDEP Identified Background Levels in Soil Containing Coal Ash or Wood Ash Associated with Fill Material pursuant to 310 CMR 40 0006,Table 1. Data Usability Assessment-the following qualifiers are utilized: None-no potential bias exists Low-potential low bias exists Fligh-potential high bias exists NC-data is not-CAM compliant Page 4 of 4 e5"ff�€@€. a isa pz . n na;�s�eaa�aas _- _ _ .8E.889a9aBaa .baa $,%€'e,€� R .,F'�pa_pR_��ta„w"w"aass�@zaaageae y IA? ` oqz x ana ass= � seas aE ;..7 v 7 v 7 1 7 7 7 7 11aa6a a9 i a='ae 'Al spaea�;xs_saaaay��a�se�saeaa Ra3R sE m ?c sae e a9s 9 9 ` `ems 3 8p =pR= �H�F aa.G��F�a�asSa ?E _ r Nam o 'i' spa�p�xs=_aaFaasawagR6�w9$"n� Y . E - � v ss� h a=i��€°da as=aF � .9 sea a,s,asR ae5sas §€ _ �I'm € a= =P="see"s3ee° m e a '"' �,s _ z 'ao a ss5��-€� s „� �� "o � .rRrrz'�e sggzcaasacs n � e E ,;60 , .;B . . 6a . aaa9aaaaaaaaa zG € x . Vgo s e €-€a€ _ s_ q_s_aaq^a asI - a : :"s�gEg�e n x a a s a ars¢ sass s a® 3 NINE9 1_ ___=_-'�aGr--.acasaaaasaa s = 11 1 _ 3U a]gg ggggRR a �V --.F ;L;3 .ci$���„`�R�RRgn£rr.RRFrR3£RR£FRdR �ry 4� <" oe e a E3 �$3 :p1 5� eb .30 -gngNs nC.�oFFac F9_ G5 a vv�r�e£Eli'IM . �. \ « } \u\\\\® § ) �� nHudQ/zƒ ( ` oH----- . . a \�¢ \\\\\\®ƒ cnuuuƒz \ nHUGu2m [ . \\\\\ \ //` eunHu�wG unupbA DAunu\w$ euegGfa } nHudU\®/ nnuAO2 �; HuuuP�d( DuuHC2® # uHunu\m$ ununu\�\ HHuuQ\� ) °S®$ _ \~$ nnnGn/w { TABLE SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA METALS Former Shell-Branded Service Station#137838 111 North Street Salem,Massachusetts Method Arsenic Barium Cadmium Chromium Lead Mercury Selenium Silver Standards (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) S1/GIN-2 20 1,000 2 1,000 300 20 400 100 S-1/GW-3 20 1,000 2 1,000 300 20 400 100 S-3/GW-2 20 5,000 30 5,000 300 30 800 200 S-3/GW-3 20 5,000 30 5,000 300 30 800 200 UCL Standards 200 10,000 300 2,000 3,000 300 8,000 2,000 MassDEP Identified 2050 3 40 600 1 1 5 Background LevelsMa Sample Identification Data Usability Depth(k) Sample n Ili _ Assessment Bias Date Sa .� 't._ MW-101 Nene 9-10 6/5/2006 2.97 45.4 <1.06 11.4 45.7 0.137 12.12 <1.06 B-102 None 10-11 6/5/2006 5.03 41.6 17.15 15.1 76.8 0.131 12.30 <1.15 B-103 None 105-12.5 6/5/2006 2.56 9.06 1123 13.8 4.41 <0.124 <2.46 <1.23 B-105 None 8-9 6/5/2006 4'24 22.0 <1.07 11.8 43.5 <0.105 <2.13 <1.07 UWS Bottom(oil/water sap.exc.) High 14 10/5/2006 <1.26 29.9 11.26 9.68 62.5 10.124 12.52 11.26 orti o water sep.exc.) High 10 10/5/2006 432 19.1 11.21 10.2 60 <0.118 <241 1121 Notes: Mg/kg-milligrams per kilogram(parts per million(ppm)) Sl-Massachusetts Contingency Plan(MCP)Method 1 Soil Standard for category S-1 soil(with GW-L GW-2&GW-3 Groundwater Standards) S-3-MCP Method 1 Soil Standard for Categorey S-3 soil(with GW 1,GW-2&GW-3 Groundwater Standards) ft-feet G5.0-Not detected above method detection limit(MULL MDL included. MCP Soil Standards for this table are current as of February 14, 2008 Wave III Update UCL-upper concentration limits Data Usability Assessment-the following qualifiers are utilized: None-no potential bias exists Low-potential low bias exists High-potential high bias exists NC-data is not-CAM compliant MassDEP Identified Background Levels in Natual Soil pursuant to 310 CMR 40.0006,Table 1. Page 1 of 1 : ) last: > � ! � } \\\ \ 11H ] xx, , WwMNAM | ! ! | ] | TAN [ Tim } \ ll ° IR HIM NOW , , , : : : \ }\ } \\ \\{ TARLE6 SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA VPH EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS -AREA I Former Shell-Branded Service Station#137838 111 North Street Salem,Massachusetts Method 1 Ethyl- Total C.-Cs CYCLE c1cra Standards Benzene Toluene benzene Xylenes MTBE Naphthalene Aliphatic. Aliphatics Aromatics (mg/kg) (mg/kg,) (mg/kg,) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (-g/kg) (mgtkg) S-1/GW-2 30 500 300 300 100 40 100 1,000 100 S-1/GW-3 30 500 500 500 100 500 100 1,000 100 S-3/GW-2 700 2,000 1,000 300 100 40 5,000 5,000 500 S-3/GW-3 900 3,000 3,000 3,000 500 3,000 5,000 5,000 500 UCL Standards 9,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 p�20,000 5,000 Sample Data Usability ( )Depth ft Sample9 Identification Assessment Bias P Date -Q'?_'._�{�y mry ._ufri1. 5--m. B/MW-101 None 9-10 6/5/2006 0.0136 0.04075 0.0136 0.376 004075 0068 1.36 136 1.36 B-102 None 10-11 6/5/2006 0.01925 0.058 0.01925 0.3927 0.058 0.0965 1.925 1.925 1.925 B-103 None 10.5-12.5 6/5/2006 0.01625 0.0488 0.01625 0.03905 1.95 0.0815 1.625 1.625 1625 B-2D6 High 11-12 10/26/2006 0.0221 0.0665 0.94 0.756 0.0477 219 2.21 272 =^ 1105. 4. B-207 None 10-11 10/26/2006 0.018 0.054 0.018 0.09 0.109 0.09 180 1.80 1.80 B-208 None 11-12 10/26/2006 0.02675 0.0805 0.2675 0.0535 0.2675 0.134 2.675 2.675 2.675 OWS Bottom High 14 10/5/2006 0.02155 0.0645 0.521 1.087 0.126 15 2.155 317ta--,293'e-a" OWS North High 10 10/5/2006 0.01945 0.0585 082 0204 001945 474 1,945 877 SB40110-12.5' None 10.12.5 6/22/2011 019 0.19 0.19 0.38 0.0375 019 375 3.75 _ 3.75 SB-401125-15' None 12.5-15 6/22/2011 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.38 0.0385 0.19 3.85 3.85 385 SB40210-12.5' None 10-12.5' 1 6/22/2011 1 0.20 0.20 1 0.20 1 0.40 1 0.0395 1 0.20 1 3.95 1 3.95 3.95 SR40212.515' None 12515 6/22/2011 0.19 0.19 019 038 0.038 0.19 3.8 3.8 SB-4031012.5' None 1012.5 6/22/2011 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.39 0.0395 0.195 395 3.95 SB-403 12.5-15' None 12.5-15 6/22/2011 0.195 0,195 0195 039 0039 0.195 3.9 3.9 SB4041012.5' None 10-12.5 6/22/2011 0.20 0.20 0.20 040 0040 0.20 4.0 4.0 SB40412.5-15' None 12.515 6/22/2011 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.0395 0.20 3.95 3.95 Exposure Point Concentrations 0.1073 0.126977875 0.260975 0.38239063 0.1831188 1.9975 2.9278125 94.1584375 j392A375 NOTES: mg/kg-milligrams per kilogram(parts per million(ppm)) MTBE-methyl tart butyl ether C5.0-Not detected above method detection limit(MDL). MDL included Bold font indicates concentration exceeding applicable MCP Method Soil Standard MCP Soil Standards for this table are current as of February 2008 Wave III Update UCL-upper concentration limits NE-not established MassDEP Identified Background Levels in Soil Containing Coal Ash or Wood Ash Associated with Fill Material pursumnt to 310 CMI:40.0006,Table 1. Data Usability Assessment-the following qualifiers are utilized: None-no potential bias exists Low-potential low bias exists High-potential high bias exists NC-data is not CAM compliant Page 1 of 1 TABLE 7 SUMMARY OF SOIL ANALYTICAL DATA VPH EXPOSURE POINT CONCENTRATIONS-AREA 2 Former Shell-Branded Service Station#137838 111 North Street Salem,Massachusetts Method 1 Ethyl- Total C,-Cs c1cu Cg Cru Standards Benzene Toluene benzene Xylenes MTBE Naphthalene Aliphatics Aliphatics Aromatics (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) ormift) (mg/kg) (mg/kg) S1/GW-2 30 500 300 300 100 40 100 1,000 100 S1/GW-3 30 500 500 500 100 500 100 1,000 100 S-3/GW-2 700 2,000 1,000 300 100 40 5,000 5,000 500 S-3/GW-3 900 3,000 3,000 3,000 500 3,000 S,OOD 5,000 500 UCL Standards 9,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 10,000 5,000 20,000 5,000 IPIvs4, tr IlNi ' ¢I T` v. Sample Data Usability De th ft Sample -. ,s 1 ( rl Identification Assessment Bias Date 4xaii'' P ( ) .mmm4:iiF I «:.:.vFgY .... fl:..L: .0 5.:.: a .' �t,�": tv. B/MW-104 None 10-12 6/5/2006 00483 00491 0.01635 0.09825 12.9 0.082 4.85 1,635 1.635 B/MW-201 None 10-12 10/30/2006 0.03755 0.1125 0.03755 0.075 16.1 0.1875 3.755 3755 3.755 SB-21? None 10 1/21/2009 016 0.16 0.16 0.32 0.032 016 32 3.2 3.2 SB-104R None 12 1/22/2009 015 0.15 0.15 0.30 0,201 0.15 2.95 147 47.8 SB-40610-12.5' None 10-12.5 6/22/2011 0.195 0.195 0.195 039 0,039 0.195 3.9 3.9 3.9 SB40612.5-15' None 12.5-15 6/22/2011 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.040 0.20 40 4.0 4.0 SB4071612.5' None 10-12.5 6/22/2011 0.205 0.205 0205 0.405 0.041 0205 41 17.6 22.4 SB-40712.5-15' None 12.5-15 6/22/2011 0,205 0.205 0.205 0.405 00405 0.205 4.05 4.05 4.05 SB40810' None 10' 6/20/2011 085 0.85 0.85 1.7 017 32.5 101 268 Im.:506 .. SB-40810-12.5' None 10-12.5 6/22/2011 0.20 020 020 0.40 00395 020 11.6 37.4 51.2 SB40812515' None 12.5-15 6/22/2011 1 0,195 1 0.195 0.195 1 0.39 0.039 0195 3.9 3.9 3.9 SB-40910-12.5' None 10.12.5 6/22/2011 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.38 00385 0.19 3.85 3.85 385 SB40912515' None 12.5-15 6/22/2011 0.19 0.19 019 0.38 0.038 0.19 38 38 3.8 B-5048-10' None 8-10' 7/6/2012 0365 0.365 0.365 073 0.075 5.74 27.7 151 x-134 WzcdiP B-50412.5-15' None 12.5-15' 7/9/2012 0.175 0.175 0.175 0.35 0.035 0.175 35 3.5 3.5 B-5058-10' None 8-10' 7/6/2012 0205 0.205 0.205 041 00415 0.205 4.15 4.15 415 B-50510.125' None 10-12.5' 7/9/2012 0.215 0215 0.215 043 0.0425 0.215 925 4.25 4.25 B-5068-10' one 8-10' 7/6/2012 0.195 0.195 0.195 0.39 0.0395 0.195 3.95 3.95 395 50 B- 610-12.5' None 10-12.5' 7/9/2012 0.185 0.185 0,185 037 0.037 0.185 3.7 3.7 3.7 SB-5079510' None 9.5-10' 9/7/2012 0.22 0.22 0.22 044 0.0435 0.22 4.35 435 4.35 Exposure proof Concentrations 0.2193 0.2231 0.2177 0.4382 1 1.5016 2.0797 1 10.3278 27.2345 40.8695 NOTES: Data Usability Assessment-the following qualifiers are utilized: None-no potential bias exists mg/kg-milligrams per kilogram(parts per million(ppm)) Long-potential low bias exists MTBE-methyl lent butyl ether High-potential high bias exists <5.0-Not detected above method detection limit(MDL). MDL inxluded NC-data is not-CAM compliant Bold font indicates concentration exceeding applicable MCP Method Soil Standard MCP Soil Standards for this table are current as of February 2008 Wave Ill Update UCL-upper concentration limits NE-not established MossDEP Identified Background Levels in Soil Containing Co.]Ash or Wood Ash Associated will,Fill Material pursumnt to 310 CMR 40.0006,Table 1. Page 1 of 1 @gg�� s x gPFz_.aa^^Saac&6a sg- _ v HIMc y--„egeaageai Will,III - by GG cc pp p� _ �r6topN= riza��' � Fqz ssC�aaa sa< I� Fo xflv y% 56E � e=ee . see will -g Ig 1 g cBe'eeAee� Mall 19 T - E V 9 sL v E55 _ _ z595z93 fl s`�” g€ soP :£ ls cit g 2`s yy=-ss t ' P69= n ^J. qa.�a«ry naEC2E' �l-!3V� TAOLE9 MONITORING WELL GAUGING DATA SUMMARY Por01er Sbell-13rmlded Service Swtion 9137838 ' 111 NortM1Slreet Salem,Massachuset¢ 081110 Club, Deplb to Groundwater Casing Elo'ation(ry) Dale EL-fl.' W.... Elevation heel) (teat) (40) MW-1 ]/92006 jw, 9/.91 11/20/206 B]]0 1/15/200] 8]50 ,11INID07 8904 ]/19/200] 8662 10/9/200] 85.50 010/2008 87264/7/2008 88.3] 71162008 86691022000 6].84 3/1]2009 Inaccessible due o.coosmlaion 5262009 Invcc s5ibledncW consuuclia¢ 11/8/2000 Well Dcsm N MW-2 7/6/2006 to 89.69 9992 11202006 WO DcsW N I MW2R3/17/2009 891 91 05 99.96 9292009 1 10.01 89.95 11/82009 10.63 89.33 2/5/2010 9.76 90.20 711712010 9.66 9030 /92020/0 11.25 8891 91/2011 . 9.95 9001 11212x2 9.65 90.37 511W2012 1059 893] MW-3 ]/92006 994 90.01 99.95 1120/2006 10.71 8924 1/15200] 1071 69-N 4/19200] 942 90 i3 ]/19/2002 11 20 88.]5 109200] 1].86 81119 1/102008 1241 8254 422008 9.93 90.29 7/19208 IL I] 88]8 10/7208 IOA6 89.49 3/17209 Ina¢asEle"1 mconarvnion too&t 5212009 10 43 90.21 11/8/2009 1112 89.52 2/52010 1030 90.34 592010 10.06 90.56 /22020/0 _ 1169 88.95 912011 10.35 .29 221202 10.11 90.53 5/m2012 - 112 8963 MW-4 7/&2006 10.85 85,98 96.93 11/292006 10.63 86.20 1/15/2007 10 81 86.02 4/19/2007 9.71 8].12 7/1M.7 II 40 65 43 10/9/209 1 1209. 84.74 1/102008 1 10.99 85,M 71]208 10.35 8648 99208 II]6 85.57 10/72008 10]5 86.08 3/172009 Inaccessibledoe l0mnswai- 5/2W2009 Inv -ible doe to wnSWttibu 11/82009 a Well Desom cJ MW-101 7192006 11,70 3736 98.98 11/20/2006 11 05 8293 1/152007 U B]4] 4/19'002 965 89.33 2/19'00] IJ 04 85.94 10/9207 1448 84.50 1/10/208 11.89 87.09 428008 10.86 88.12 7/I&E08 1298 86.00 IO/]/2008 1135 8'1.23 ..17/2009 l-.siblc E¢e to canwclion 71202009 Inavcessble dna W canslrvclio 11/A/2O9 Well 0x40 W NSVO Not Surveyed TABLE MONITORING WELL GAUGING DATA SUMMARY Fetnla Sholl-Branded Service Statiod#137838 111 NOrlb Street Salem,Mn55@Au5et15 \Cel1n easing Depth to e.eundvater cafine11,11nDate El....in We... Elermmn I en) d (@eB Deel) ("'D Mee-1. 0/62006 9.71 8912 98.93 111202006 10.19 88 71 1/15/2.7 10.42 BH 51 0/19/2.7 9.15 89.78 7/19/2.7 to 8803 I0/9rz.7 12.33 8658 1/10/2008 1076 88.17 4/72.8 9.55 8938 7/16/2008 10 73 88.20 10/]2008 995 8l 3/17/2009 - Well Davoyed MVV-104R 3/172001 937 9046 99.83 5262009 totD 0975 11/82009 to 69 B9.14 V512010 9.90 89.93 5/12/2010 9.80 90.03 13/202010 11.18 8865 6/12011 1085 8978 11/212011 9.85 8990 5/10/2012 10.66 89.17 MW1057W2006 1 9.90 89.89 9971 11/20/2.6 1007 1172 1/15/2007 MO 8932 4119/2007 834 9115 7/19/207 1184 8795 10/9/2007 1392 85.17 /102.. 11.12 1867 4/7/2008 9.04 90.75 7/162008 1162 88.17 1022008 10,12 8967 3/172009 8. 9175 9919 5262009 933 8986 11/8/2009 WallDnaz, 66V-201 U/20/2006 1001 88.95 9896 1/15/2.7 10.11 8885 4/19/2.7 8.66 90.30 7/192.7 10.74 88.22 10/9/2.7 1228 86.68 V10/2.8 10.66 88.20 4//200. 9.14 89.82 7/1612008 10.68 8828 10/72008 10.01 88.95 1/I7/2.9 Well O61r0 N e1w-zu2 11202.6 n 59 1624 97.83 1115/2007 Iv6 8607 4/1912007 1026 87,57 7/198007 -125a 8528 I x92007 I3 32 84.51 18x2008 at a 8585 4/7/2.8 1128 8655 610/2008 12W 85.19 1/7172008 1164 8619 V 17/2009 Inact65ib1e d.,1.Wniwclion 5/262009 Inn-able due at ccam.cai.. 11/8/2009 Well Danoyad NSVD-Nat Surveyed TABLE 9 MONITORING WELL GAUGING DATA SUMMARY Ferner Shell-Bended Service Station#137838 111 North Same( Sulen,M,usuchuretG WeII IU C.ing Deplbto Groundwater Casing Eln'aion(D) Date Elevation Water Eln'vtian (feet) (feet) (feet) AIW-203 11/2N2006 106', 88.02 9666 1//52002 984 Het 4/192.2 920 8946 7119/2W7 11.90 86.76 10/9/2.2 13.12 .149 1/10/2008 11.21 WAS 42/2008 999 8667 7IN2.9 1177 8689 10/712008 10.56 88.10 3/1712009 Inue..sible due he cm.arr tin n 5/26/2.9 Inuuaeible the to consmalin, I/82.9 well Dewed MN'-204 112N2006 9.86 87.56 9742 1/15/2.2 9.93 9749 4/19/2W7 8.90 88.52 7/19/207 10.50 86.92 10/9/207 1199 86.03 1/10/2.8 1002 87.35 422008 620 91.22 7/16/208 1037 87.05 0R208 9.66 87.76 3/12/2009 - Well Drnnyed bIW-2048 3/17/2.9 953 9626 9779 5/2N209 W21 8758 11/8/209 .1029 87.50 715/2010 986 51.93 5/3/2010 9.95 87.84 13202010 10.52 8727 6/12011 01166 11212011 9 95 8]. 5/10/2012 1037 8742 M\\'8030 3I7/2009 1044 87.34 9728 5262009 1144 .34 11/62009 12.. 85.72 2/5/2010 10.20 8759 5/13f1010 9.91 929] /2202010 12.80 84.98 NI/2011 ILII 86.67 11212011 10.42 8736 SIIQ2012 1257 8531 MW 101 3/172009 NSVD 552 NSVD 5262.9 NSVD 5.81 NSVD 11/82009 NSVD 5.78 NSVD 2/5/2010 NSVD 5.62 NSVD 5/1312010 NSVD 5.70 NSVD IV2N2010 NSVD 6.82 NSVD 6/12011 NSVD 5.68 NSVD 11212011 NSVD 560 NSVD 5/10/2012 NSVD 657 NSVD MW-302 11212011 11.03 9690 97.93 5/102012 11.56 86.3 NSVD-Not Surveyetl TABLE IO SUMMARY OF GROUN'DWA'TER ANALYTICAL DATA VOLATILE PETROLEUM DYDROC\RBONS Fanner Shell-Branded Service Station#137838 _ 111 North Street Salem,Massadhusuts CunoonouOanr fn nnvogranrs peNlmr(uS/Ll e9uhw]em.,.ro Per hglbm(p03) Wall o (GW Care nI Date ` m� � S } GK G 5a L GW-2 Data Usabiliry 2,000 50,000 20,000 9,000 150.000 ^I,IroO J,000 5/700 7000 GW-3 Assessment Bias 10,000 40,000 S,WO S,WO 50,000 T.D. SO,MO Kan0 50,000 o1W-1 7/4/2006 11X0 13.00 11.00 <6,0a II]On c au S.Ooo I <l00 000 (CW-3) 11/20/2006 1100 3.00 <100 U.00 24400 <5.00 <2,500 <100 1000 1115/2Cm 1100 om 1100 400 11]On 1500 <ts0o 100 <100 4/1912007 <1 00 <3.00 <1 00 w Go 1 390 <3.On 1500 1100 <I00 2/19/7007 <1o0 3,00 1100 400 9,350 1500 1,750 <m0 lift 10/912007 quo 3,00 <I00 16,00 17200 1800 s9ao 11W 1100 11071200x 1110 1300 4(h0 <6 to 9,651) mm 20001 1070 <100 4/7/2009 20 t o 20 14.0 . 172 11.0 60 on <50-' Nom 1/7612009 20 20 120 - 40 920 v0 00 <50 60 Nano 10012009 <20 20 if 120 390 130 150 150 <50 Well De,.,,d MW-2 9/62196 1 W 300 400 16.00 1 164 Q00 1100 1100 <100 ((:Wd) "" Well Destoosxd MW-2R None 3/[712009 <20 <2,0 4.2 25.1 191 t0 150 515 682 (GW-3) Nan, 5/268009 22 120 25 2.0 221 21.1 ti0 <50 63.2 Nona 11/98009 6.00 <500 6.00 <150 970 1500 570 390 230 Nam 2/5/2010 1500 1500 1500 <150 150 6.00 330 105.0 <6.00 Low 5/1312010 6.00 <500 6.00 <I5,0 230 1501 <150 1150 1610 None 12/208010 20 20 20 14.0 126 <3.0 <50 <50 <50 High' 6/1/2011 <2.0 <2,0 <2.0 40 829 20 <in 150 150 High 11/21/2011 12.0_ <20 <20 40 382 <30 60 60 <50 None 322012 <III 2,0 213 140 19.1 3.0 <50 <50 <50 Nom 5/10/2012 <1 0 <20 2.0 <4.0 19.1 3,0 60 60 130 Page 1 of .So-",rnnmlrmg ma TABLE I0 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL DATA YOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Farmer Shell-Branded Service Station 4137838 111 North Seel Salem.MassachnseIts r'anc,nrronons.n mlcro8rnmv Per ho,/g/L)..nwnlem rn pmr.yn billion(PYb) cy _ Well ID ,4xA y Ta G L G oB (GWC."yorv) Date 04<� �� 4�n 2' G� �4 Gq`n O'')!< GW-2 Data Usability 2,000 50,000 20,000 9,000 !W1000 1 O 3,000 5'070 7,1110 GW-) Assevvmenl Bills 10,M0 40,OM $,WO 50110 SQOM 201001 50,000 50,000 50.000 MW-3 7/6/2006R9 N0 5. 230 455 7,690 Id90 2,000 Q00 <I00 (6'W-3) 1120/ZOOfi 433 200 400 <400 LINO <500 500 6100 6100 1/15200] 1.26 200 UO0 <4,00 1,610 <5,00 600 61011 WU 4/19/2007 239 200 QO0 0,00 1,710 <500 600 <100 6100 7/19/20(1] 306 600 61310 64.00 429 <500 <100 1100 UOU 10/9/2007 _4(10 2 00 lion 1600 16-1 65.00 . 6100 <I00 <I00 N012008 'Lou 200 200 16.00 245 1500 6100 <l00 a00 4/7/2008 52 20 62.0 61,0 74.0 20 729 00 60 None 7/1612009 Q0 <20 20 U,0 20.6 20 <50 <50 <30 None 10/7/2008 2.90 62,0 <2,0 <2,1) 23.8 <3.0 <50 650 650 Nan. 3/17/2nU9 Inncrosvible duc m-troo on None 5262009 20 20 '62.0 20 24 20 <50 60 00 None II/8/2009 ti00 <500 200 <I50 6,00 <500 <I50 1110 <c'.00 Non, 2/5/20ln <5.00 5.00 200 <13.0 6,00 6,00 <15.0 <15.0 66-00 Lmc 5/132010 15 UU 65.00 65.00 615.0 15.00 <5.00 <150 <150 200 Nan, 12/20/2010 20 12.0 62.0 _14-0 40 <3 0 60 <50 60 Hi,h' 6/12011 <2.0 <20 <20 <40 610 20 <50 650 <50 High 1121/2011 20 620 120 140 40 130 00 60 60 None 32/2012 <IP 2,0 20 <4.0 <10 cO 60 <50 <50 Non, 5/102012 <1 0 <20 2.0 64.0 QO 20 <50 <50 <50 MW-4 7/6/2006 7,98 300 620 16.00156,W <50n 3,000 I <100 <100 rGIP-3) 11/20/2006 <1.00 <300 000 <4 on 6.00 -,250 <100 <100 1/15!2007 61.00 <300 <100 4.00 QUO 1210 1100 1100 4/192007 <100 1300 6100 14,m 15.00 <s00 a0. <V0 7/192007 8,30 <300 24.1 WVo 5.70 111(1 <Io0 61(10 10012007 no 617 399 768 101 20400 1300 1,620 1/102008 1100 9,00 <1Oo 16,00 200 '1000 <I00 <100 4n12008 <2,0 <20 <20 <4,0 Q0 <50 <50 650 None 7/1612008 <10 1211 <20 200 20 611 <511 <50 None lon2o08 120 20 <2.0 2.0 O0 <50 150 650 3/17/2009 Ina,,ssime due to corswcton Well Denrmcd Psm,2.1`7 .Sovereign con.uLinS/n,. TABLE 10 SUAIMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL DATA VOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Former Shell-Branded Service Station 4137838 111 North Street Salem,Massachusetts Cao-moo-,.r.mmrogtna..per hmr(ug/ZJ egumalr..o pare.....ball (ppb) \Yell ID �:�� 1v4 0 i3Oy`9 1�Ts bac (GWCmea./ Date GVV-2 Data Usability 2,000 50,000 201000 9,000 c50"Hq LHO3,000 5,000 ).WO GW.3 Assessment Bias 1QWO 40,000 5,000 5,000 MAW 20.000 50,000 50,000 50,000 MW-101 9/612006 <I 00 <300 ,100 ,6,00 34 fl6,6 ,1110 <I00 <100 (CW-2(:W-3) 112oR0n6 11'to 13110 <I,00 a00 25 <ad <Io0 <I011 1/L2007 elan 13.00 <100 U00 7 <100 I0V <I00 4/19/2007 <1 00 ,300 1100 ,4.00 <3,0. QOo 1100 1100 7/192Oo7 <100 <300 365 ,1.00 1300 <I00 <100 100 101912007 <100 11,00 ,100 600 29.1 1100 1100 <mn /102009 <1,00 <3,00 <LD0 -<600 127q0o <I00 <100 402009 120 <2.0 <2.0 4,0 31.1 so <50 bo Nam 7n(JIOo9 20 <2,0 <2.0 U0 102 bo <50 <51 None 10m2009 qo <2o Q0 <20 <20 150 150 <50 3/10/2009 Inocerssdtle due m con.mtctian W,11 Desvmcd MW-104 7/6/21106 IZnn ,300 <IO0 <6,00 15,900 bnn 5000 <to0 <100 (GI&3) 11200106320 <300 <1,116 <4,06 3S0 <5 do It onto <I00 <too /I5/2007 <I00 900 1100 ,400 ]44 4,00 <y0 ,100 <I Oo 4/19/2007 <I OU 300 400 ,4,00 344 <5,00 Q00 <10. 1100 v192007 ,Lon <3.00 1100 4,00 Ian _1500 qoo 1100 elan 10/92007 1OY 1300 1.02 ,1300 1370 ,300 250 1100 ,100 1/102008 qa0 200 11 Uo 600 5nu 4,00 <I00o 'too <100 92 mooe <20 <2,0 q0 <40 bn9 <3,n <50 40 <50 Non, 7/16/2009 20 <2,0 20 <4,0 287 130 <50 <50 40 None _161712OMF 20 12 It <2.0 <2,0 3,5 <311 40 411 6o Well D,arco it M\41WR None 3/172009 20 120 20 <4,0 9.6 ti0 <0 <50 <50 (GW-) No- 5262009 <2.0 2A 20 20 103 <10 bn 150 50 No., 11/82009 1500 <500 <5.00 <IS,o ti00 <500 <I50 <1 5,0 <6,00 NOM 2/52010 ,5.00 Q00 <500 oil0 ,500 <5 00 <I5.0 <15.0 61111 L. 5113/2010 '15010 1500 <500 <15.0 2Oo 4.00 950 <I50 ,6,00 Norm 1220/2010 <20 <20 20 14.0 <1 a <3,0 <50 40 150 Hight 6,10011 120 <20 <20 4A 9.0 <3o <50 <50 40 Blgh 1IM120II ' 20 120 2,0 <4.0 <10 13.0 <50 <50 40 No- 322012 1L0 <2.0 2A 140 110 13.0 <50 <50 bo None 5/10/2012 <I0 <20 2,0 140 <ld <30 <io 150 40 Page 3 oF7 Street'no Ponsnlnn8lae TABLE IO SUMMARY OF GROONDWATER ANALYTICAL DATA VOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Former Shell-Branded&e ie Station 9137838 111 NOnh Soo-1 Salon,mo'SUeho"U' C--1,11.1.....111 nne.ns.eU11.em,'rye2J evnmolem mnn.r.re,bolo-(,Ph) E we111D v /(',WG,eFaryl Dale 0°VC 4� 4' T e e 2 Ga'`Qn Ge'P°rt 1A P GW-2 DeD...Deabiliry 2,W0 .10,000 5 011 0,000 20,000 90 50,000 1.000 1,000 S,OOp ],C00 GW-3 M-s-rd dine IO.MIO 40UMOU 5.01X1 5,W0 50'm 2n.OW 50,000 50.OW 50.1991 MW105 7/6/2006 400 300 11UO k00 c00 1500 1 in,) I <100 <100 ( IV2/1iIV,U 11/2012006 11,00 i_00 400 4.010 4 1500 1100 1 Q00 IOU 1/152007 <100 Q00 <Lm 4.00 <3:,00 <5On <IOn 1101) 1101) 4/1911007 <Loo <.Pl <100 <A.On 13.011 6,Oo <100 a00 <1O0 ]/101100] qOn <3.00 1100 4.011 S.na 25,00 <In0 <100 <IOU 10911007 1100 400 <100 e6 on 172 15.00 <UO <I00 <I00 INONOW <100 <3JU 1100 Ono 535 <5OO <IUo 10711 <on 417/2009 ap a0 120 <40 120 130 <50 150 On None 7/162009 120 20 12,0 '14.0 4.0 <3,0- <1 00 <50 None IOn2o09 Qo 120 <?.n <2.0 a.0 <3,0 <50 <5U <10 None 3/1712009 120 120 120 4.0 el 0 G.0 <50 150 150 None 526/2009 <20 20 211 e 12 <3O oO 6U 150 Well Dce.ecl MW2011120121006 7530 4.8] 5100 690 2].300 24.80 <2500 <500 659 TNN-3J I/11M07 2450 1300 29.60 4 o 17,6011 <5 on 4,200 211 264 4/19/2007 200 2011 1 39 W 00 i710 6.00 11.101110 11011 <I00 ]/111/2007 399 5.58 9.93 49.7 1570 17.2 <I UO 576 109 In/9/200] <1 on 1300 1.51 <600 1,100 <5,60 <250 110 <110 1/102009 1.52 <3.00 lit <6.00 1,230 0,00 <'OO <I00 900 4/72108 20 <20 <20 <4. 692 <30 <50 <50 94.7 No- 7/162009 <20 <20 <,0 14.0 207 in 10 150 153 None 1011/20/09 20 20 <2.0 Q.0 240 <3,O <50 <50 126 Well Deslmred Post 4on .S..... Co-dun'In' TABLE 10 SIINIMARY OP GROUNDWATER ANALYTICAL DATA VOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Poruter Shell-Branded Service Stalloo 4137838 111 Nonh Street Salem,Maasachusum Gnnoennoaoni In microSr°mu per l0er(ug/Ll e9uiruoel laparlrper b11Gan(ppb) Well ID A (1wanesnrv) Da GW-2 Dau W.blhy 2,WO W,OW 20,000 9,000 `5%000 II,WU 3,000 5,000 7,0410 GW-3 A,evmenl Bias 10,000 40AW 5,wo 5,000 SOON 2%000 50000 S.Outt Kul. NIW-202 M02006 <Illn 13.00 <1 On <4 0a 445 1500 <100 1 1100 1100 (mm3) 1l13/2007 1100 <3.00 <100 14.00 171 600 400 1 1100 <100 4119/2007 400 1300 1100 w 0 94 <500 1100 I <100 <I00 71192007 <1 Old <300 400 <4 do 495 <5,(10 <too 1100 <IOU 10/9/2007 UO0 13,00 2.12 <00 241 tiA0 <I00 i <I00 <I00 1/102008 11.010 0.00 <1,00 1600 463 QOO 1100 I <IOU 402009 <20. <111 20 140 155 13.0 <50 60 <50 None 7/16/2008 20 20 20 14.0 623 <30 60 <50 <50 Nnnc 10/72008 20 20 20 <2.0 640 1,0 150 150 150 3/17/2009 Inaccessible due to carswclion WellDee.—cl NIV-203 1120/2006 127 <900 tl31 16,0 740 1600 600 g011 279 (G'W-2,()W-3) 1115/7007 <1tt0 <300 1 338 9.15672 13.20 1250 110 114 4/19/200) <IAO 13.00 cLUO 14.00 263 1560 <100 <WO <I00 0192007 1100 <310 <1 0 4.00 73160 6,60 1100 <100 <100 10/9/2007 11,00 <g00 _ 1100 <6,U0 7920 <5 00 2886 <100 <10O 1/102008 q.nn 200 q 00 <fi00 4810 <500 <I 0pn 1100 1100 an/znue 120 20 <2O wo 1630 <3.0 6U <SU 6U Nnnc 7/16/2068 ¢,01 20 I 20 WO 1640 <30 <50 I 6u 150 Non, 10O/2008 <2,0 1 20 1 <2.0 <20 560 130 <50 1 150 150 3/172009 Inaccessible duel.connn¢u. Well Dnoeoed P.,5 ef7 So--,Cansn0inglnc. TABLE III SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER ANAL\TICAL DATA VOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS former Shell-Branded Service Station#137838 111 Nanh Snee1 Salem,Massachusens Concent-o,,.m mivngmSo Pv Inee(4S/gf eguNo(enl m yarls Per W1100 Well IDA, F4 V0 C`y L a9 V e GW-2 Data Usvbiliq 2,000 50,000 20.000 9,000 $0,000 I,WO J.OW -,,WO 9,000 GW-3 Assessment Bias 100000 40,000 5,000 5,000 5008 20,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 MW-204 III20 oOr, 213.8 23.9 11100 259.5 9258 23 70 112500 ISO 510 /f1V J IIIY20O9 131100 409 53.10 27,68 50,4011 17,40 12,900 183 289 41192OO9 11O0 <3OO 1100 1400 82 158 11M 1100 <I00 71192009 151 12,6 146 949 55,28 334 1100 322 410 10612009 <I.00 <30h 1100 06.00 22,200 600 9,800 1100 <100 1110020118 q00 <300 <I,110 <6.00 4,510 <5.00 <1000 <IM <100 41MOMI 24 33 19.9 43.5 294 3.8 <50 60 620 None 91162008 276 241 tib 210.6 2.250 413 150 145 433 Non, IOMO68 9.10 20 - 2370 20 899 620 <50 <50 504 Well Desvmed MW-204R None 3/19!2009 229 346 313 399 1,660 929 50 16 699 (GW-3) None 51262009 116 11, 81.8 43.4 859 47,9 1100 <100 164 None 11/X208 <3 00 1500 <5 ml <15 0 299 13.0 960 920 Mr. Nom 215(2010 <5.00 <500 370 1150 153 900 149 89.0 148 Lm. 51132010 230 19.0 5860 6210 220 16900 1,590 151.0 3360 None 1220/2010 Q.0 <2,0 3,6 <40 18,2 60 . UI 60 909 H,h' 6112011 20 60 179 2016 111 489 250 121 361 DUPLICATE Hleh' 6112011 <20 6,5 211 2522 129 599 269 154 445 MSh 1112112011 <2.0 <2,0 249 104 22.1 80,4 339 621 464 DUPLICATE High 1112112011 <2.0 <2,0 256 10.8 21,0 823 354 693 491 Note 322012 <1 0 20 9.4 140 9.9 13.0 56 9 <50 62.1 DUPLICATE Nom 31212012 <1O 12,0 82 140 94 13,0 65.3 150 95 None 51102011 11.0 120 < <4.0 64 <3 0 111 60 60 DUPLICATE None 51102012 110 20 2,0 <4.0 1 13.8 <3.0 193 ti0 914 Page 6 of 7 Sauor"0 co-",In, TABLE I0 SUMMARY OF GROOND\PATER ANALYTICAL DATA VOLATILE PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS Former Shell-Branded Service Stenion 913793 I I I North Street Salem,Massachusetts furan on"on.br mmrogn...per Gro(vg/IJ egarv..hav res"a Pm a"is(p➢6l Well ID `o (GWC-ree) Date GW-2 Data U,.hilily 2,011D SII,WO vpI,OW T91000 50,0M1 I,WD 3,0112 QWO 7,000 GW-3 Assessment Bias 100110 40,000 5,000 5,000 501100 20,000 SD.00D 50p00 50,1100 MW-204D Nov. 3/1712009 20 2.0 20 <4.0 88 3.0 150 <50 150 (C;13) Naves 5262009 12u 120 120 120 11 130 60 n0 60 No- 111812009 6,00 15.00 Q00 <I5,0 1100 <5.0 1150 l7.11 230 None 2521110 <5,d0 4OU <i011 <li0 <500 <5,00 <G11 1150 160 Noun 5/1312010 5,00 <5.00 400 UiO 1560 QW <15.0 <RO <6,0 None 12/20/2010 Qf 20 120 14.0 <10 20 50 50 151, HiSli 6/12011 <2(1 20 20 <4.0 <I,0 <30 60 60 150 High 11/21/2011 <20 2a <20 <40 <I,0 30 <30 till <50 None 3/2/2012 <1,0 <20 20 <4.0 <10 <30 <50 <50 <10 None 5/10/2012 11,0 <2,0 20 <40 110 13.0 <50 <50 60 _ MW-301 None 3/U/2009 <20 20 20 W 0 110 <3.0 <50 60 150 (GW_) Nove 526/2009 20 <2,0 120 120 LI <30 ti0 60 60 None 11/8/2009 <500 400 <500 also 15A0 <5,00 <I5.0 -<150 600 None 2/5/2010 <5,00 200 5 NO 1150 <590 <5.00 <15.0 <I5.0 400 Nove 51132010 <5 00 200 5,00 1150 <5.0 <500 <I50 <15,0 1600 None 1220/2010 <2.0 <2A 20 w 0 '10 13.0 150 <50 50 Hig11 6112011 20 20 21) 14.0 <1,0 UO 60 150 150 High 1321/2011 20 122 120 <4.0 <I,0 <30 60 150 150 None 3220¢ <I,0 20 120 <4.0 <I,0 ao 150 150 150 Norc 5/102012 <1,0 20 20 140 <I,0 <1.0 <50 60 <50 MW-302 Noce 11212011 <2.0 <2,0 20 14.0 2.9 13.0 <50 150 <50 (GW-3/ None 5/102012 <10 <2,0 12,0 20 53 <3I <ad <50 60 TRIP BLANK Note 122012010 20 120 <2.0 140 11.0 231 150 150 <50 Hiyn' 61120u <zo <2p <+0 4b 10 <3.0 <50 60 40 High un12011 20 <2n 2n <4it <L0 20 60 <Sn 60 None 3nrzD1z <10 <20 20 <4.1 <LD 130 120 <50 60 None 5/10/2012 <10 20 120 <4.n <Ln 2n tiD 150 150 FIELDBLANK Hight 6/12011 2,0 20 <2 14.0 UO 20 150 6U 60 Hlgh 112112011 20 2,0 20 14.0 <IO GO 150 150 150 None 5/102012 <I.0 <20 20 14 <I0 130 60 60 60 RINSATE BLANK None6/212011 12.0 20 20 W.0 <I0 15.O <10 <5(I 150 Nan, 62JRou <20 2,0 2,0 <4_D <�0 <30 60 60 150 None ]162012 20 <20 1 <2.0 1 calf 20 130 150 150 60 - None 7192012 20 120 1 <21) 1 calf I <IO 20 <30 <50 150 Not<s: For the Data usability Aaa<ssm<m,the ompovnd not demoted above methal dcmmion limit Non an polelial bias NA-not applicable or not available Loo-polcvtivl lam blas citrus MTBE-methyl larown,bell edlvr High-pnormal thigh bias axisla Held slues indicate coneaerelons govamr Nan a,oximin slarmard NC.dam is not-CAM compliant GW-2 and GVV-3 Method I Standards referenced from 310 CMR 400994 oflhe Masvachvaens Contingency Plan I ligb'-indi<acs bias high for m4.xylines and em,Tom-no Page]of] suer"t,Coo...am,Inc __ S gm - - - - _ lb DO � C _ K j nH i V OQH "a = r°tl e •rO'G'°ep _ _ _i'F PF_ _ 7r 7 e "tl , 7-,i-,V77— _ _ _ €t 3 _ , a Oki--�—_—�= 2� F E zZ3 i,\P Lf.13 51111 tIWIL1"113'.\L UA'fA fn�mn SPtlIa<r;a I..—rove\e 2 NA 7 52D 12 Ll £; F 1• a• � � # 1' •c Fe Y• _ di Nx I __ 3erp 77�7�4"M' 17777 ¢ 88€€ __ 8€8 __ rrn�.Wr C _ __ _ F - rrind„v C? = p 83e vyA a 88 [ ge 888888€.€�_ 8 s288888 _88888E9 I' Tl I a2 vun.e a SH\I11.\Hl'UF�:HDIi\'D\\'nTF:0.A�:A I.I"P(CnL DAT,\ \UTAIILL nIt�.\."IC CUdIPINI\DS FnnnvSMelPnneul Smirc iuuon XI t]R�9 Sdm�.M.�ru.M1vssiu ['nmmnrmiv rn mxroprom.p=IwrliaN rprmlenrrofvme=.M1Jlmi.pp[/ 3 Y c f= _• ` a _ ` kv .\ i i 10 7 M�4 lo 4 %10 1100 I —ti IIE uv Ac, lo I nPu ureun �wuNensN uen v nt'.-eauuvw+.\u V JiummA sO almNm ....)IU W0.�opo].I.la,=M..uAv==w tmixrm.��Ln(.R=Wv�nnnnnlmJ Fffl..mmulMcfnmmavmelelm:.'=yI.I�Enop TABLE 13 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY FIELD DATA NATURAL ATTENUATION PARAMETERS Former ShellBrandedService Sution#137838 I11 North Street Salem,MassacM1useus Contl Tenrp UO fl29,7 Well ID S:untle Date D UnS/cnQ f,C) (mg/L) MW-1 7/62006 6.7 1.240 13,7 4.0 11/20/2006 447 1.900 14.6 0.56 1/15/2007 NA NA NA NA 4/19/2007 6.35 1.130 11.38 4.78 7/19/2007 6.10 0.821 16.41 1.21 10/9/2007 6,7 0.943 16.77 1.831/10/2008 681 0.990 12.80 2.984/7/2008 7.34 0.979 11.06 6.39 7/16/2008 5.61 0.650 15.40 0.86 1249 10/7/2008 6.64 0.765 1282 1.26 119 11/8/2009 Well Destroyed MW-2 7/6/2006 6.3 0.388 13.6 1 4.5 66.8 11/20/2006 Well Destroyed MW-2R 3/17/2009 5.60 0.506 7.66 063 122.8 11/8/2009 6.73 0328 16.44 102 -13 2/5/2010 6.69 1.223 1090 0.35 84 5/132010 6.90 0.651 13.02 050 123 12/20/2010 - 6.59 1.204 14.03 1.54 95 6/1/2011 6.71 1.378 15.59 0.23 92 11/21/2011 6.80 1.099 17.23 0.34 37 5/10/2012 5.59 0.885 13.44 0.61 3 MW-3 7/6/2006 6.5 0.528 14.9 4.2 -36.7 11/20/2006 6.24 0.709 15.7 0.14 120.0 1/15/2007 6.35 0.489 13.7 00 139 4/19/2007 6.04 0.999 11.84 0.0 87 7/19/2007 7.14 0.554 15.75 1.23 19.1 10/9/2007 6.69 0.605 19.57 1.25 -194 1/10/2008 6.43 0.568 13.44 2.48 33 4/7/2008 692 0.772 1254 2.06 -0A 7/16/2008 561 0.465 14.80 1.10 737 10/7/2008 6.89 0.497 18.01 0.21 149 3/17Y2009 Inaccessible due to construction 11/8/2009 6.25 0.406 16.49 1.24 19 r 2/5/2010 6.14 0.562 12,67 0.84 77 5/13/2010 6.57 0.460 13.98 0.44 171 12/20/2010 6.15 0,732 14.85 3.42 171 611/2011 6.60 0631 14.50 2.99 96 I I/21IN 6.44 0.684 16.99 4 75 45 5/10/2012 5.29 0.596 13.83 3.51 185 Page I of0 Sovereign Csould"ng Inc. TABLE 13 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWA I'ER QUALITY FIELD DATA NATURAL AI"1'ENUATION PARM1ETERS Fortner Shell-Branded Service Station#137838 111 North Street Salem,Massachusens Cord Temp DO ORP wall ID Snm IeDate PH (mS/em) cC) DoWL) (nv) MW-4 7/6/2006 6.7 1.195 14.0 3.1 -29.3 11/20/2006 6.56 2.263 14.8 0.09 91.4 1/15/2007 6.60 2.230 13.4 2.52 96 4/19/2007 648 2.720 11.4 5.12 125 7/19/2007 6.11 1.663 16.07 1.23 -14.3 10/9/2007 6.95 1.750 15.85 1.86 -221 1/10/2008 6.81 1.610 12.86 2.63 48 4/7/2008 6.81 0.942 935 1.86 -64.0 7/16/2008 5.80 1.016 14.51 0.47 18.0 10/72008 6.79 0.986 16.64 1.42 152 3/17/2009 Inaccessible due to construction 11/8/2009 Well Destroyed MW-101 7/6/2006 6.4 0.587 13.1 6.4 122.9 11/20/2006 604 1.206 13.1 1.62 188.0 1/15/2007 NA NA NA NA NA 4/19/2007 6.14 0.535 8.9 6.92 I]4 7119/2007 5.63 0.612 14.22 2.43 46.6 10/9/2007 6.06 0.125 1692 2.89 113 1/10/2008 6.61 1.011 11.24 4/72008 7.05 1.126 10.45 7.48 20.3 7/16/2008 5.97 0.812 14.12 3.80 _ 2000 10/7/2008 6.29 0.922 13 75 4.53 189 3/17/2009 Inaccessible due to construction 11/8/2009 Wall Deetro ed NIW-104 7/62006 6,6 2490 15.3 5.3 62.9 1/152007 NA NA NA NA NA 4/192007 6.10 0.590 1123 11.67 149 7/19/2007 6.18 0.509 16.27 2.49 28.3 10/9/2007 6.98 0.910 19.61 2.10 -191 1/10/2008 7.05 0.931 9.34 5.49 131 4/7/2008 6.68 0.913 1069 0.93 -88.1 7/1612008 6.36 0.718 16.01 1,28 71.0 10/7/2008 6.28 0.501 19.12 3.33 100 3/1]/2009 Well Destroyed 11/82009 Well Destroyed MW-104R 3/17/2009 6.46 0.443 11.29 5.32 67.7 11/82009 6.40 0.420 16.01 3.79 -10 2/5/2010 6.11 0.590 12.68 3.44 97 5/13/2010 6.40 0.665 14.02 3.95 219 12/20/2010 6.47 0.832 13.55 3.95 186 6/1/2011 6.47 0.963 15.14 4.14 109 11/21/2011 6.42 0.789 17.19 5.2088 5/10/2012 5.61 0.775 14.10 677 237 Pa,2 0/0 Sovereign Consulting Inc. TABLE 13 SUMAIARY ON GROUNDWATER QUALITY FIELD DATA NATURAL ATTENUATION PARAMETERS Former Shull-Branded Service Sm.ire#137838 111 North Street Salem,Mnscaoh.oar, Cand Temp DO ORP Well ID Sample Date pH (...Shun) ("C) (ng/L) (nv) MW-105 7/6/2006 6.0 0.660 13.1 4.5 145.5 11/20/2006 5.68 0.443 14.4 1.01 212.8 1/15/2007 NA NA NA NA NA 4/19/2007 5.63 0.405 8.4 2.40 199 7/19/2007 5.67 0.259 1425 2.38 66.4 10/9/2007 5.71 0.339 16.27 1.79 205 1/10/2008 5.89 0.349 11.52 4.36 131 4/7/2008 6.68 1661 10.13 6.76 27.2 7/16/2008 5.40 0,419 14.15 1.13 188.2 10/7/2008 6.08 0,401 15.79 024 217 3/17/2009 6.13 0.501 7.89 0.571 91.2 11/8/2009 Well Destroyed NIW-201 11/20/2006 6.48 0.883 15.4 0.24 -75.2 1/15/2007 NA NA NA NA NA 4/19/2007 6.39 0.999 10.76 00 -69 7/19/2007 6.38 0.913 14.99 1.06 -93.8 10/9/2007 6.84 0.753 19.88 2.02 -88 1/10/2008 7.00 1.142 12.15 1.93 -121 4/7/2008 7.01 0.707 106 0.88 -129.8 7/16/2008 7.04 1.004 15.72 0.19 -169.0 10/7/2008 6.96 1.336 17.85 0.17 -108 3/17/2009 Well Destroyed MW-202 11/20/2006 6.24 1.947 14.1 0.78 70.6 1/15/2007 NA NA NA NA NA 4/19/2007 6.35 2.540 9.6 7.47 66 7/19/2007 6.20 1,288 13.63 1.70 -0.4 10/9/2007 6.67 1.085 16.24 1.78 -163 1/10/2008 6.32 1,680 1208 2.58 83 4/7/2008 6.41 2.143 8.66 0.86 -45.5 7/16/2008 6.14 2.180 1331 1.00 93.0 10/7/2008 6.37 2.090 15.13 2.10 140 3/17/2009 Inaccessible due to construction 11/8/2009 Well Destroyed P,,,3 af0 SoverelRn Caruulrtng lnc. TABLE 13 SUMMARY OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY FIELD DATA NATURAL ATTENUATION PARAMETERS Former ShellBrandedService Station#137839 111 Noah Street Salem.Massaebreu6 Cold Tenip DO ORP Well ID San leDate PH BroornJ CC) F.WL) Oni MW<203 11/20/2006 6.05 1.703 14.2 007 -1.8 1/15/2007 NA NA NA NA NA 4/19/2007 6.06 2,350 10.1 0.0 80 7/192007 5.98 2.040 1432 2.37 29.9 10/92007 6.27 2.010 15.22 204 132 1/102008 6.36 2.030 1L72 2.18 99 4/72008 6.92 1.784 1252 L67 -13.1 7/16/2008 6.22 1980 13.80 0.48 143.0 10///2008 6.58 1,036 15,92 0.87 138 3/17/2009 Inaccessible due to construction 11/8/2009 Well Destroyed M W-204 1120/2006 6.48 1.645 15.5 0.27 -59.4 1/15/2007 NA NA NA NA NA 4/19/2007 6.79 1.020 10.50 13.55 115 7/19/2007 6.28 0,751 16.48 3.54 -34.6 10/9/2007 659 0.802 17.27 Led 28 1/10/2008 6.75 0.707 11.92 3.23 -3 4/7/2008 7.28 0.620. 11.52 4.29 -85.2 7/16/2008 5.83 0.458 1601 0.76 -18.9 10//2008 7.08 0.495 17.82 2.06 -18 3/17/2009 Waft Destroyed MW-204R 3/17/2009 6.84 0,426 8.76 468 -171 11/8/2009 674 0.586 15.15 1.06 -91 2/5/2010 8.05 0347 IIJO 1,14 120 5/132010 7.14 0,430 1321 062 14 12/20/2010 6.83 0,790 12.74 133 108 6/1/2011 6.96 0,678 15.06 0.54 -15 11/21/2011 6.92 0.670 15.92 369 -58 5/10/2012 6.46 0.688 13.44 1.00 21 MW-204D 3/17/2009 7.94 0.157 12.49 1.03 80.6 11/82009 8.11 0.268 13.59 0.92 -53 2/52010 6.59 0.638 9.25 1.03 20 5/13/2010 8.12 0.243 14.12 1.51 53 12/202010 7.18 0.432 11.94 1.37 124 6/1/2011 7.47 0.386 15.50 0.40 67 11/21/2011 7.96 0.353 13.78 0.20 -150 5/102012 7.38 0.370 13.79 L92 14 MW1301 3/17/2009 6.05 0.688 9.10 3.25 147,7 11/8/2009 - 6.08 0.561 16.14 2.35 30 2/5/2010 5.91 0.714 9.19 2.79 113 5/132010 6.60 0.581 15.47 253 109 12/20/2010 637 1.206 11.69 2.76 203 6/1/2011 6.41 1.234 14.49 2.35 101 11/21/2011 6,25 1.025 14.83 1.86 140 5/102012 6.07 0.959 13.64 2.46 91 bIW-302 11/21/2011 6.94 856 16.22 3.11 69 5/10/2012 5.63 0.853 12.92 7.37 1 105 Notes: ntg/1-milligrams per liter DO-Dissolved Oxygen in rilligrains/liter(mglL) Cord-Specific Conductivity in lnillisientens/em(inS/em) Temp-Temperature in degrees Celsius CC) ORP-OxidationReductionPotential in millivolts(r1V) NA-Not Available Pnge 40/0 Savereiyn can akin'Inc. TABLE IJ DATA SIIM\IARY TABLE FOR DATA IISABILITY ASSESSMENT Fomrtr Sbed branded Sei,icc Soon, I I I North Strew Sale,MA kh Ai I S / le -Bamle RD, $erin Papes�M Cnlle[t nDal ..(fG F ` 4 L D nQxal'fm ;ifan r - nme o e y y - P n ¢ lion a' N RTio-0I moord, Alli 'rerico'em,"holding lmc anal lwn'leum am L\PFO 1.1. \viam.a ea'a ar finals.No bows Dma wlll be,mod La, IP H,EID,VOC;Metals elasue wu1 FCB, "/Ston X X X X Y Wla!B-0I nqr, Scmp,a,LAS L000m aM 0.1 Goma are r.eN Mah raw utmgate ramr-Dam will be u.vl foe[.sure, \Pll and LPH IOISI±W6 X X .T X Y NVIInagli S'wple I?-?O61 Najemm -L are biattJ Mgn for VVIL VCG vtl pR1a018A9 clmtell due eosmo8acrtw:ries.Dau will lensetl fw IM6aatl ue. WIL VOCs antl lyll 10/^]/^ek6 H X X X Y L\Pl4n1a-0Ielao.gb Alleu..do.mpine¢mrea,nal ding lime ondl or mrd[or M'1g3c-0J xalnm awapmnla limi¢Nn Fru..lAm will h mrd for almwa VPI I,VCCe and FPH Et"mQOL tt L' X X .Y" A1.0-11I.I tnma8n All memPlo rturenr5,lgldio0lime and nrml=mewcurt libile .1 -dr.aattpmEmlimier.Nn biaz.Dma will hem.,for al—, WH I/�II a. X X Y - MCIdBS.I Buougli EPH.wmFIoS SB.402 10.12 S',SB-003 125-15,ort I5- MC1488-I6 y IJ S',Dep.SB411 10.1^_.5'.53411 IS-1].>'.SBJ 10- 125',S.-wo 1].5-IS'and IT F04I1-1],s nae I..Broad sults dna oloxomomm .e Da:tn ...mord p� alarm lr¢ulero[5o11 I—,I-"'hued in aloe,peoxlmery $' to time xiln I—alum,11-11,,urtdie(lana.tell eortsider 1 I'PII (J:^_I'_0 X tbl,and will he used or clo . ',r� X A X 1' w A1C IC14lllaoa8n Arra ar"ler¢or'amne Mlding time a ndlempeealeue are MC IiBA?5 f w11Nn aza'epWbla littuts.No M1ilc Dow mll be nsud for N_^ObX H X V alosne N_'"ii % dfa MC/'135-3Wn� 4thrnl BlakSxas xAuvtldue ro loxeuo MC?1 -13 ac wu censme e Lord.— dna12e11be roll enslNial e¢nlls attl van nd ana]C)nJl@ x X x x v mw . nlcu9i3.1 m'Mcu9i3 AYd NI orraecraamafiee,or ung time and mmoerzbue are i wdltin acceptable limits.No bias.On.will to used far VY11 9/1_1ol'+ X d X X X Y NC719-1 eNou[IiNC]29. g $$$ NISD to.,I.rm,p�.aylenesanda C''manmene,am d-ne,tbipft-biaaddue 9 A $ Ionlgb walmn [recoveries.Geowtlwe¢e mrcemrmlorm \PH amt Oardiew §F, to xillln ltisloric nngs.6eN will to moral farclosurt. Oxvnactw NI/2011 X X X % Y MC5]]<-I Tom .MCS]].-lo MS/MSD arth-biw-0 dna to ado sorroo ererovenes. t Goandwetumnrnn ra ov acme n within Tatar c VPII 11/±I"o 11 X b` X X X Y ranges.Data will he seI for rlomme MCB386.111wogh F Nl.wo�eam Mldnng llmt andlempara tueart MCB3863 .b meeplabl It-._N Wa;Dala.11I.—d Or I, WH V±MI2 .�' X X X 1 Nclit,0.I arroab y} All surt.g'a,mannor".Mlding lime aeN@mlmalwa arc MC Io5ad-10 fr. rviMn accepmble IIMIs.No bias.D.will Fe uud fw chearm WH 5/IN'AI_ .T X 'N Y Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem, Massachusetts ATTACHMENT A Sovereign Consulting Inc. t :. 4 Open Square Way,Ste 307 Boring/Well ID: SB-507 Sheet 1 of l q Holyoke,MA 01040 IienE MOTIVA Drilling Co.: DrilEx ---aCasmb � :S4r P.., eject: Former Shell Service Station Drill Rig: NA Type: NA Number: 2R814 Drill Method: Vac/Direct-Push Sae: NA anon-. I l l North Street Foreman: 'Damaa hbwuw.-.:.d-.maW" bsrCmw..esuw':.�e Salem,MA SCI Inspector: Catherine Swanson Sample Information Start Date: 9/7/2012 FCasing Elevation: Completion Date: 9/7/2012 Surface Elevation: Wellhead Type: - v d Test Boring/Monitoring Well o E o d - n a � Sample Description Z Construction 0 m Dry,brown fne to medium SAND,true,fine gravel,shell and brick fragments 0-2 0.0 G$ 2 Dry,brown fine SAND,trace course sand 2-4 0.0 GS 4 Large COBBLES 4-6 00 GS 6 Dry,light brawn fare to medium SAND fi-B 0.0 G$ B Dry,light brown medium SAND,trace fine sand,loosely packed silt 8-9.5 0.0 GS Saturated,light brown and by fine SAND,some silt. 9.5-10 10 End of Boring©10 feet otes: 1) Submitted for laboratory analysis for VPH Key Cement 2) Sounded for flaratoryunabon for EPII Groat 3) ,E Bentoaile 4) '.:;', Sand 5) = Screen 6) Rise larks'. 1)Stratification lines represent approximate boundaries between soil types and the transition may be gradual.Water level readings have been completed at times and ruder condnons stated. Illustrations of groundwater may occur due to factors other than those present at the thne nteasumments were made. 2)Field testing values represent total volatile organic vapors(referenced to an isebutylene standard)measured in the headspace of a scaled sail sample with a phomionizalion detector(Minirae)and a 10.6 Ev lamp. 3)Sample is designated as either"C"for composite or"GS"for a discrete grab sample. Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts ATTACHMENT B e-Hardeopy 10 Aziloinoled Renard F1�Vtd� i �z d•I .� Techni ac 1'Repo tfor '-;r . n w Shell Oil SCMAA:97682565 (REIMBMA), 111 North Street, Salem, MA EQ 814 Accutest Job Number: MC13943 x- 'r Sampling Date: 09/07/12 *}RUrFi�lp:4�af L:p,r Report to: Sovereign Consulting Inc. 4 Open Square Way Holyoke, MA 01040 thagie@sovcon.com ATTN: Tammie Hagie Total number of pages in report: 21. rN A Rei la-cin ZezaTest results contained within this data package meet the requirements '7and of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Conference Lab Director and/or state specific certification programs as applicable. Client Service contact: Frank DAgostino 508-481-6200 Certifications: MA(M-MA136,SW846 NELAC)CT(PH-0109)NH(250210)RI (00071)ME(MA00136) FL(E87579) NY(11791)N](MA926) PA(6801121)NO(R-188)CO MN(11546AA)NC(653)IL(002337)WI(399080220) ISO 17025:2005 (1,2235) This report shall not be reproduced,except in its entirely,without the written approval of Accutesl Laboratories. Test results relate only to samples analyzed. New England 495 Tech Center West • Building 1 • Marlborough,MA 01752 • tel: 508-481-6200 • fax: 508-481-7753 • htip://www.accu(est.com 1 of 21 .4 �� t t 1_kbon¢ux s tl3c sol t t-cr'R fcr t � �i i d.�:e<t. int_+,biS �ACCL3TwJT 3( t n n._lieu J /ud 1 nilil t.a ;tht3 :t L35J"ICt14A MW`o5.!o:d. MC1394s Table of Contents Sections: 1 Section1 Sample Summary .. .............................................. ................ 3 Section 2 Case Narrative/Conformance Summary ...... .................. ................. 4 section :i. Surnu,ar OfJ-1its ........ <.............................,...,.........---........ . ....- ,................... 5 Section4: Sample Results ..........................<,..................,.......,,,,.........................,.................... 6 4.1: MC13943-1: SB-507 (9.5-10') ...................................................................................... 7 4.2: MC13943-2: DUPLICATE .......................................................................................... 8 Section `_y: Misc. F'orms ............................................................................................................ 9 5,1: Chain of Custody ........................................................................................................... 10 5.2: MCP Form ..................................................................................................................... 13 5.3: VPH Form ...................................................................................................................... 14 5.4: Sample Tracking Chronicle ........................................................................................... 16 Section 6; GC volat9lcs - QC Data. Summaries ......--........................................................... 17 6,1 : Method Blank Summary ................................................................................................ 18 6.2: Blank Spike/Blank Spike Duplicate Summary .............................................................. 19 6.3: Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Summary ........................................................... 20 6.4: Surrogate Recovery Summaries ..................................................................................... 21 2of21 Accutest Laboratories Sample Summary Shell Oil Job No: MC13943 SCMAA:97682565 (REIMBMA), 111 North Street, Salem, MA Project No: EQ 814 SampleCollected , .,._,,,,: Matrix Client Number Date Time By Received Code Type Sample ID _MCI 3943,,L-j 09/07/12 12:47 CS 09/12/12 SO Soil [SB'507 (95 LO') ' MC13943-1D 09/07/12 12:47 CS 09/12/12 SO Soil Dup/MSD SSB-507 (9.0,10''') NCI 3943-'"1S;09/07/12 12:47 CS 09/12/12 SO Soil Matrix Spike SB-507 (9.'5'10') IMC13943-2;09/07/12 00:00 CS 09/12/12 SO Soil !DUPLICATE ...'"r :,- Soil samples reported on a dry weight basis unless otherwise indicated on result page. 3of21 AGCIJTE:3T, MCUN3 "---1 "` aa^ see L a �> ':' � a " (�' r i '-' S 1 0 SAMPLE DELIVERY GROUP CASE NARRATIVE Client: Slie])Oil Job No MC 13943 site: SCMAA:97682565(REIMBMA), 111 North Street,Salem, MA Report Date 9/26/2012 12:41:49 PM 2 Sample(s),0 Trip Blank(s)and 0 Field Blank(s)were collected on 09/07/2012 and were received atAccutest on 09/12/2012 properly preserved,at 1.2 Deg. C and intact These Samples received an AccuteStjob number of MC13943.A listing of the Laboratory Sample ID,Client Sample ID and dates of collection are presented in the Results Summary Section of this report. Except as noted below,all method specified calibrations and quality control performance criteria were met for this job. For more information,please refer to QC summary pages. Volatiles by GC By Method MADEP VPH REV 1.1 Matrix: SO Batch ID: GAB3930 • All samples were analyzed within the recommended method holding Ione. • All method blanks for this batch meet method specific criteria. • Sample(s) MC 13943-1 MS, MC 13943-1 MS D were used as the QC samples indicated. Wet Chemistry By Method SM21 2540 B MOD. Matrix: SO Batch ID: GN40138 + Sample(s) MC13943-1DUP were used as the QC samples for Solids, Percent The Aeeutest Laboratories of New England certifies that all analysis were performed within method specification. Itis further recommended that this report to be used in its entirety.The Accutest Laboratories of NE, Laboratory Director or assignee as verified by the signature on the cover page has authorized the release of this report(MC 13943). Wednesday,September 26,2012 Page 1 of 1 8133 4 of 21 A0CtJTEEE3T. MCIM43 111.-1 11"R Summary of Hits Page I of I Job Number: MC13943 Account: Shell Oil Project: SCMAA:97682565 (REIMBMA), 111 North Street, Salem, MA ; Collected: 09/07/12 Lab Sample ID Client Sample ID Result/ Analyte Qual RL MDL Units Method MC13943-1 SB-507(9.5-10') No hits reported in this sample. MC13943-2 DUPLICATE No hits reported in this sample. 5 of 21 MG99947 '�•��• ". �, Section 4 - p P � avn rsNi �i. yaHn���ryv. , Ne C #3# kEi V 7F E E3 A n A R rc G o 14 i Sample'Results Report of Analysis via 6 of 21 Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1 Client Sample ID: SB-507 (9.5-10') Lab Sample ID: MC13943-I Date Sampled: 09/07/12 Matrix: SO - Soil Date Received: 09/12/12 Method: MADEP VPH REV 1.1 Percent Solids: 79.1 Project: SCMAA:97682565 (REIMBMA), 111 North Street, Salem, MA File ID DE Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run#1 AB73142.1) 1 09/17/12 AF n/a n/a GAB3930 Run#2 Initial Weight Final Volume Methanol Aliquot Run#1 9.42 g 11.0 ml 100 ul Run#2 MA-VPH List CAS No. Compound Result RL Units Q 71-43-2 Benzene +ND > 0.44 mg/kg 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene �ND �T 10.44 mg/kg 1634-04-4 Methyl Tert Butyl Ether 'ND r 0.087 mg/kg 91-20-3 Naphthalene dNW:.:; 0.44 mg/kg 108-88-3 Toluene $ND�°' j 0.44 mg/kg m,p-Xylene ND 0.44 mg/kg 95-47-6 o-Xylene 'ND ' i0.44 mg/kg C5-C8 Aliphatics(Unad1 ) ND 4'P 8.7 mg/kg C9-C12 Aliphatics(Unad1 ) ND w 8.7 mg/kg C9-C10 Aromatics (Unadl.) 'ND4 ' 8.7 mg/kg C5-C8 Aliphatics ND 4: "t' 8.7 mg/kg C9-C12 Aliphatics IND .�`=�J 8.7 mg/kg CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run#1 Run#2 Limits 615-59-8 2,5-DlbrOmOt0laene 197% 70-130% 615-59-8 2,5-Dibromotoluene t85%"A 70-130% ND= Not detected J= Indicates an estimated value RL= Reporting Limit B= Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E= Indicates value exceeds calibration range N= Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 132 7 of 21 ®AGC.IJT�BT. A9C930-03 •^""^"'nica Accutest Laboratories Report of Analysis Page 1 of 1 Client Sample ID: DUPLICATE Lab Sample ID: MC13943-2 Date Sampled: 09/07/12 pay Matrix: SO- Soil Date Received: 09/12/12 Method: MADEP VPH REV 1.1 Percent Solids: 78.5 Project: SCMAA:97682565 (REIMBMA), 111 North Street, Salem, MA File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch Run#1 AB73145.D 1 09/17/12 AF n/a n/a GAB3930 Run #2 Initial Weight Final Volume Methanol Aliquot Run #1 9.71 g 11.0 ml 100 ul Run #2 MA-VPH List CAS No. Compound Result RL Units Q 71-43-2 Benzene 4ND »� �.; 0.43 mg/kg 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene SND7,:,` 0.43 mg/kg 1634-04-4 Methyl Tert Butyl Ether SND '4Q4 0.086 mg/kg 91-20-3 Naphthalene [ND 0.43 mg/kg 108-88-3 Toluene dND +m 0.43 mg/kg m,p-Xylene `:ND ` `;r 0.43 mg/kg 95-47-6 o-Xylene €ND 0.43 mg/kg C5-C8 Aliphatics (Unadj.) FNND J 8.6 mg/kg C9- C12 Aliphatics (Unadj.) ND 'y 8.6 mg/kg C9- C10 Aromatics(Unadj.) IND, 8.6 mg/kg C5- C8 Aliphatics ND 8.6 mg/kg C9- C12 Aliphatics ,ND 8.6 mg/kg CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Run# 1 Run#2 Limits 615-59-8 2,5-Dibromotoluene 98% '' 70-130% 615-59-8 2,5-Dibromotoluene 86"/o,m; J 70-130% ND= Not detected J = Indicates an estimated value RL= Reporting Limit B= Indicates analyte found in associated method blank E= Indicates value exceeds calibration range N= Indicates presumptive evidence of a compound 11110 8of21 0 AGCllTEE3—F« atcrasas .•��,,,".",,.' Section 5 Nr � v � I -Misc. Forms ria Custody Documents and Other Forms Includes the following where applicable: • Parameter Certifications (MA) • Chain of Custody • MCP Form • VPH Form • Sample Tracking Chronicle ® 9of21 ,�ccu-r�,3-r. LAS rypcaTIONI Q Shell Oil Products Chain Of Custody Record CNvehA ro eleI Bei: IN., ill TO COnt6t Numv: INCIpENTM(ENVSERVICES) [mwsouiral ❑rum octu wNM aamlxs LA cl-l'1 ❑ 2 cm.aa..M ❑wNEa T vo s sarr xu ,a ❑cm'N. . — vete m I w.ae,amaaoee... ';: ❑.xx..w�.s ❑m.n Sownlpn Con[ulNry n tll NpgTN STRET SNEM w [Own Spun w[v.SUM.1..N[N[w.AM o10[a T.Wn ZZZI. , wN1t.M. IA mm�rw.wnc. w.n r..r�remue - 9a[Mpn CamultlnB M[ ' rr 'S®`� N[ ef[ 9M atsa[o.«es,[m[ `mania@sv®n.rsm (�afh�vinC �1ttn51tYr —AA-1 Onu w'j Ostis ❑— ❑Ipvs Ovw UNIT COST xpN.uxiTcosT Q}b o u.crq[exsamrmurrs ❑—N,, .: FIELD NOTES: ...1 ^a'�% ❑uvn. 0-1 0.1 ouYS0—",— w.EwrvNEox nFcO r vscuwsmucnoxa owxOres: im^ . mm.I svcw.a ena slr0wa sww. ge o o= cm. MevAm.rne.uxaxnnw ❑w®r w.xwnm = 01-100— SSW [m SSW S—Iliv la.nuneationm N:=w" -1>SB'Gc'7 q$'IG') o+1e 17-'+7 S." >aa Y K['7 X % 'N15(MSD -� Dt'.14LafP. '� CCGC `NAIL K $ ICCol lo�- ScJcevl sec*-+'e � e' q-�'iz 153C E MC'13943; Chairs of Custody Pagel of 3 min f0ofZi ®ACCtJT�:3T. MCP Analytical Services Request Form Attach to Chainof.costotl Form forDafe Sol IIenl Name. SavereianonbelHrcm Mneva Piojeq Name: zRetasalem Prejecl Localic¢111NOMSIreet MCP.-,; Iths". alienate Samples:Vl samples asmda.WI Ws chain General Onnedona: N MCP Presump4ve CeNalnry Irons al re traded toy the releml'u0 da.ael'y 'lebwarory muY USa epgoiM MCPprgYytnl Polocol5 Yese tl No Was,all samples mat emprise this data set sol HM In apMop ie,mnlalners as steepled M WSGGaµV110.A perm,V,A-1 la reg—.anaMes? Yes ONo Were all samples proserwtl as srse,fiM In WSC-CAM-VII A,Appenob Vll A I V req,pead anaMn? XYes :]No W.all samges plead In a soler Wl0l say? A Yes [I No Any any of the scl/sdlment samples In the data set petered Gy Irmvrg or do any mare Irpro rep(,-M)by the Mpdalory(xilhin a lease olthe We of mlledun)? DTas XNo Shord Ne laNrawly repel Ne sNdard CPM analyte list for me requestd analyVW pratomis? A Year DN.i SlwuM protwl-spetiflc CAM reading Ross bea usd lw oil requested aqueous samples' Imees reporting pmhs are required.Phase apsaHp Yes 0 N SMuh droner pl ssafc CAN emoNq limits be used for all prepare mi areaiment samples? X lower Warner—as em"ar"Mad.deal peclry. Yes oNo Any Mama Splkes(MS)Or MS Dugratesi¢aulretl for this data set? x Yon DND Has Mequale5amphwlumepeenpWttkd forms M5RA5o' X Yea 0N. Have NesampleswltiU require MSMMS Dupllsale enalysishxn Manuel xyer, DNo enyof Neaampks NVredata Sal MarocteNdes'tlrinkllpwakf as de5cn4NM W5CLAMNIIA Sanborn 35' GYes %No II YES.samples idayrd as'ddnking watK muY pa eretyied using MCP Anawral Methods and asmArs Ne froyarpe Ol Tentative' Idenpfed Compounds(TICe),N GC/MS analyses tstresual. Are Ford DupOtate Samples lawidd am attempted Ip.11'dMgrg sate(samples'? Analysis requlreJ on)),Itstrl arroVeStlefMed abom:Me RL In the oNglnal sample. GYn %No Any Trip Blanks lovidd and identified br all-ddnkirlp gamer samores subm area by VOCs and VPH'' •Analysis regWred onty ff. W...yes As derecred above the RL In any of the as5oalatd samples. uYes XNo MA (r`A, Is any altemallve,supplamenlal prrgnmutlne oC rLpuhd IrclM1ia Bala rel?(R'ease spec ly, D Yess %No 1.MCP nNuav T aAm Moder,ei apppces.. 41 Lebatmyrrualuso v�rpvM MCPNsgµVb MelhNi. a Anyormadessendybtapalexud oso—or eel. ee Semltlos Wt mane M$aM/wMSDUWryhiM1wq pe GeApneld wNe CDC.Dao user mpinslaefar proysea the laporalory xim sdequaY sample yowme so /e"t pressor....aampM. .Atlmiee an.,1tbn M Nmrepy.au,",avu2.OC that bmquped. t.+ gg5 �• n A - Si nature _ Data u ort � o � Y 3 aim .4CCLJTECT Accutest Laboratories Sample Receipt Summary Accutest Job Number:AMC13943 Client: SOVEREIGN Immediate Client Services Action Required: No Date/Time Received: 9/12/2012 Delivery Method: . Client Service Action Required at Login: No Project: 111 NORTH ST. No.Coolers: 1 Aire ill If's: Cooler Security Y or N Y or N Sample Integrity-Documentation Y or N 1.Custody Seals Present: © ❑ 3.COC Present © ❑ 1.Sample labels pressman bottles' 2 ❑ 2.Custody Seals Intact 0 ❑ 4.Smpl DaleslTime OK © ❑ 2.Container labeling complete: 2 ❑ Cooler Temperature Y or N 3.Sample container label/COC agree: ✓❑ ❑ V 1.Temp coterie achieved: O ❑ Sample lnteority-Contlition Y or N 2.Cooler temp verification: mitered gun 2 Cl1.Sam pie recvd wiNin HT: 3.Cooler media to.(bag) 2,All containers accounted for: © ❑ Quality Control Preservatio Y or N N/A 3.Condition of sample: Intact 1.Trip Blank present/cooler: ❑ ❑ 2 Sample lnleerity-Instructions Y or N N/A 2.Trip Blank listed on COC: ❑ ❑ 0 1.Analysis requested is clear ® ❑ 3.Samples preserved property: 2 ❑ 2.Battles received for unspecified tests ❑ 12 4.VOCs beadspace free ❑ ❑ Q 3.Sufficient volume recvd for analysis: RI ❑ 4.Compositing instmctions clear ❑ ❑ 2 5.Filtering instructions clear ❑ ❑ 2 Comments xewea teoo.emree 495 reoni tenet weer Bldg One rsenno.eo9n,Irv. V508481,8200 a 508451 7753 vrwwreeewe..t sant MC 13943: Chain of Custody Page 3 of 3 n 12 of 21 tcCCUTEj.=T, r1C13943 •""""•w•u.a lF _ Massachusetts Department WSC-CAM Exhibit VII A of Environmental Protection July 1,2010 Revision No. 1 Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup Final Page 13 of 38 Exhibit VITA-2: MassDEP Analytical Protocol Certification Form 2+h+_.. oft—,ar' + �"`._ +` Ay' '{'+ilii p6.+s. - MasSDEP Analytical Protocol`Certlficatiori-.Form ' ,,,,4+ I'(i'r d+ ,:_ t„h9.t#I:1r#a"�&�.. ac`su3.'1 's' r3u tad+;!!.➢!iil gitkf 9"^,.,-;4 ter. as+s1 Laboratory Name: Accutest Laboratories of New England Project#: MC13943 Project Location: SCMAA:97682565(REIMBMA),111 North Street,Salem, MADEP RTN None MA This form provides certifications for the following data set: list Laboratory Sample ID Numbers(s) MC 13943-1,MC 13943-1 D,MC13943-1 S,MC13943-2 Matrices. Groundwater/Surface Water(j Soil/Sediment(X) Drinking Water O Air O Other () CAM Protocol(check all that apply below): 8260 VOC O 747017471 Hg O MassDEP VPH (X)8081 Pesticides O 7196 Hex Cr O Mass DEP APH () CAM IIA CAM III B CAM IV A CAM V B CAM VI B CAM IX A 8270 SVOC () 7010 Metals () MassDEP EPH ()8151 Herbicides () 8330 Explosives () TO-15 VOC () CAM II B CAM If C CAM N B CAM V C CAM VIIIA CAM IX B 6010 Metals O 6020 Metals O 8082 PCB O 9014 Total O 6860 Perchlorate () CAM III A CAM III D CAM VA Cyanide/PAC CAM VIII B CAM VI A Affirmative Responses to Questions A Through F are required for"Presumptive Certainty status Were all samples received in a condition consistent with those described on the Chain-of Custody, LIJ Yes LI No A properly preserved(including temperature)in the field or laboratory,and prepared/analyzed within method holding times? Were the analytical method(s)and all associated QC requirements specified in the selected CAM Bprotocol(s)followed? ❑ Yes ❑ No Were all required corrective actions and analytical response actions specified in the selected CAM C rotocol s implemented for all identified performance standard non-conformances? ❑ Yes ❑No Does the laboratory report comply with all the reporting requirements specified in CAM VII A, D "Quality Assurance and Quality Control Guidelines for the Acquisition and U Yes ED No Reporting of Anal ical Data"? VPH,EPH,APH,and TO-15 only: E a.VPH,EPH,and APH Methods only: Was each method conducted without significant Yes ❑No modification(s)? (Refer to the individual methods)for a list of significant modifications). b.APH and TO-15 Methods only: Was the complete analyte list reported for each method? 0 Yes ❑No Were all applicable CAM protocol QC and performance standard non-conformances identified LJ Yes LJ No F land evaluated in a laboratory narrative(including all"No"responses to Questions A through E)? Responses to questions G,H,and l below is required for"Presumptive Certainty"status G Were the reporting limits at or below all CAM reporting limits specified in the Ld Yes No' selected CAM protocols Data User Note: Data that achieve"Presumptive Certainty"status may not necessarily meet the data useability and representativeness requirements described in 310 CMR 40.1056(2)(k)and WSC-07-350. H Were all QC performance standards specified in the CAM photocells)achieved? Yes No I Were results reported for the complete analyte lists ecified in the selected CAM protocol(s)? L Yes L No' All Negative responses must be addressed in an attached Environmental Laboratory case narrative. line undersigned,attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that,based upon my personal inquiry of those responsible for obtaining the information,the material contained in this analytical report is,to the best of my knowledge and belief,accurate and complete. le— Si nature: _;� Position: Laboratory Director Printed Name: - Reza Tand Dale: 09/26/2012 13 of 21 A.cc--u-rES-r M19e13943 •"" •'°","• MADEP VPH FORM Matrix h " '' Aqueous Soil s Sediment FT Other Containers r uI'='i wig SatisfactoryW Broken Leaking Aqueous Preservatives N/A W PH <=2 171 PH>2 em erature Received on Ice Received at 4 Deg.C Other sl Recd at 1 z deg C. Methanol ,;n' Methanol Coverin Soil. mL Methanol/ soil: 1:1 +/-25% Method for Ranges: MADEP VPH REV 1 1 Client ID: SB-507(9.5-10') Lab ID: MC13943-1 Method for Target Analytes: MADEP VPH REV 1.1 Date Collected: 9/7/2012 Date Received: 9/12/2012 VPH Surrogate Standards Date Extracted: First Date Run: Last Date Run: ryl PID: 25-0ibromotoluene N/A 9/17/2012 N/A ca FID: 2,5-Dibromotoluene %Solids: Low Dilution: High Dilution: 79.1 1 N/A Unadiusled Ranges CAS# Elution Range Units Result RDL Q C5-C8 Aliphalics(Unadj.) N/A mg/kg NDA 8.7 C9-C10 Aromatics(Unadj.) N/A mg/kg NDA 8.7 C9-C12 Aliphalics(Unadj.) N/A mg/kg NDA 8.7 Target Analytes Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 C9-C12 mg/kg ND 0.44 Toluene 108-88-3 C5-C8 mg/kg ND 0.44 Methyl Tart Butyl Ether 1634-04-4 C5-C8 mg/kg ND 0.087 Benzene 71-43-2 C5-C8 mg/kg ND 0.44 Naphthalene 91-20-3 N/A mg/kg ND 0.44 o-Xylene 9547-6 C9-C12 mg/kg ND 0.44 m,p-Xylene C9-C12 mg/kg ND 0.44 Adjusted Ranges C5-C8 Aliphatics N/A mg/kg ND' 8.7 C9-C12 Aliphatics N/A mg/kg NDc 87 Surrogate Recoveries Acceptance Range FID:2,5-Dibromotoluene % 97 70-130% PID:2,5-Dibromotoluene % 85 70-130% Footnotes A Hydrocarbon Range data ezdud.concentrations of any surrogato(s)andfor Internal standards eluting in that range e Hydrocarbon Range data exclude concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting in that range. 05-CII Aliphatic Hydrocarbons oxclude the concentration of Target Analytes eluting in that range. c Hydrocarbon Range data exclude concentrations of any surrogate(s)and/or internal standards eluting In that range.C9-C12 aliphatic Hydrocarbons exclude conic of Target Analytes eluting in that range AND concentration of C&Cig Aromatic Hydrocarbon,. Z A qualifier Indicates an estimated value Were all QA/QC procedures REQUIRED by the VPH Method followed? ❑]Yes ❑ No-Details Attatchetl Were all performance/acceptance standards for required QA/QC procedures achieved? ❑Yes ❑ No-Details Attatched Were any significant modifications made to the VPH method,as specified in Sect.11.37 OND ❑ Yes-Details Attatchetl I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that,based upon my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information,the material containedinthis report is,to the best of my knowledge and belief,accurate and complete Signature Postition Laboratory Director Printed Name Reza Tand Date 9/25/2012 am 14 of 21 a AGGLJTEZ37F MC13943 MADEP VPH FORM Matrix • al " A ueous Soil s Sediment F Other Containers / gd _°- •rli+: SatisfactorvW Broken 7 Leakin Aqueous Preservatives N/A r PH<=2 7 PH >2 El em erature r,u, _',,rN Received on Ice Received at 4 Deg. C F1 Other s Rec'd at 1.2 deg C. Methanol 1 i ='=1i=":S9! Methanol Coverin Soil. mL Methanol/ soil: 1:1 +/-25% Method for Ranges: MADEP VPH REV 1.1 Client to: DUPLICATE Lab ID: MC13943-2 Method for Target Analytes: MADEP VPH REV 1.1 Dale Collected: 9/7/2012 Date Received: 9/12/2012 VPH Surrogate Standards Date Extracted: First Date Run: Last Date Run: vn PID: 2,5-Dibromotoluene N/A 9/17/2012 N/A t,2 FID: 2,5-Dibromotoluene %Solids: Low Dilution: High Dilution: 78.5 1 N/A Unadjusted Ranges CAS# Elution Range Units Result RDL Q C5-C8 Aliphatics(Unadj.) N/A mg/kg NDA 8.6 C9-C10 Aromatics(Unadj.) N/A mg/kg NDA 8.6 C9-C12 Aliphatics(Unadj.) N/A mg/kg NDA 8.6 Target Analytes Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 C9-C12 mg/kg ND 0.43 Toluene 108-88-3 C5-C8 mg/kg ND 0.43 Methyl Ten Butyl Ether 1634-04-4 C5-C8 mg/kg ND 0.086 Benzene 71-43-2 C5-C8 mg/kg ND 0.43 Naphthalene 91-20-3 N/A mg/kg ND 0.43 o-Xylene 9547-6 C9-C12 mg/kg ND 0.43 m.p-Xylene C9-C12 mg/kg ND 0.43 Adjusted Ranges C5-C8 Aliphatics - N/A mg/kg NDe 8.6 C9-C12 Aliphatics N/A mg/kg ND` 8.6 Surrogate Recoveries Acceptance Range FID'.2,5-Dibromotoluene % 98 70-130% PID:2,5-Dibromotoluene % 86 70-130% Footnotes A Hydrocarbon Range data excludeconoentrations ofany surrogate(s)and/orinternal standards eluting lnthelrange B Hydrocarbon Range data exclude concentrations of any surrogete(s)and/or Internal standards eluting in that range. 05-08Aliphatic Hydrocarbons exclude the concentration of Target Analytes eluting In that range. c Hydrocarbon Range data exclude concentrations of any surrogates)end/or Internal standards eluting in that range. C9-C12 aliphatic Hydrocarbons exclude cont of Target Analytes eluting in that range AND concentration of C9L10 Aromatic Hydrocarbons. Z A qualifier indicates an estimated value Were all QA/QC procedures REQUIRED by the VPH Method followed? kYes ❑ No-Details Attatched Were all performance/acceptance standards for required QA/QC procedures achieved? ❑✓Yes ❑ No-Details Attatched Were any significant modifications made to the VPH method,as specified in Sect.11.3? 0No ❑ Yes-Details Attatched I attest under the pains and penalties of perjury that,based upon my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information,the material contained in this report is,to the best of my knowledge and belief,accurate and complete Signature "l� T Postition Laboratory Director Printed Name Reza Tend Date 9/25/2012 1212 15 of 21 0'o'0ou-rEST MC13943 ..-1—"'""" Accutest Laboratories Internal Sample Tracking Chronicle Shell Oil Job No: MC13943 SCMAA:97682565 (REIMBMA), 111 North Street, Salem, MA Project No: EQ 814 91 Sample Number Method Analyzed By Prepped By Test Codes x"� r - rf g- xn.-,ey t t,v "x � m d �MC139437'1 Collected!07 SEP 12 12 47IBy CS uReceived 12 S'EP 12,By � Sb--507'(45-16-)JM c' & � 7: . " .. .: _... _... _.. u MC13943-1 SM21 2540 B MOD. 13-SEP-12 HS %SOL MC13943-1 MADEP VPH REV L 117-SEP-12 11:37 AF VMAVPH MC13943-2 Collected 07 SEP 12 00.'60 By"CS 4'4 Received -02 12 SEP 12 By " t d+ e 'i ,m..., .. Nda.air _.nw::ry.. MC13943-2 SM21 2540 B MOD. 13-SEP-12 HS %SOL MC13943-2 MADEP VPH REV 1.1 17-SEP-12 13:42 AF VMAVPH Paget of 1 1c10 16 of 21 ,o.ccu-rF=s-r MC13943 ""'"-- Section 6- M!E ffi ti� qq YY y,,,En" y e � 4CDo- 7`Hg�yg�—'� ill. gyp. H '•F' `S(k����Y LJ Y .,':' u.�a _ 4 n B G Et 7 raOF ta't ra[k�;l+ ,btu GC Volatiles,,-,,, QC Data Summaries Includes the following where applicable: • Method Blank Summaries • Blank Spike Summaries • Matrix Spike and Duplicate Summaries • Surrogate Recovery Summaries ELI 17 of 21 0.o.ccu-rEws-r. nIc13943 Method Blank Summary Page 1 of 1 Job Number: MC13943 Account: SHELLWIC Shell Oil Project: SCMAA:97682565 (REIMBMA), 111 North Street, Salem, MA Sample File to DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch GAB3930-MB AB73139.D 1 - 09/17/12 AF n/a n/a GAB3930 as The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: MADEP VPH REV 1.1 MC13943-1, MC13943-2 CAS No. Compound Result RL Units Q 71-43-2 Benzene NO o ry ,250 ug/kg 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene ND "; ' 250 ug/kg 1634-04-4 Methyl Tert Butyl Ether ND 'F50 ug/kg 91-20-3 Naphthalene ND �` 250 ug/kg 108-88-3 Toluene �NI)Wq ' 250 ug/kg m,p-Xylene 'ND 250 ug/kg 95-47-6 o-Xylenc Np {"o 250 ug/kg C5- C8 Aliphatics (Unad1.) :ND-,a.- 5000 ug/kg C9- C12 Aliphatics (Unadl.) ND 5000 ug/kg C9- C10 Aromatics(Unad1.) �ND �, `I 5000 ug/kg C5- C8 Aliphatics SND 5000 ug/kg C9- C12 Aliphatics SND 5000 ug/kg CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries Limits 615-59-8 2,5-Dibromotoluene 1,78%' ;3-M—] 70-130% 615-59-8 2,5-Dibromotoluene 1706/. 70-130% 18 of 21 ,fl.ocu-r��-r MC939A3 "".,...okra Blank Spike/Blank Spike Duplicate Summary Page I of 1 Job Number: MC13943 Account: SHELLWIC Shell Oil Project: SCMAA:97682565 (REIMBMA), 111 North Street, Salem, MA Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch GAB3930-BSP AB73140.D 1 09/17/12 AF n/a n/a GAB3930 GAB3930-BSD AB73141.D 1 09/17/12 AF n/a n/a GAB3930 Co The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: MADEP VPH REV 1.1 MC13943-1, MC13943-2 Spike BSP BSP BSD BSD Limits CAS No. Compound ug/kg ug/kg % ug/kg % RPD Rec/RPD 71-43-2 Benzene 2500 2330X93 rt,." 2340 '94-1-`i10 ; 70-130/25 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene 2500 2460 r98- 247099 ��0 - ' 70-130/25 1634-04-4 Methyl Tert Butyl Ether 2500 2350 t94 2340 ,94. ` 0 i 70-130/25 91-20-3 Naphthalene 2500 2500 1100 ' ? 2590 8104 114-' 1 70-130/25 108-88-3 Toluene 2500 2350 94�Il;-z 2350 ;94 0 ,;= 70-130/25 m,p-Xylene 5000 5100 11022 5110 1020 ! °`j 70-130/25 95-47-6 o-Xylene 2500 2450 `98 n" =j 2460 ,98. a ON 70-130/25 C5- CS Aliphatics (Unadj.) 7500 7230 96 d 7270 97 9�1 70-130/25 C9- C12 Aliphatics (Unadj.) 7500 7740 8103" ' 7760 1030 70-130/25 C9- C10 Aromatics(Unadj.) 2500 2500 1100'„ 2500 1100 t 0 70-130/25 CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries BSP BSD Limits 615-59-8 2,5-Dibromotoluene }104"/oma"-11109% ' 70-130% 615-59-8 2,5-Dibromotoluene 194% t-41- . ,Ea....g1el 70-130% * = Outside of Control Limits. 19 of 21 ®ACCtJT�BT. Matrix Spike/Matrix Spike Duplicate Summary Page 1 of 1 Job Number: MC13943 Account: SHELLWIC Shell Oil Project: SCMAA:97682565 (REIMBMA), 111 North Street, Salem, MA Sample File ID DF Analyzed By Prep Date Prep Batch Analytical Batch MC13943-IMS AB73143.D 1 09/17/12 AF n/a n/a GAB3930 MC13943-1MSD AB73144.D 1 09/17/12 AF n/a n/a GAB3930 MC13943-1 AB73142.D 1 09/17/12 AF n/a n/a GAB3930 e» ¢as The QC reported here applies to the following samples: Method: MADEP VPH REV 1.1 ... MC13943-1, MC13943-2 MC13943-1 Spike MS MS MSD MSD Limits CAS No. Compound ug/kg Q ug/kg ug/kg % ug/kg % RPD Rec/RPD 71-43-2 Benzene ND 4350 4100 94*st.;. 4050 X93 �81s �....1 70-130/25 100-41-4 Ethylbenzene ND 4350 4300 E99 4270 ,98 3881- 70-130/25 1634-04-4 Methyl Tcrt Butyl Ether ND 4350 4040 n93, 4080 '94 I g 70-130/25 91-20-3 Naphthalene ND 4350 4630 106 4520 104 l2" 70-130/25 108-88-3 Toluene ND 4350 4070 �94'lFyp 4080 94 0 _ ' 70-130/25 m,p-Xylene ND 8700 8890 8102 8850 102 r0 ''_ 70-130/25 95-47-6 o-Xylene ND 4350 4280 '9814250 X98 °�1� ,`�a 70-130/25 CAS No. Surrogate Recoveries MS MSD MC13943-1 Limits 615-59-8 2,5-Dibromotoluene 1256/. '—"1[]15% 997% 70-130% 615-59-8 2,5-Dibromotoluene ,105%� �97°/',�� �� 85% ", w 70-130% * = Outside of Control Limits. 20 of 21 tJ A,CCu-rEST 41C 13943 Volatile Surrogate Recovery Summary Page 1 of 1 Job Number: MC13943 Account: SHELLWIC Shell Oil Project: SCMAA:97682565 (REIMBMA), I I I North Street, Salem, MA Method: MADEP VPH REV 1.1 Matrix: SO Samples and QC shown here apply to the above method Lab Lab Sample ID File ID Sl a S1 b es? t* v MC13943-1 AB73142.D 97 0 85.0 MC13943-2 A673145.D 98 0 86.0 +� GAB3930-BSD AB73141.13 11090 '1 98.0 GAB3930-BSP AB73140.D 104 0 -1 94.0 GAB3930-MB AB73139.D }78.0-: :il70.0 MC13943-1 MS AB73143.D .125.0 .}` 105.0 MC13943-1MSD AB73144.D 1115.0 ;;97.0 Surrogate Recovery Compounds Limits Sl = 2,5-Dibromotoluene j70 130°10''_):" (a) Recovery from GC signal #1 (b) Recovery from GC signal #2 21 of 21 ^00U-7-e5-r. W,13943 ,,,.-.. uti,,.. Class A-2 RAO and M1 RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts ATTACHMENT C Invoice,: 40416887 Workorder 15-00 3852300 Manifest 010252874JJK Pknw iwuitffe u rmn tksyunodwuw m 6w t} mitmy .. Famty�{wuvM.:OA10 No.2p50,W39':. - UNFOIa{U7ARDOU3 i.Wisarr DfMnm ... 2Papold apnwydry MWn^ae f'aano 6l9nl+nhKJdiq meK wAMMMIFEST MAO 011 858 394 1 (800)53r�5053 1010252874 JJK ' 5<6ATINY 4mmmlykK,y gem g�{Ll-{CAL PRCKYJ= US uroa aan sm+yapvratasmwwMa ses.axw.�) - - ATTN:RORERf 6iLLECK M£STIVA ENTER@RISES:ILC:.:. 910 LOUMANA".crT,OSP 857 111 NORTH STREET' FKk7STON 1')(77002 SALEM, MA 01970 Carm,4n prvro' -t31�9uAC6Yefty'. . I. :.. T ninKrria j rwgrly'x^^». ,.,. us.CHT Aum,ur EQ t'aC)RTbiEAST;tNC. 'MAO9M8T4 138 1�mr,{e:?,h!-2Ccr!V'^`Yxvnr tI+LPA{u Nurr Frdrry NameaYl lwe Afrc>a` _. U<s Q1'Alp n.m[< NORTHLAND FNVIRONME4f1 A4..INC. .. ... . 275 ALLENS AVENUE RID G40 098 352 PROVIDENCE,Rf 020M _..... . rw:x.>t (401)781-8340 .. ; M. SO.US.00TDaet105aY(exidgFmwrr}4.ag Nww.Herod Cku,lO lburtr.:'. 10.Cartawe" .°ll.Tmb Ilu14 N!A en5 Pulbq C+aO(4wf1) W type Ouwtlry wuaL 11.Yheta C00% ,: S ATE RECit1UlTED OILY SOUID6:MORE MUME,HO IE I -.am P ,MA01 ' Ool / UV 3. tl ° f: a 5(r. t1a'Crnl Fnnu:UXKad Ma4m:Alnkmmibn �:' _ f.3024747GA I IS)1 ids{Nt RtPR 063f7;61C1U01111078624l61 Far 24 hour prod) EmaywkMs,dry at Auk,oM Ci5EWMEC FO 1-800.424.0306. PWcw4s'0ttc604.M308 ar0a046d _0~k" , 15. CFNFR!TOR'.Sa}fTLRoiYs,GEIXUFtl:A716N.1Aw+ntry gectzn trgttlroxibaed ENT F*�+Ym+>v�'e FiyvrJ rn'+nrap'Mwil>a�f kava trj Ck[Rgv:(rrjrUig tememd d9',IXaM,W�4Y��Yd. maFW aM> SN)6cmtrrJ,xd am h aA b 6rg7ar axatim 4xtrwmwl A'.m6T{Ib+PUk+bU OivemuLwmend�w4vW gvwmbnW m}tliLLme�.M empl>plpmml aM I a5ytlta PoivY Gpam;.l uwb!y bnlWav�FanV.dtlY;[yln(i•tltmalt oa11Wi11btlU Wmsdtl>ti atrA'oa[pATtlroW+a}Irren.Cl Cav:aK. ,. I cwtiHent Y,awsar.+whidr�K:e wYsfn�cr4 k1xtlfmtl Fi lb CFR 212.)"iluMfnl mva rape Vu*'�0tlaiula:l^11Yl emeemaLrliAv;p'gaCa�alixlt Cuo ,.. Cwrwa+Yakp'ertrsf+YasrL'irysi NdiiC .. Sigr,S.w .. A4rtiv:' M`Y ' Yaat ❑Evw kmua Ponawfttok TlxrzTnw ellRiGra ib camsrNyk .. WmbvMUUS.. _ - ' Ixu 1].LrepoYNlvri�nq�la PntyVtllk4no4 _ -. _ :. '. F' 4i7A>tIFC �OM TvFx _ r rranspulre, r,}m'— qf� GOV" R_—� 10.14xravrw.y ...1 ((--�� T—�te. Mvaovr i/oon9pro 0 a-my ❑ ¢Tj El Pa P*'" Orwm*F . .. "RMidsvJ R:rtmrcc RinWw ,.- �1Ni.km'n5S>I'aWtl(atkvxx4xf' .; tAS.EF'A 14 NtiMa:+ V w FuAr/s Mw: ¢0 15c. F YIa SaAxalr,�! . . Manh -ppy X dW.Wzadus We6eiLy�ca LS:rtapemradtWhnl OeYr,(x,IXpka fiv;rstyW..s•Mauentnxad frrgrel.ab ie%1"JF9 Hs'stSU}.. is m.D.4*rdy orp.vooaalace55o+arnarecea anew.iarwle w.ve qw mawmtaanlae ewb4h Ram lee I � 3T+atfiy}bJFbrm _.. 5pw`vn wal3y 1 L EfA tvxn%OTN2z(r7sv.l�Di}Itedws M trars am etndo) TRANSPORTER'S COPY «.: Page 1 of 2 5497549 Invoice: 40416887 Workorder 15-00 3852300 Workorder document 3852300 'THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMPANY Work[leder:7052300 HC Nar8leau,kvc. R V. Anivai Tines 185 Dial Road 'Ftm - 40 (500138151 Date:OW13=12 WrwOmm,MA 02093 Far:(508)384-8028 plaparod thy:swop Amral BILLING WORMATK*l GENEXATOR WORMATICIN Nww:SOVEREIGN CONSULTING Conchal:; Norm: MOTNA ENTERPRISES.LLC, Contact: Acct.A KW28 rft:. - EPA C MAD011968394 (ID:14555) Title: tonra:(00 n8)3254500 piww: Plrww:(713)241-OM .. 'Www: (713).241.8798 Addy:111-A NORTH GOLD DRIVE Mobsw Addr. 111 NORTH STREET Mobbs: ROBBINSVILLE,NJ 09091 PO I Ru:RIPR 95317. SALEM,MA 01070 -- T90F WORMRTtOti _ TODF: NOR7HLAN0 ENVIRONMENTAL,INC. TWF CorYad: DAN ZIOBROICORI EPA* RID040098352 Addy: 275 ALLENS AVENUE 'Ma : (401)781.8340 PROVIDENCEAl 02965 Fox: (401)781.8710 On4ft Dkeetiam: —RIPR if M17.INC 107682585."' Mrifaad 00262874J.IR .� 720F: NORTHLAND ENVIRONMENTAL,INC. tPAM RID04000835Z .. T00F Contad: GAN ZIOBROUCORI Addr, 276 ALU NS AVEME Phaw: (401)7814340 PROVIOENCE.114.02905 FaA'x(401)701.0710, .u. FY OEBCa1p710N. ... .. ... 1OFCOOlT.TYPE WAAIt1TTY IAN1' 1.W SS CHUSETT5 STATE REatIATED OILY BOLDS.NONE,NOW.NOW j iMa P AWWWCade 3024767OA(614481 Wads Coaea:kwl f.! Hard krmlat:Far 24 hoar proud E wvN ,day w n dK cat CHEMrREC at 1.0004449309.Phram CRa(ad. MS08 Kr40ad---prNr lilw EGl1PFk7Ir AC14 OWLSOMEN7 Cudww adam4edg"that dee sgj1pr wR N"sNe for dw transportation,5t=9e or dlwr ON*@ to be Pt mw, Tudor! Tmkr!N ZZ TatAar P_ R99UR Dorf wf kw? _ Spolled i Pic W-Llp.! {Vac ir" 'C""a..xey.... pwkup no" '� TUnr eupts ftifim Stan Laave Ore _ �i9YH�(InCCLMe'DNNWAi1C-Ni'OpOD aROEA(Ccxi:LNTG taaLKn�.a�:- l}a65 TO CER7EY MaTTF7=NrJ4E NarriJ WTBiM13AnEFMe•EI3YCf.A55FEnCCaYTeIfC PI.4TAGFD. .'iVnzCT'Ii1 Yt�1I12K'i N4J Cp4l".rPk`r Cr TE� p"A� "(jVNNrt' �NfIAQ'D.vOtABEtL-0AVp AAENi`RaPFA CCtL(irklrgi TRatEP(rnTAi1ONACCCftOrK TOhE , rai&4"txRL MlUMYY 4iCMJnRR c�A,3.'N.:iY%, MUY+HYr: AAfV!lFltf:nF(iaA110f15 CF 1NE OFPNrnHit OFiN014`,PQRTATWtI lAKUlYpif iFE MTE OP:I 2NT n0l5M. un- OWa '., Ciratona.w$egnwtaao Wh - D'?I'v"tY:._ StaA thdoadn9: .. . Leamt 1 ✓ > r''u/�I/J< - cin' .---^- "rte `+— -----�%��r���we- Dote FtecoNar Siixtuure ' Pbaw ponvnefe on On JW O9 wa can CW*k a to WUYW boder WvIw.. ❑Eka66a0 ❑ Satis%avy ❑ Poor (FSPR 931'-1 15-00-3052]00 .. .Pape l of l Page 2 of 2 5491642 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 17,2012 Former Shell-Branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts ATTACHMENT D SOVEREIGN CONSULTING December 13,2012 l Trickett Realty Trust 1180 Main Street Tewksbury,Massachusetts 01876 Attn:Bob Sidiropoulos Re: Informational Notice to Property Owner Former Shell-branded Service Station No. 137838 . 111 North Street Salem,Massachusetts RTN 3-26179 Dear Mr.Sidiropoulos: In accordance with 310 CMR 40.1406(3), this letter is to notify you that a portion of your property is included within the disposal site boundary for which a Class A-2 Response Action Outcome Statement (RAO) has been submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Protection (MassDEP). The report documents the response activities associated with RTNs 3-26179, 3- 26256 and 3-26378. This report concludes that a Condition of "No Significant Risk" to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment has been achieved for this site for current and future site use scenarios. On behalf of Motiva Enterprises LLC (Motiva), Sovereign Consulting Inc. (Sovereign) has submitted MassDEP Form BWSC 122 Informational Notice to property Owners (Notice) with regard to the above-referenced location. This Notice complies with public notification requirements for properties within the boundaries of a "disposal site." This Notice is being provided pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1406 of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). Note that background information for the Notice requirements is summarized on the second page of the Notice. Based upon the results of the Method 1 Risk Characterization and previous investigations, the requirements for a Class A-2 RAO are achieved as outlined below: 1. The facility is located at 111 North Street in Salem, Massachusetts and is currently occupied by a retail gasoline station that is not operational. As part of site assessment activities in 2006, soil and groundwater samples were collected during drilling activities. Analytical results revealed concentrations of MTBE and dibenz(a,h)anthracene above RCS-1 RCs. In addition, as part of station decommissioning activities in 2006, two reportable conditions were encountered during the removal of the OWS and during the removal of the gasoline USTs. 2. The source of the soil and groundwater impacts is most likely due to the facility's historical use as retail gasoline and automotive repair facility. 4 Open Square Way, Suite 307 • Holyoke, MA 01040 'Tel: 413-540-0650 • Fax: 413-540-0656 Informational Notice to Property Owner December 13,2012 Former Shell-branded Service Station,'111 North Street,Salem,MA-RTN 3-26179 3. S-1 standards apply to this disposal site as the depth to impacted soil is less than 15 feet bgs, and the future use of the disposal site is unrestricted. Soil impacts above the Method 1 standards are limited to the former OWS area and to the current and former gasoline UST area. 4. Because groundwater at all disposal sites shall be considered a potential source of discharge to surface water, GW-3 Standards apply to the disposal site. COC concentrations in groundwater are below the Method 1 Standards and groundwater flows in a southeasterly direction. 5. According to the MassGIS Map, the facility is not located within the boundaries of a medium or high yield aquifer, an Interim Wellhead Protection Area, a Potentially Productive Aquifer, or a Zone II wellhead protection area. A medium-yield aquifer is located approximately 100 feet south of the property. This Non-Potential Drinking Water Source Area (NPDWSA) aquifer is not considered suitable for potable water supplies due to the densely developed nature of the overlying land. According to the City of Salem Board of Health and Department of Public Works, the MWRA provides all public drinking water to the City of Salem. The MWRA obtains potable water from the Quabbin Reservoir, approximately 90 miles west of Salem. There are no drinking water wells located within the City of Salem. 6. According to the MassDEP 21e Site Scoring Map, there are no estimated habitats of rare wildlife, certified vernal pools, priority sites of rare species habitats, exemplary natural communities, or ACEC located within 500 feet of the disposal site. There is a protected unnamed open space located approximately 980 feet northwest, and two cemeteries located approximately 1,600 feet southwest and 1,100 feet north of the disposal site. The nearest surface water body is the North River, located approximately 850 feet southeast of the subject property. This river flows to the north towards the confluence with the Danvers River at Beverly Harbor (Atlantic Ocean). 7. The Kiddie Keep Day Care Center is located 200 feet east of the subject property at 11 Foster Street, Salem, Massachusetts. There are no schools or hospitals known to be located within 500 feet of the disposal site boundaries. Two schools, the Cogswell School and the Sheridan School,are located approximately 1,000 feet northeast and 1,200 feet northwest of the disposal site, respectively. Several residential basements are located in the vicinity of the subject property and one residence borders the property to the southeast. This residence has a basement and is located within 20 feet of the property line. 8. Indoor air exposures are not anticipated at this disposal site since COC concentrations are below the GW-2 Standards. 9. Based on data collected at the disposal site,SRM, CEP, and IH conditions do not exist at the disposal site. 2 Informational Notice to Property Owner December 13,2012 Former Shell-branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,MA-RTN 3-26179 10. Based upon the results of the Method 1 Risk Characterization, a condition of "No Significant Risk" to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment exists for current and future disposal site use scenarios. If you have any questions please call the undersigned at(413)540-0650. Sincerely, SOVEREIGN CONSULTING INC. i�3 � Tamara Hagie David G.Billo,LSP Project Manager Senior Project Manager Attachments: Disposal Site Map BWSC-122 Transmittal Form cc: Robert Rule,Motiva Enterprises LLC(attached within report) Sovereign File-2R814 3 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC122 This notice is related to: INFORMATIONAL NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS Release Tracking Number L771 As Required by 310 CMR 40.1406 of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan(MCP) A. DISPOSAL SITE ADDRESS: (associated with Release Tracking Number provided above) 1. street Address: 111 North Street 2. Cityfrown: Salem 3. ZIP Code: 01970-0000 B. THIS NOTICE IS BEING PROVIDED TO THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY OWNER: 1. Name of Property Owner: Claire D. Chalifour, Clart Realty Trust 2. Address of Property For Which This Notice is Being Provided Owned by Property Owner named in B1: a. Street Address: 96 North Street b. City/Town: Salem c. ZIP Code: 01970-0000 C. THIS NOTICE IS BEING GIVEN: (check one) ❑ 1. Upon Completion of a Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment. 2. Upon Submittal of a Response Action Outcome(i.e., Site Closure Report). 3. Upon Completion of Additional Investigation showing that Oil or Hazardous Material is not Present at the Property. D. DESCRIPTION OF OIL AND/OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL PRESENT OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT AT THE PROPERTY: (check all that apply) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA PRINCIPAL CHEMICAL(S)PRESENT 1.soil Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons 2. Groundwater Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons 3. Surface Water ❑ 4. Sediment ❑ 5. Indoor Air F] 6.Other: (specify) E. ATTACHMENTS PROVIDED WITH THIS NOTICE,AS REQUIRED BY 310 CMR 40.1406: 1.A Copy of the Map Showing or a Description Describing the Area where the Oil and/or Hazardous is or is likely to be Present. 2.A Copy of the Phase II Completion Site Assessment or Response Action Outcome Conclusions. F. CONTACT INFORMATION RELATED TO THE PARTY PROVIDING THIS NOTICE: 1. Contact Name: Tammie Hagie, Sovereign 2. Street: 4 Open Square Way, Suite 307 3. Chyrrown: Holyoke 4. State: MA 5. ZIP Code: 01040-0000 6. Telephone: (413) 540-0650 7. Email: thagie@sovcon.com Revised: 05/02/2006 Page 1 of 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC122 This notice is related to: INFORMATIONAL NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS Release Tracking Number 3❑ - 6179 As Required by 310 CMR 40.1406 of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP) MASSACHUSETTS REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE THIS NOTICE This notice is being provided pursuant to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan and the notification requirement at 310 CMR 40.1406. The Massachusetts Contingency Plan is a state regulation that specifies requirements for parties who are taking actions to address releases of chemicals (oil or hazardous material) to the environment. THE PERSON(S)_PROVIDING THIS NOTICE This notice has been sent to you by the party(ies) who is/are addressing a release of oil or hazardous material to the environment at the location listed in Section A on the reverse side of this form. PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE Parties who are taking actions to respond to releases of oil or hazardous material to the environment are required by state regulations (referred to above) to notify the owners of property where the oil or hazardous material is or is likely to be present. These same parties are also required to notify property owners upon completion of actions to address the oil or hazardous material, or if additional investigations show that the oil or hazardous material is not, as previously suspected, present at a property. Section C on the reverse side of this form indicates the circumstance under which you are receiving this notice at this time. INFORMATION RELATED TO YOUR PROPERTY Section D on the reverse side of this form indicates the type(s) of oil or hazardous material that is or is likely to be present at your property, and the environmental medium (e.g., soil or groundwater) where it is or is likely to be present. Please note when an investigation indicates that the oil or hazardous material is or is likely to be present at your property, this does not mean that the oil or hazardous material is posing a health risk to you. Parties who are taking actions to address oil and hazardous material releases are required by state regulations to adequately investigate these releases and take necessary actions to ensure that affected properties meet standards that are protective of human health and the environment. ATTACHED MAP OR DESCRIPTION AND REPORT CONCLUSIONS The party providing this notice to you is required to attach a map or description that indicates the boundaries of the area where the oil or hazardous material is or is likely to be present, and the conclusions of the site investigation or closure report (Section E). These attachments should give you additional information about the nature and location of the oil or hazardous material with respect to your property. FOR MORE INFORMATION Information about the general process for addressing releases of oil or hazardous material under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan and related public involvement opportunities may be found at http://www.mass.gov/dep/cleanup/oview.htm. For more information regarding this notice, you may contact the party listed in Section F on the reverse side of this form. Information about the disposal site identified in Section A is also available in files at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. See http://mass.gov/dep/about/region/scheduIe.htm if you would like to make an appointment to see these files. Please reference the Release Tracking Number listed in the upper right hand corner on the reverse side of this form when making file review appointments. Revised: 05/02/2006 Page 2 of 2 W/O AS i TY/ / •\ �' MONITORING WELL LOCATION �� iP •\ ® SOIL BORING aYL / �� •\° DISPOSAL SITE BOUNDARY TELEPHONE POLE ����/��-F /� OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE /FOflMER IN•DfflGRQUNDT STATHIN B III T1ING /- \• MW 2 MONITORING WELL NOT LOCATED ON fi/P9/09 -� O/ IV D�VJ�LLlI`IU �MW-i05 V L SIDE dLfS(4) �� DUE TO SITE REDEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES �/ A, D2s.oflr2D MONITORING WELL EPH and t B OM �/L smEwAL s�(y-) / / A VPH EPC • 2006 SITE OEGOMISSIONINC SOIL SAMPLE AREA 1 - �- / / � VPH EPC \• _______ LIMITS OF EXCAVATION B-501 ® �, 491 a-m6 AREA 2 \ B-20] - 7S 0S• 0W NORTH (19') \ DISPOSAL SITE BOVNDARY MW 2G B ,d02® °\ OOMH-I \Y OWS BOTTOM - FORMER 0 2 8 409`-FORMER 4"_cD " °\ FORMER UST PRE 972 6 - OIL/WATER B s0z_. -- ®` + - SEPARATOR --'� MW-2 WEST BUILDING ie-Rol NS R P ISLAND 'b sDEwnu NOTE Mw-aos AND se-dol TO TSB-aos B-208 FORMER MV 2 B®09® /(12') \ LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE FROM JUNE 2011 ®a-1D9 PRU5T972 _ TEsr�_ { \ NofltH DRILLING Acmm�Es. p ; ° BOTTOM M 1 IA Is(4)-----j- `, (14' BO OM- ) —aos FORMER i sIT?Toin% (14) _ L .Rl 4 __ P -.. __i i 0 "1 'L \ NORTH coecRETE I T " �- slDewAFL RETAINING f� MV-I PRODUCT I I L I t \ (12p WALL YMW-30z __ I_ I ___ 1 V I _ •\ P21(4),f I\ Pl9�a��PIBS41 sou H IsD2w u i °\ e-sOz B __ ___ L (12 EAST F ED - 1070M \ __ FORMER/ EAST -" B-4oa 20 0 20 40 . E-4 VAPOR SIDE WALL �Y> LINE (I2) a®6 ®B 401 B-5051 APPROXIMATE SCALE 20 MW- 40 h MW-104 ° FIGURE 2 MW-204 MW 104P Y 8-500 1 , "'� • CURB MV-2048 LANDSCAPE gl ry B 50]x_, - SI 1'F E PLAN mRs FORMER SHELL—BRANDED SERVICE STATION LOCATED AT LPN SCAPE� LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE— — — � 111 NORTH STREET CMH-1 SALEM, MA PREPARED FOR ® MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC ODrH-3 L DNA, 5 03 "e PRMPRCO NORTH STREET CROUTE 114 ` s°vcrzeLCNcoNsuLnN°'Nc - 9 OPEN SQUARE WAY,SUITE 307 Its; HOLYOKg MA 01040 -�'�` TEL:(413)540-0650 SOVEREIGN CONSULTING k December 13,2012 Clart Realty Trust 96 North Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Attn: Claire D.Chalifour Re: Informational Notice to Property Owner Former Shell-branded Service Station No. 137838 111 North Street Salem,Massachusetts RTN 3-26179 Dear Ms.Chalifour: In accordance with 310 CMR 40.1406(3), this letter is to notify you that a portion of your property is included within the disposal site boundary for which a Class A-2 Response Action Outcome Statement (RAO) has been submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Protection (MasSDEP). The report documents the response activities associated with RTNs 3-26179, 3- 26256 and 3-26378. This report concludes that a Condition of "No Significant Risk" to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment has been achieved for this site for current and future site use scenarios. On behalf of Motiva Enterprises LLC (Motiva), Sovereign Consulting Inc. (Sovereign) has submitted MassDEP Form BWSC 122 Informational Notice to Property Owners (Notice) with regard to the above-referenced location. This Notice complies with public notification requirements for properties within the boundaries of a "disposal site." This Notice is being provided pursuant to 310 CMR 40.1406 of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan (MCP). Note that background information for the Notice requirements is summarized on the second page of the Notice. Based upon the results of the Method 1 Risk Characterization and previous investigations, the requirements for a Class A-2 RAO are achieved as outlined below: 1. The facility is located at 111 North Street in Salem, Massachusetts and is currently occupied by a retail gasoline station that is not operational. As part of site assessment activities in 2006,soil and groundwater samples were collected during drilling activities. Analytical results revealed concentrations of MTBE and dibenz(a,h)anthracene above RCS-1 RCs. In addition, as part of station decommissioning activities in 2006, two reportable conditions were encountered during the removal of the OWS and during the removal of the gasoline USTs. 2. The source of the soil and groundwater impacts is most likely due to the facility's historical use as retail gasoline and automotive repair facility. 4 Open Square Way, Suite 307 • Holyoke, MA 01040 •Tel: 413-540-0650 • Fax: 413-540-0656 Informational Notice to Property Owner December 13,2012 Former Shell-branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,MA-RTN 3-26179 3. S-1 standards apply to this disposal site as the depth to impacted soil is less than 15 feet bgs, and the future use of the disposal site is unrestricted. Soil impacts above the Method 1 standards are limited to the former OWS area and to the current and former gasoline UST area. 4. Because groundwater at all disposal sites shall be considered a potential source of discharge to surface water, GW-3 Standards apply to the disposal site. COC concentrations in groundwater are below the Method 1 Standards and groundwater flows in a southeasterly direction. 5. According to the MassGIS Map, the facility is not located within the boundaries of a medium or high yield aquifer, an Interim Wellhead Protection Area, a Potentially Productive Aquifer, or a Zone II wellhead protection area. A medium-yield aquifer is located approximately 100 feet south of the property. This Non-Potential Drinking Water Source Area (NPDWSA) aquifer is not considered suitable for potable water supplies due to the densely developed nature of the overlying land. According to the City of Salem Board of Health and Department of Public Works, the MWRA provides all public drinking water to the City of Salem. The MWRA obtains potable water from the Quabbin Reservoir, approximately 90 miles west of Salem. There are no drinking water wells located within the City of Salem. 6. According to the MassDEP 21e Site Scoring Map, there are no estimated habitats of rare wildlife, certified vernal pools, priority sites of rare species habitats, exemplary natural communities, or ACEC located within 500 feet of the disposal site. There is a protected unnamed open space located approximately 980 feet northwest, and two cemeteries located approximately 1,600 feet southwest and 1,100 feet north of the disposal site. The nearest surface water body is the North River, located approximately 850 feet southeast of the subject property. This river flows to the north towards the confluence with the Danvers River at Beverly Harbor (Atlantic Ocean). 7. The Kiddie Keep Day Care Center is located 200 feet east of the subject property at 11 Foster Street, Salem, Massachusetts. There are no schools or hospitals known to be located within 500 feet of the disposal site boundaries. Two schools, the Cogswell School and the Sheridan School, are located approximately 1,000 feet northeast and 1,200 feet northwest of the disposal site, respectively. Several residential basements are located in the vicinity of the subject property and one residence borders the property to the southeast. This residence has a basement and is located within 20 feet of the property line. 8. Indoor air exposures are not anticipated at this disposal site since COC concentrations are below the GW-2 Standards. 9. Based on data collected at the disposal site,SRM, CEP, and IH conditions do not exist at the disposal site. 2 Informational Notice to Property Owner December 13,2012 Former Shell-branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,MA-RTN 3-26179 10. Based upon the results of the Method 1 Risk Characterization, a condition of "No Significant Risk' to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment exists for current and future disposal site use scenarios. If you have any questions please call the undersigned at(413)540-0650. Sincerely, SOVEREIGN CONSULTING INC. Tamara Hagie David G.Billo,LSP Project Manager Senior Project Manager Attachments: Disposal Site Map BWSC-1.22 Transmittal Form cc: Robert Rule,Motiva Enterprises LLC(attached within report) Sovereign File-2R814 . 3 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC122 This notice is related to: INFORMATIONAL NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS Release Tracking Number As Required by 310 CMR 40.1406 of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan(MCP) A. DISPOSAL SITE ADDRESS: (associated with Release Tracking Number provided above) 1. Street Address: 111 North Street 2. City/Town: Salem 3. ZIP Code: 01970-0000 B. THIS NOTICE IS BEING PROVIDED TO THE FOLLOWING PROPERTY OWNER: 1. Name of Property Owner: Claire D. Challfour, Clart Realty Trust 2. Address of Property For Which This Notice is Being Provided Owned by Property Owner named in B1: 96 North Street a. Street Address: b. City/Town: Salem c. ZIP Code: 01970-0000 C. THIS NOTICE IS BEING GIVEN: (check one) ❑ 1. Upon Completion of a Phase II Comprehensive Site Assessment. 2. Upon Submittal of a Response Action Outcome(i.e.,Site Closure Report). ❑ 3. Upon Completion of Additional Investigation showing that Oil or Hazardous Material is not Present at the Property. D. DESCRIPTION OF OIL AND/OR HAZARDOUS MATERIAL PRESENT OR LIKELY TO BE PRESENT AT THE PROPERTY: (check all that apply) AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTAL MEDIA PRINCIPAL CHEMICALS)PRESENT 1. sou Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons 2. Groundwater Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons ❑ 3. Surface Water ❑ 4. Sediment ❑ 5. Indoor Air ❑ 6.Other: (specify) E. ATTACHMENTS PROVIDED WITH THIS NOTICE.AS REQUIRED BY 310 CMR 40.1406: 1.A Copy of the Map Showing or a Description Describing the Area where the Oil and/or Hazardous is or is likely to be Present. ® 2.A Copy of the Phase 11 Completion Site Assessment or Response Action Outcome Conclusions. F. CONTACT INFORMATION RELATED TO THE PARTY PROVIDING THIS NOTICE: 1. Contact Name: Tammie Hagie, Sovereign 2. Street: 4 Open Square Way, Suite 307 3. city/Town: Holyoke a. State: MA 01040-0000 5. ZIP Code: 6. Telephone: (413) 540-0650 7. Email: thagie@sovcon.com Revised: 05/02/2006 Page 1 of 2 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Site Cleanup BWSC122 This notice is related to: Tracking f � � INFORMATIONAL NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS Reg Number 3❑ - 6179 As Required by 310 CMR 40.1406 of the Massachusetts Contingency Plan(MCP) MASSACHUSETTS REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE THIS NOTICE This notice is being provided pursuant to the Massachusetts Contingency Plan and the notification requirement at 310 CMR 40.1406. The Massachusetts Contingency Plan is a state regulation that specifies requirements for parties who are taking actions to address releases of chemicals (oil or hazardous material) to the environment. THE PERSON(S) PROVIDING THIS NOTICE This notice has been sent to you by the party(ies) who is/are addressing a release of oil or hazardous material to the environment at the location listed in Section A on the reverse side of this form. PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE Parties who are taking actions to respond to releases of oil or hazardous material to the environment are required by state regulations (referred to above) to notify the owners of property where the oil or hazardous material is or is likely to be present. These same parties are also required to notify property owners upon completion of actions to address the oil or hazardous material, or if additional investigations show that the oil or hazardous material is not, as previously suspected, present at a property. Section C on the reverse side of this form indicates the circumstance under which you are receiving this notice at this time. INFORMATION RELATED TO YOUR PROPERTY Section D on the reverse side of this form indicates the type(s) of oil or hazardous material that is or is likely to be present at your property, and the environmental medium (e.g., soil or groundwater) where it is or is likely to be present. Please note when an investigation indicates that the oil or hazardous material is or is likely to be present at your property, this does not mean that the oil or hazardous material is posing a health risk to you. Parties who are taking actions to address ail and hazardous material releases are required by state regulations to adequately investigate these releases and take necessary actions to ensure that affected properties meet standards that are protective of human health and the environment. ATTACHED MAP OR DESCRIPTION AND REPORT CONCLUSIONS The party providing this notice to you is required to attach a map or description that indicates the boundaries of the area where the oil or hazardous material is or is likely to be present, and the conclusions of the site investigation or closure report (Section E). These attachments should give you additional information about the nature and location of the oil or hazardous material with respect to your property. FOR MORE INFORMATION Information about the general process for addressing releases of oil or hazardous material under the Massachusetts Contingency Plan and related public involvement opportunities may be found at htti)://www.mass.gov/dei)/clea n ui)/oview.htm. For more information regarding this notice, you may contact the party listed in Section F on the reverse side of this form. Information about the disposal site identified in Section A is also available in files at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. See htti)://mass.gov/dei)/about/region/schedule.htm if you would like to make an appointment to see these files. Please reference the Release Tracking Number listed in the upper right hand corner on the reverse side of this form when making file review appointments. Revised:05/02/2006 Page 2 of 2 - - - - - - - - - I I LEGEND WPD AST MorvI1O11rvc WELL LacArloN W/ VENT ®-6— SOIBORING ) DISPOSAL SITE BOUNDARY • TELEPHONE POLE / /r A� ! OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINE FORME/R ' LIFT/ , STHTT❑` nVILDTN(3 ) MW 2 MONITORING WELL NOT LOCATED ON 6/29/09 // / y MV-105 •� DUE r0 SITE REDEVELOPMENT AGTIVRIES • \// / / DESTORYED MONITORING WEIL EPH and L Ro__oyln�(e� L Gi E.TE (y) / PV - / • 2006 SUE OOMISSIONING SOIL SAMPLE VPH EPC � Mw-m1 _/� EC AREA , VPH EPC 8-501 ( 1 LIMITS OF EXCAVATION OIL WATER AREA Z 64�) 10') DISPOSAL SIIE BOUNDARY FORMER �nMr- E-40" FORMERws BOTTOM (147 of 11 - ®-:MW-2 �-04s NORTn MW 2Q� OMN 2 / B 503 'P-506®,1 FORMER USE PRE 1972 SEPARATOR • - BUILDING wB-Io2 PENSER ISLAND ® MW 2BA. sDEWALL NOTE Mw-aoz AND sB-am ro se-aoe B-208 FORMER MW 2 B®09® /(12) `., LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE FROM JUNE 2011 e-lo3 PRE-1972 �� �� \\ \ NORTH DRILLING ACTIVITIES. u 4® ® USTs ;. i WEST 1`, " BOTLOM iH N1 SELDOM W-202 .. ..... .. 403 1- x4 P15 9 yRF T_ NORTH - FORMER " I 11_ SIDEWA�I CONCRERETAIN LE y MV-1 pROOVCi 1 1 \ ' _ 1 (12) RETAINING _,y_ f� 1 1 1 1 - WALL YMW 302 Y- LIN P21(41 1 P19L� PIFsot - ED u H I 1 e-soz 1 slDew � \ •\ 1 __________ __ =•� (147 MW-201 , • ____ _ _ /•/- __ 1 FORMER;"- ORMER EEL �" B-408 20 G 20 40 .yMV-4 VAPOR SIDE MV-3 ® ®,( QTS:- LINE '( B-406 t2') ®. ®p 40J B-505 I APPROXIMATE SCALE M.-204DBMW-104 RE FIGURE 2 N1-204 MW 104P ..) CURB MW-2048 LANDSCAPE SIGN B-50>�_...- R". PLAN cuB.. FORMER SHELL-BRANDED ANDED SERVICE STATION LAN SCAPE LOCATED AT LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE — — — — — — �� 117 NORTH STREET LMN-I SALEM, MA PREPARED FOR MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC OOMN-3 La PLP BPREPAREDMPB ON II 5]013 NORTH STREET (R❑UTE 114) SOVEREIGN'CONSULTING INC. 4 0PENSQUARE WAY,SUITE 307 EHOLYOKE,MA 01040 6 TEL:(413)540.0650 WOW SOVEREIGN • December 13,2012 Mayor Kimberley Driscoll Salem City Hall 93 Washington Street Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Mr. Larry Ramdin,Health Agent 120 Washington Street,4th Floor Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Re: AVAILABILITY OF CLASS A-2 RESPONSE ACTION OUTCOME STATEMENT AND METHOD 1 RISK CHARACTERIZATION Former Shell-branded Service Station No.137838 111 North Street Salem,Massachusetts RTN 3-26179 i Dear Mayor Driscoll and Mit Ramdin: I In accordance with 310 CMR 40.1403(3)(e), this letter is to notify you of the availability of the Class A-2 Response Action Outcome(RAO)Report with Method 1 Risk Characterization for the above- referenced location. This report concludes that a Condition of"No Significant Risk' to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment has been achieved for this disposal site for current and future site use scenarios. Based upon the results of the Method 1 Risk Characterization and previous investigations, the requirements for a Class A-2 RAO related to RTN 3-26179 have been achieved as outlined below: 1. The facility is located at 111 North Street in Salem, Massachusetts and is currently occupied by a retail gasoline station that is not operational. As part of site assessment activities in 2006,soil and groundwater samples were collected during drilling activities. Analytical results revealed concentrations of MTBE and dibenz(a,h)anthracene above RCS-1 RCs. In addition, as part of station decommissioning activities in 2006, two reportable conditions were encountered during the removal of the OWS and during the removal of the gasoline USTs. 2. The source of the soil and groundwater impacts is most likely due to the facility's historical use as retail gasoline and automotive repair facility. 3. S-1 standards apply to this disposal site as the depth to impacted soil is less than 15 feet bgs, and the future use of the disposal site is unrestricted. Soil impacts above the Method 1 standards are limited to the former OWS area and to the current and former gasoline UST area. 4. Because groundwater at all disposal sites shall be considered a potential source of discharge to surface water, GW-3 Standards apply to the disposal site. COC 4 Open Square Way, Suite 307 • Holyoke, MA 01040 •Tel: 413-540-0650 • Fax: 413-540-0656 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 13,2012 Former Shell-branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,MA concentrations in groundwater are below the Method 1 Standards and groundwater flows in a southeasterly direction. 5. According to the MassGIS Map included as Figure 5,the facility is not located within the boundaries of a medium or high yield aquifer, an Interim Wellhead Protection Area, a Potentially Productive Aquifer, or a Zone II wellhead protection area. A medium-yield aquifer is located approximately 1.00 feet south of the property. This Non-Potential Drinking Water Source Area (NPDWSA) aquifer is not considered suitable for potable water supplies due to the densely developed nature of the overlying land. According to the City of Salem Board of Health and Department of Public Works, the MWRA provides all public drinking water to the City of Salem. The MWRA obtains potable water from the Quabbin Reservoir, approximately 90 miles west of Salem. There are no drinking water wells located within the City of Salem. 6. According to the MassDEP 21e Site Scoring Map,there are no estimated habitats of rare wildlife, certified vernal pools, priority sites of rare species habitats, exemplary natural communities, or ACEC located within 500 feet of the disposal site. There is a protected unnamed open space located approximately 980 feet northwest, and two cemeteries located approximately 1,600 feet southwest and 1,100 feet north of the disposal site. The nearest surface water body is the North River, located approximately 850 feet southeast of the subject property. This river flows to the north towards the confluence with the Danvers River at Beverly Harbor(Atlantic Ocean). 7. The Kiddie Keep Day Care Center is located 200 feet east of the subject property at 11 Foster Street, Salem, Massachusetts. There are no schools or hospitals known to be located within 500 feet of the disposal site boundaries. Two schools, the Cogswell School and the Sheridan School,are located approximately 1,000 feet northeast and 1,200 feet northwest of the disposal site, respectively. Several residential basements are located in the vicinity of the subject property and one residence borders the property to the southeast. This residence has a basement and is located within 20 feet of the property line. 8. Indoor air exposures are not anticipated at this disposal site since COC concentrations are below the GW-2 Standards. 9. Based on data collected at the disposal site,SRM, CEP,and IH conditions do not exist at the disposal site. 10. Based upon the results of the Method 1 Risk Characterization, a condition of "No Significant Risk" to human health, safety, public welfare and the environment exists for current and future disposal site use scenarios. Copies of Class A-2 Response Action Outcome Statement and Method I Risk Characterization can be obtained at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Northeast Regional Office located at 205B Lowell Street in Wilmington,Massachusetts 01887. If you have any questions please call the undersigned at(413)540-0650. 2 Class A-2 RAO and M1RC-RTN 3-26179 December 13,2012 Former Shell-branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,MA Sincerely, SOVEREIGN CONSULTING INC. �- 1- Tamara Hagie Project Manager cc: MassDEP NERO(within report) Robert Rule,Motiva Enterprises LLC(within report) Sovereign File 28814 3 JAN-12-2009 13:44 US PROBATION OFFICE 9786899067 P.001/001 Citp of balem, Aa,wrbuatt!6 lel A-A Office of the rcitp, counril 40) Citp 3jall COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE PAUL C. PREVEY WARD COUNCILLORS PRESIDENT 2009 2009 THOMAS H.FUREY CHERYL A. LAPOINTE ROBERT K.MCCARTHY JOAN B. LOVELY CITY CLERK MICHAEL SOSNOWSKI STEVEN A.PINTO JEAN M.PELLETIER ARTHUR C,SARGENT IIIJan IZ 2009 JERRY L. RYAN January MATTHEW A.VENO PAUL C.PREVEY JOSEPH A.O'KEEFE.SR. Thomas J. St. Pierre Director oflnspectional Services Public Properties Department 120 Washington Street,P Fir. Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. St.Pierre: By way of this letter, i am requesting that enforcement action be initiated against Trickett Realty Trust, located at 111 North Street in Salem. Specifically, in the fall of 2008, Trickett Realty purchased the property at the aforementioned location and cut down approximately 30 to 40 trees. For decades,these trees acted as a natural buffer and barrier for the neighbors who abut the property in back on Buffun St. it was later learned that this action was in violation of a 1970 Salem Board of Appeals (BOA)order which prohibited the removal of the vegetation to the rear of the property. As you aware, Trickett Realty expressed a willingness to create a new buffer area that would include landscaping and re-create many elements of what was lost by Trickett Realty's actions. Despite ongoing negotiations with Trickett Realty and myself, the neighbors,Attorney Scott Grover,Trickett Realty's counsel Attorney Joseph Correnti and yourself, no plan has been submitted to the satisfaction of the neighbors or the City. At this point, Trickett Realty has failed to demonstrate any good faith effort to any of the involved parties despite multiple deadlines over the course of several months. In view of the aforementioned, I respectfully request that you begin enforcement action on Trickett Realty for violating the 1970 BOA order. Very truly yours, re . Paul C. revcy Councilor, Ward 6 SALEM CITY HALL •93 WASHINGTON STREET •SALEM, MA 019703592 •WWW-SALEM.COM TOTAL P.001 01/12/09 16:10 FAX 9787413415 TQGF REAL ESTATE 2001 T1NTI , QUINN , GROVER & FREY , P . C . FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL SHEET TO: PROM: 'Phomas Sc.Pierre 1Carhleen M.Reid COMPANY: DATE Inspectional Services 1/12/2009 3:08 PM FAX NUMBER: TO'EAL NO,OP PA(:BS INCLUDING COVER: 978-740-9846 7 PHONE NUMBER Th:1.EPHONP.NUMSE& 978-745-8065 X111 RE: TE1.rFAX NUMBER: 111-113 North Street,Salem 978-741-3415 ❑ URGENT ❑FOR RCVIEW ❑ PLCASE COMMENT ❑PLEASF.REPLY L7 PLEASE RECYCLE NOTES/COMMRNT.S: This WICCOpy is atturney-client privileged and contains confidential infomt ation intended only for the person(s) named above. Any other dismbuuon,copying or disclosure is staicdy prohibited. If you have received this telecopy in error,please notify us immediately by celephone,and return the original transmission to us by mail without making a copy 27 CONGRLSS STREET, SUITL 414 SALEM, MA 01970-5591 TF.LEPHONIi: 97B-745-6065 TELEFAX: 978.741-3415 EMAIL: KREID©QTf KTILAW.COM 01/12/09 16:11 FAX 9787419415 TQGF REAL.ESTATE 1&002 TINTI, QuINN, GROVER & FREY, P.C. 27 CONGRESS STREET,SUITE 414 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 WILLIAM J.TINTI WILLIAM B.ARDIFF(1965-1995) ,mti(46neilaw.V,m TELEPHONE WILLIAM R QUINN (978)74545065• (975)744-2946 MARCIA MULFORD CINI uF CouNsei. WilliamFQuinn@.,, Com 'MCOPIER JOHN D.KEENAN SCOTT M.GROVER (978)7453369 OF Ccrosn smgnrvcrNlcinrilaw.aam www.cincilawcam MARC F.FREY mP Frey G9cincilaw.com MARCY I).}CAUSER mhauher@cineilaw.cum JAMES G.GILBE.RT jQil6ex(7cincilow.unn January 12,2009 VIA TELECOPIER(978)740-9846 Mr. Thomas St.Pierre Director of inspectional Services 120 Washington Street, 3 d Floor Salem,MA 01970 RE: 111-113 North Street, Salem,Massachusetts Dear Tom: I represent a group of Salem residents whose properties abut the property at 111-113 North Street, Salem,Massachusetts (the"Property") owned by Haralampos Sidiropoulos, Trustee of Trickett Realty Trust("Trickett"). After purchasing the Property last September, Trickett proceeded to completely clear all the existing trees, shrubbery and other vegetation behind and on both sides of the Property. This action was a clear violation of a Special Permit issued by the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals in August, 1970, notice of which was recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds (copy attached). The Permit,which allowed the construction of a service station on the site, specifically required the property owner to leave all trees to the rear of the property undisturbed. The record of the proceedings before the Board of Appeals makes it abundantly clear that the Board issued the permit upon conditions which preserved the natural and dense screening between the residential properties on Buffum Street and commercial activity of a service station_ My clients have tried over the course of several months to work with Trickett to solve the problem, however,we have encountered nothing but empty assurances and missed deadlines. 01/12/09 16:11 FAX 9787415415 TQGF REAL ESTATE 2003 Mr. Thomas St. Pierre January 12, 2009 Page Two I am writing now pursuant to M.G.L. c. 40, Section 7 to request that you take action to enforce the terms of the Special Permit by rescinding Trickett's Building Permit until the violation has been rectified. I appreciate your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, 4 rove Al�-� SMG:kr C: Timothy Love (Via Email) Paul Prevy(Via Email) Joseph Correnti, Esquire(Via Telefax) 01/12/09 18:11 FAX 9787413415 TQGF REAL ESTATE 0 004 ' f ..W�s,, F �r r.r I..r r� �11 T.TI'L l��• �wY{.f?�+•�`� /If/.V►C3�iJ�6�.yD , AUG 11 G 3 42 �Y�•i-y! (fF'II2 0 d Mml CITY�'.`rt;. T.S f 0.��"$rNePrTITTON 'OF` SHEI.I. OIL COMPANY, INC. , FOR ' 'w1�uwM r. J:ReoTr :L"��'li•:( ll11 f; f�F 1:4TT TO ALLOW CONS'T'RUCTION OF AN AUTOMO= JAMIX WCOOLGER BILE SFRVTCE? STATION AT 111=113 NORTH STREET AFTER JOJPMI r, OOYLE J0,1., .L„nA.. .a DI''MOLTTIQN OF EXISTING SERVICE STATION AT SAID LOCATION. auLun LnORl nOOe ' rwRas . J 10114MI MQLLII, JR. Tier. Inspector .of Btuildint,,, refused to' issue a permit to construct a new mervice station at this Iooatinn' as the existing Is- non conforming; . for this district, zoned R-1, 4eia;hborhood bueine'ss, and referred peti- tioninp company to the Board pf Appeals: The City Zoning Ordinsnee *I- lows such a use in accordnnce with Section, V-B-5 "Special "Permit Uses, B-1 Districts" , when permission is obtained from the Board of Appeals. Hearing was held on .this appeal pursuant to notices mailed postpaid to the petitioner, abutters, board members, and- others, and advertisements published in the Salem Evening. News. _ All Board members were present, excepting Mr. Doyle who was •unable to at tend. Counselor David T. Doyle appeared for petitioning company with Mr. Edward Gallagher of said company. Appearing ln• oppositiorn with the 'Ward Councillor George McCabe, were Mr. Yeannakopoulos, Mr. ' Ercha, AIr. .aud Mrs: Wm. Roffernan, Mr; James Godfrey, and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Nelson. The Board studied the facts presented by the petitioner and opponents, and it was the opinion of the Board that since a service station. was pres- ently in at this location, 'that a Special Permit was warranted and would be in the best interests of. the community and the district; it . was the furtber opinion of the Board that the demolition of- the present station and the construction of a neve station of• colonial "design would promote the public health, safety, convenience, morals and the. .welfare of the inhabitants of the City. At a meeting of the Board held on July 27, 1970, it was unanimously voted to issue a Special Permit' to Shell Oil Company, 'Inc. , to c.Jpstrudt .a gas- oline service station of colonial design -in cof'ormity wits the. service station building presently. existing at the corner of 934 Massachusetts Avenue in Arlington, Massachusetts, as shown in photoprapii 'of same sub- mitted to- this Board; ttie petitioner shall have the further oblipation of the maintenance of the property tG the reek line; - the cons ';ructi.on of the said building and the landscaping shall be in accordance with the n-ew plans submitted by the petitioners to meet the objections of the neighbors, and which are further .incorporated 'in, a letter from. the petitioners' attor- ney, David T. Doyle,. to the Board, datdd .July ,16, 19'70, and said plans and letter become' an integral part of this decision.' BOARD OF APPEALS . SPFCIAL PERMIT GRANTED AS REQUESTED. BY . 4 Act. ) Secretary 01/1_2/09 10:11 FAX 9787415415 TQGF REAL ESTATE Z005 DOYLE & DOYLE ATTORNEYS_AT'_LAW ¢ 81 WAMINGTON$T'RM ioScrN F.DOVE@ SALM MASSACHUS"01970 9 S PIAlit 0 u2 J=PH F.oon.e:,tA - PHONES 74444 - . VAMDT.00� GI7Y ��c .,,• .a 1rFls MAURICE A CxCU1NAF0 SALEM. 24 A S S• Jnly 16, 1970- .$OAR.LI- OF Al'PEAT:S . .City of 511.erl Ge1Pm, Massaehose't�� Gentlemen: This office rrn�n­-n' .G the Shn11 Oil Comb?ny concerning a spPrial permi.t for t-bn t`n,istruction of a gaAoline service station at •111-113 Nnrth ^1-rset, Salem, Mass<1(4.h++.sett a. A hearing was bald 'hn,`n o .�I,e f�tl.l. Board nn 'April, 1-, 1970, at which time tb'e, Bnrr.-! : nnt: rhp matter under geNri.se?nPnt. Subsequent thereto thF Rnn -:l ^nom nested that- Attorney C,eorge F. McCabe in his Canari.Fg ns ;lord 6 Coxineiilor and I as ' the Attorney. for Sher. OilCompany attempt to resolve, the prohlems presented by thr r1n;:.4.bnrr.. In conformity with the Soardrs directiAre, .-rt'. havp had diGcnssirns with all parties concerned. To me;t the nhjPctr.ons of the neighhors, the plans have b&gn modi.fi.ed in the following lnt tier_ L. Changed landscap%n; on the left hand side of thr proporty to alleviate comPT:ai.nt and to koen' the retai-ninfr wall therr. (Yeanna'.SnPo7.ous aide) . 2: Mnvt-d the rrar varci paluPnqevt 11T1P. ten (1.0) f?Ppt fc!rthpr army from the rea- property li.nn- 3: Changa-d thr loc.nti..o" of fhe nnderground t='nks ,so that they are, now closer to the stre.nt. 4. Relocated the five toot Cedar sc-iren • fencco to tb: top of the slope in the rear, to further screen the cnry ep station yard from the. re. +r. and thg sjd� prope.rt' es. S., Reloca"d the rubbish area From tho rear of.th^ ^tntien to the side. 01/12/09 18:11 FAX 9787413415 .. TQGF REAL ESTATE Z006 DOYLE & DOYL@ RF�Ci't'fr . WrTORNEYS-AT-LAWat SAL a ACHUSEM01976tUG �d J 42 JOSEPH P.DOYLE •"'— p yp {gyp JOSEPH F WILE.JR. PHONE 744406M J 4�I1 ��L• � J r'Y4 D11l,O T.WYLE - SALEM, MASS. HAVR,CEA CnDJ1MARC L}n.•:,-rl n'' ".-_..;,,.: .; _� July 15, l c`70 ^ � • " rrtl to xrednoc+ the overs'1. hrinht of rl,e„ proncrty. 7, 4Cfrrccl tc jeQYe 41 '('he..tr.7-ec to the rea--, clew the tmdrrhrn�h n ,�. P1M , in& willows. in the treelnsa area of, the rcor 'laHlm 8.' Chn.n*Cd *ho lr.nr!rr- 'n nn rhe. ri,trht side 'oF the srztinri : . '(Tobin sidr.) 9. Map krocm to tht• Ka,, , s that Sbel.1- 0-;,L Conanl.” Inc. seas .agree-abI.e to Nir "^ from a Col(%nial. to a Ranch Style desi4n to redu.c^ : h:• �::•:c•rn11. hei-�h' of thn hu5i.dinp tas seen from a rear- - r.�;,^ct-ye. Tha Cmmpany is 5til_1 villing to do .thi•.� if the Board rieems it idvi.sp.h)_a. A nev .plan incorporating ^].1. of ;hnc:^ .ChnnKcq has hren fi.l.rd With the+ Rnildin� Insre�tnr, Dir. D-�ri"7' 1, 0tPrlen, a? n ta.i.lh a letter, from Attorney Georfrn McCabv. r do emnhapize thnt the neighbors and Attornry Rror; p MnCnbp sti"1.7. oh4er.t to the cervico station :and no afrer,r,^nt e-III'd he rep rh0d thIt thr special. permit could F>e R nntPd ou thr conditi.on9 nn heroin specified. As I ;:aid at the mwpt'i.n« h�fbrr ern+r Tlrnnrea, h 011 cervive. station vi11 rerrnir in nv overet pnd the plirrnc.n of. this specirl" i,Prrgit tiill, hn +-o C n_4z.,-rur.•t a ci•alion or caloninT. dt+girrn withconstructi.on nn� armtis?rinn c•n�ts �c appro-imate $180,000.00. I recpper ,l.l,v reeiuest that thr• nc ,d not f.vyor?h"! OT, 'this per,sit at it e npu*. the tiny .-.1i r.) i n p;nndl,•, ,7,a? v ?71 1n70. Thpnl- you For yrn,r cnnsF.;j er^ti.nn. V^.r • foul • oil- David il David T. . Doi le` }� (;r,, t•7i.il.i.m Alihott CC: rmCr? Tnnch J=es H. 1101.11;er. Nox nan W .ic:n john M. G+^2y', Sr. Attorney Gn.nr*e *icCnhn Arthur 1;, T.aHrnc;ruc 01/12/09_ 16:1_1 FAX 9787413415 TQGF REAL ESTATE 12 007 THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSEi M sA f, F rt ..........................-....._......... . .. MW crt rows - LOARt7 OF APPEALS ........ ._iy i.ILGT-__1J.«_._7.9_70---------19 i,,eT10E OF VARIANCE Condizioiml iia, Liauiced Variance or Special Permit (yCwtml Lawn Ctugter 40A.Section 18 as amended) Notice is hercby given that a Conditicnal or Limited Variance or Special Permithas been granted. To._._..._•_._`�rI_TON A''' �.-_� '! 'F00MASIAN, f c o SIiU.T. OIT, CO ------------•••---- ................................ ._..__----__._..............._-•----._. pwner w Peeitienai .. .. .� Address.--.__52_ ?`:FST i219't :-.y,, ..c'--T ra%llr YORH, Nl?W YORK Cityor Town...... ............................................................. —....................-. ----------------_-_ 1;n-Wri f F..'•.�:L_--`,.- ' - ;dcatlfy'Laad Aaeeted SAi,IM. MASS. .._.._.- -....................:..:.........--------'------------------------ -------........... City,' by the Tawrrof............. uis!,..rt_>> _ Board of Appeals affecting the rights of the owner with respect to the use,of premises on, . ........... -- ------------_._.SI:I.i tJ"___h7JL5S...............:...--------- atreet city ee Abna the record title standing in the name of MILTON' ADF.SS R: P-Ti ?"•' T TOOMAST,AN C/C SHJ LJ, OTL CO. whose address is...5?_ ktt2ST52nr1._--ST_ EX.'X-------_NF.t__MOM K----_------M11-.Y_01M....... . Servet City or Taws stare by a deed duly recorded in the Sn!J111 T SSJ•;X ---_-County Registry of Deeds in Book �_........... Page----------- ----_--.._-_------------------- ----.:__...:.Registry District of the Land Court Certificate No......._-....... .......-__-- -Book ..._,___-_____Page------•---•-•-- The decision of said Board is on file with the papers in Decision or Case No-------_______________ City in the office of the T-ovr -Clerk_...- licgsTY_N„F„:?.,.- T24af Y____---_-_ ---______ - $igned this.__11_�!.day of....c1U.MT—AA-79...........:......196 Board of .Appeals_ Beard of Appe.to• . '. . - :........... Doa.d - i Ar _ . .r .. ( . .. .„ , of ct�Glerk Appesie” —---- --......19......... aL-------------o'clock and............ ---------- minutes ....M. Received and entered with the Register of Deeds in the County of-_______T_______._.._._.............. Book-_--____._.:___..._ Page_-------............. ATTEST ...................___--_._:__.—. Register of Deeds Notice to be recorded. by Land Ormter. pORM 1094 Hoses a WARRM MC. aMSM c++'ren sts.iaai Certificate No: 2082-08 BuildingPermit No.: 2082-08 '-- — ---- — — Commonwealth of Massachusetts City of Salem Building Electrical Mechanical Permits This is to Certify that the COMMERCIAL located at - - ---- --Dwelling Type -.111 -NOR TH STREET in the CITY OF SALEM Address Town/City Name IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY I I I NORTH STREET SHELL STATION This permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto, and expires unless sooner suspended or revoked. Expiration Dale Issued On: Mon Feb 25, 2013 GeoTMS®2013 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,Inc. t • 111 NORTH STREET 2082-08 SIS#: 286 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Map: 26 Block. CITY OF SALEM Lot: 0348 Category: Addition ren, t# 208208 BUILDING PERMIT Project# °x. JS-2008-001715, ` Est.Cost: " $189,000.00 Fee Charged: $2,084.00,,, Balance Due: $.00` 11 PERMISSIONIS HEREBY GRANTED TO: Const. Class: Contractor: License: Expires Use Group: . '' -'-`'=Carter Construction&Development Inc. . Lot Size(sq. ft:): 31219.8876 q Owner: TRICKETT REALTY TRUST Zoning: BI Units Gained: jApplieant: Carter Construction&Development Inc. Units Lost: AT: I I1 NORTH STREET Dig Safe#: ISSUED ON: 25-Jun-2008 AMENDED ON: EXPIRES ON. 25-Nov-2008 TO PERFORM THE FOLLOWING WORK: PUT ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING AS PER PLANS INCLUDING TANKS&PIPING jhb POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET Electric Gas Plumbing Building Underground: Underground: Underground;(�� ^, Excavation: f - Service: e[er: /�l,fj�zFootings: Rough: CRough: foZ J—o c Foundation: Final: i al: Final: Ul (7 Rough Frame: OK -� V1/ a7/ 9 D.P.W. Fir¢ Health Fireplace/Chimney: Meter: Oil: Insulation: ole House H Smoke: tC Final:PV G ,n.y Assessor Treasury: Water: Alarm: T jl'J/ � Sewer. Sprinklers: 2/ X11 Final: & THIS PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED BY THE CITY OF SALEM UPON VIOLATION NY OF ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS. Signature: Fee Type: Receipt No: Date Paid: Check No: AmOmIC BUILDING REC-2008-002206 25-Jun-08 3029 $2,084.00 Ani^='eCdO+n Is I - �'e: .;h o-w-,n 11 fall for ,P'erh"lit to 745Q&%Ext M O�ccu GeoTMS©2008 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,Inc. ZII NHd oNiaima WH IV S J® .X LID 0 . V CITY OF S�U.E%[t iNLkSSACHUSETI-S BuUmLNG DEPARTMENT • 120 WASHLNGTON STREET, 3' FLooR TEL (978) 745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KIJiBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR THOMAS ST.PIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICP PERTY/BUILDING CO\L]IISSIONER NEW CONSTRUCTION �/ ,,, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY / LOCATION: No9-h// STYe.t24 DATE O 19 1 I -2 APPLICANT: ��er CGS Tt a ziq / ASSESSORS M� xe 6 DATE: l" (93 Washin6tonStreet) y�b3 at , jr G-s -. CITY CLERK CHERYL LAPOINTEDATE: (93 Washington Street) 'v f PUBLICESERVICES BRUCETHIBODEAU "— ' �. DATE: (120 Washington Street)4' oor WATER ` /I t'. { \ I �_..,_.._DOTTIE THIBODEAU 1IYY`"' � 1 / DATE: (120 Q Washington Street)4ih loor CROSS CONNECT SUPERVISOR BRIAN THIBODEAU �(Vt ) 5.+l (5 Jefferson Avenue) —DATE: / PLANNING VyMRIE`GINfiR e+jF DATE. ! 23 / ( � shrCoftSttdet)3`d Flaor J CONSERVATION CONINIISSIO FRANK TAORMINA DATE: (120 Washington Street) 3r°Floor ELECTRICALy JOHN GLIRDI ffff//// DACE: (48 Lafayette Street) FIRE PREVENTION ERIN GRIFFIN 1 P--�> (29 Fort Avenue) DATE: 2 zi i HEALTH DATE$ (120 Washington Street)4'" Fluor I--1` I 1 3 is WALPOLE CrISUAQ sCQ8E1J PEI,XE -W--�,,, --- � $�fJ O r i r7l �I:ra.m•.Qcawarn .i...a.,r,-_.... _ ,,. n.-. -. L. O A.Il -.. � ...- . e ,. t .. .. .. .. V Lo• Pr 1 kirio J I , wl 1 L NSPEGTI STORACaE` I OQ �r 1 F� A k : K I h l 1 g CAt. RS w,01 A i 1 L I ,,f 'I I ��1,+>✓NLAC)Lr ! S T oRA v r 7' -- � f FENL:z , C ARS I CEW TY - wAL ;mak i PE FE_NcE TIP PIP On I O 19 a Ln I n OFFICE 3 - BAY D . R.%q) 3 ANGH SALES Roots � / / . ELI`-V _ - BOLL �3 I $ OUO C`'hv 000 1600a _ �GA1- ( il GhIL t' TOTAL- FARKIN. r4 2-0 30 -V CONS SACK ptiD EAy a I x SN�LLI � APPROVAL ' f � ! M OVIE Cr FR JJ �� <---� F1N1SF9 �iRf•>r:7E`� , � D1 `•T EXIST GRFYGE 2128.E - — -- SALES SUPV. i ,., CtZhSt4' RAIL- FENS �_ _ 17 3a.�i I DIST. ENG . " ( REIAovE EX15T Ce!� - MAT REMiS'�"G_ - P GHTEt�. s'IE YJ,o LII ` `T D157 R. E. L NOTE: �I uvATaN K I I _ PErna'.1 �1S'1-• SALT=S REP, 1, CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ,_ __ , . .r I % CONS _ . �RTN OVE LL 13RUSHS AND -TREES ON y A _ 1 _ 1 � LoChT10SA , t _ I- - n u U j 2. Rt L LANDScI,PI +J � $Y aTHE RS Q . 20o �' r�tA, .r—i (_ � � _ a LA NP5c-APEAND f'1.AtITINCr �( \ N I L D AREAS To "AVE 12 Pt=: TN . � _ { � i � f � � ✓/ r— T I F OF _� LaA►+l! uRN15NE� ey � � I � z I� GENT-R 14 1— CONT. G " )J'E1_ek ��d i % BERhI� 1 TOP a > BERM' ^ REPv Vk_ >=x1 T Z _ I TWr� sToR`/ STATi [, P I kDvvE I-I NCr 7 3 . AL_,,— hiFi',4 CURr- 1Nur To Mol,,TGN 1' E t -r IIVCi. t P �„ c.�r� A MA7 � N l ! � puMP= T5}_At , S y __ / Q L=1j y I "� LIC, Ni t�15 11 TWo 5-1-0k WOOD - _ V I RSNI,, — /S/ 6` M A ti DWELL_ , E . I � [oti cJ r.n AT � � '' � R E � �c> PLAW- �Ot7M I I I 1 1 4 LC S ICeN LIcvHT 1 G BERr�-._. �. r L -i TANKS • 7?-jn•,pS FLUO ENT y, �Rl\ \,�/ ti!Fv� a C' Q�Q .SKIN 2 NEW 81-0" I N DATE EY C' 'D DESCRIPTION APPR. L14 HTS f I T FLUO, t:NTl \� LIGHT ., v . . . . :r ��``' SHELL OIL COMPANY MINEASTERN MARKETING REGION - — ------ srr � 2_7,2' 1 NEW oNCRETF- .D A s P I� , L-r S I D :w L K' -7-- c EMT, r yo / NE f.'� M N. �GVT CVF2 Ee G. �j_. _ ��� 5� �UILU , \ c N vc u � S 1 ►ti 60� � � Ta�� �� _� >.- � ! WORTH �_T - pb6 -t ss ?` . 7 Ze .cu '' _ c RANCT✓ 3 - 5A E-M I`it i E N T R ^1 t3 C r- — - - SCALE ' � .—. ' —� /I DIST. MGR. APPR. � `�� - DATE l- 2 7- 1 D REGIONAL APPR.J t 1K '-T- . H J T E. LL 1 DRAWN BY 1 - -....' .- CHECKED BY f9BM0-0 10609 r Cti o ����NJ J ����., . _ � ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 9 " - PETITION FORM CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSET"I S yip ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 1013 MAR 2b A 1� 3$ 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3AD FLOOR fI SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 FILE it 9y� y at/ CITY CLERK, 5ALEM. MASS. ;ugti Thomas St.Pierre,Director of Inspectional Services t.978-619-5641/f.978-740-9846 Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner 1. 978-619-5685/f.978-740-0404 TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: The Undersigned represent that he/she is/are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at: Address: /L� pj�1L'�A Zoning District: R -' An application is being submitted to the Board of Appeal for the following reason(s): This statement must describe what you propose to build, the dimensions, the zone property is in, and the zoning requirements. Examole: 1 am proposing to construct a 10'x 10'one story addition to my home located at 3 Salem Lane, in the R-2 Zoning District. The Zoning Ordinance requires the minimum depth of the rear yard to be 30 feet The current depth of my rear yard is 32 feet;the proposed addition would reduce the depth of the rear yard to 22 feet. Rulid', 1�'�a�4ioln - =o ht sue G / I t `n l a r on ' - CAS Q� �CC Leco ran e _� to 00 is n� i I 1 I ► 3 .4 In ti Law (2 V)a 4©q For this reason I am requesting: ( )Variance(s)from provisions of Section of the Zoning Ordinance,specifically from (i.e. minimum depth ofrearyard). What is allowed is (ft?sq ft?stories? %?), and what I am proposing is (ft?sq ft?stories?%?). ( )A Special Permit under Section of the Zoning Ordinance in order to ( Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector(described below): Ste- which I s a14cchecl Y) n ,, 111 Q21-6)45 ernatl -fl) Robty, 54CIn CACV�- maru" s, aot3rl(�t .cR�V The Current Use of the Property Is: Are the lot dimensions included on the plan? (example: Two Family Home) V I 01-- ( )Yes ( )No n/a because_ The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terns of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and allow the project to be constructed as per the plans submitted,as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws would involve ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS v ' PETITION FORM practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The following written statement has been submitted with this application: ( )For all Variance requests a written Statement of Hardship demonstrating the following must be attached: a) Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land,building,or structure involved, generally not affecting other lands,buildings,and structures in the same district; b) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involved substantial hardship to the applicant;and c) Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good,and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. O For all Special Permit requests a Statement of Grounds must be attached. An application for a special permit for a nonconforming use or structure shall include a statement demonstrating how the proposed change shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood in accordance with Art. V, §5-3. Such a statement should include reference to the following criteria: a) Social,economic,or community needs served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Impacts on the natural environment,including drainage; e) Neighborhood character; and f) Potential fiscal impact,including impact on City tax base and employment. Previous applications to the Board of Appeals involving this property have been submitted with this petition form. The Building Commissioner can provide documentation ofprevious applications to the petitioner or his representative. Mol (� etWaWGS Ifdifferentfrompeddoner: Petitionert nXdG' —pU 05 Property Owner. Address: r1474,l M �j Address: Tele hone:97s? rl © `aqq Telephone- ALe SI N _ Signature(Attached consent letter is also acceptable) �(3 Date Date Ifdierent from petitioner: A TRUE 1 ATTEST Representative: LgL—V) h (7C1Hn Address: X2/3 t2y VT 1 D/1 r00 au-It Telephone: Signature Date DATE SUBMITTED TO BOARD OF APPEALS: r , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PETITION FORM CITY CLERK This original application must be filed with the City Clerk. �f From: Kevin M. Dalton rkevdaltCalmsn.coml Senn Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:59 PM To: Robin Stein Cc- Beth Rennard; Kevin M. Dalton; Joe Correnti, John Carr; Helen Papadopolous; Pat DeSantis; Thomas St. Pierre Subject: FW: LUSSIER vs. PEABODY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, 447 Mass. 531 Robin: Here is the Lussie decision which I referred you to in our telephone call yesterday. Lussie< is really just a minor extension of a decision out of Rockport (copy to follow) dating back many years which says that a variance or special permit is conditional upon continuing compliance with the design plans submitted in support of the application for a variance or special permit. If the land owner materially changes the structure, without first obtaining additional zoning relief, the original special permit or variance lapses. The land owner's only'recourse is to obtain a new or modified special permit or variance. In our case, Sideropolos has built a substantial additon to the gas station building approved by the ZBA back in 1970, without fust obtaining the additional required zoning relief from the ZBA. Compliance with the building design submitted to the ZBA back in 1970 is a clear, express condition of the 1970 special permit. That condition was blatantly violated when Sideropolos constructed the 1800 square foot addition. The building inspector never should have issued the building permit and for that reason he should now revoke both the building permit'and the occupancy permit. Mr. Sideropolos can then apply to the ZBA for the required zoning relief and this controversy can be resolved in the proper public forum. Clear cutting of the trees was also a material violation of another express condition of the 1970 special permit which caused that special permit to lapse. The btiilding inspector does not have jurisdictional authority to waive that violation and issue new conditions. Any such conditions which the building inspector may purport to impose are unenforceable because; of that lack of authority. Only the ZBA can deal with those violations and issue new, enforceable conditions meant to address the violations of the 1970 conditions. Barlow v Planning Board of Wayland. 64 Mass App Ct 314,321 (2005) (substantive amendments to special permit conditions are subject to the same procedural requirements for notice and public hearing, and the same decision making standards, as the original grant). Note that the dual primary uses (gas station and convenience store) and expanded structure might have been legitimized under the six year statute of limitations set forth in Section 6 of C. 40A, if this situation were allowed to persist much longer. As for piggy-backing the retail/convenience store use, upon the specially permitted gas station use, I think it fundamentally self evident that this can not be done without first obtaining a new or modified special permit from your ZBA. Certainly, the 1970 ZBA never contemplated the intensification which will accompany this additional primary retail use when it granted the special permit back in 1970. It doesn't matter that the retail use may be permitted as of right. What matters is that the proposed retail use will make a material change in the intensity of the use of the site, thus necessitating ZBA review and further zoning relief before it may be allowed. If Sideropolos were correct in his contention that one can add a use permitted as of right to a specially permitted use, as of right, than one could add spy of the uses permitted as of right in the subject zoning district, on top of the gas station use, without any ZBA review whatsoever. This is an illogical, nonsensical outcome which is strongly disfavored in the interpretation of zoning ordinances and by laws. The rule (that one can't add, as of right, a use permissible as of right, on top of a specially permitted use) is so fundamental that I don't think you will find any case law directly on point, prohibiting such an illogical scenario. However, I suggest you shift the burden to Sideropolos and ask him to cite you some authority permitting a land owner to add back or piggyback a use permitted as of right, to a specially permitted use, without having to first obtain a new special permit or modification. I sincerely doubt that there is any authority supporting such a position. The occupancy permit should also be revoked because there has been no use of the site as a gas station for more than two years, resulting in an abandonment of the 1970 special permit(under both Chapter 40a and relevant provisions of your Zoning Ordinance). Further, even though the building permit may have issued to Sideropolos prior to the effective date.of the 2009 Zoning Ordinance, construction has not proceeded in a reasonably diligent fashion as per Section 6, and therefore the project is fully subject to the requirements of the 2009 Zoning Ordinance - it is not grandfathered to any extent under the prior version of the Zoning Ordinance. Without limitation, Sections 5.1.10, 6.3 and 8.2 of the 2009 Zoning Ordinance now apply to this site. I must reserve all rights to contest the dimensional compliance of the structure as I have not had an opportunity to review the plans that accompanied the building permit application, or the application, nor have we had an opportunity to confirm the setbacks listed on the application and plans, through an inspection in the field. I have been told that the plan filed with the application depicted a rear yard set back of thirty feet, plus or minus, which, in my opinion, would be insufficient to warrant issuance of a building permit, given the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement in this zone. In sum, we would like to see the building inspector and the City come down on the right side of this issue, by enforcing what is clear law and precedent and revoke the occupancy permit. Mr. Siderropolos cannot legally use the site for a gas station without first obtaining additional zoning relief from the ZBA and any such use made without first obtaining such relief is illegal and in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 40A. This is not the first time, and it won't be the last time, that a building inspector may have mistakenly issued a building permit after which he is obliged to revoke the building permit and any ensuing occupancy permit. Neither the Building Inspector nor the municipality is estopped in such circumstances. Nichols v Cambridge. 26 Mass App Ct 631, 634-35(1988). I look forward to hearing from you after you have had a chance to review and consider this email and the two decisions I am forwarding along to you. I also need you to provide me with the date on which the occupancy permit issued, so I can measure my clients' thirty day appeal period accordingly. Thanks, Kevin March 25, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Salem 120 Washington Street, 3rd Floor Salem, MA 01970 RE: Notice of Appeal under G.L. c. 40A,Section 8 Appellant: Helen and George Papadopoulos 14 Buffum Street Salem, MA 01970 Nature of Appeal: Unable to obtain enforcement action from the Building Inspector to revoke the Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy for the property of 111- 113 North St.for non-compliance of the 1970 Board of Appeals decision. While the Inspector initially withheld the Certificate of Occupancy,he ultimately issued the Certificate of Occupancy on February 25, 2013. Grounds for Appeal: a. Appellants sought enforcement action by way of Attorney Scott Grover who initially requested the revocation of the Building Permit on January 12, 2009 (document A-7). b. The Appellants enforcement request was addressed in Tom St. Pierre's letter dated January 30, 2009,in which he stated that the Certificate of Occupancy would be held up until issue was resolved (document A-9). c. On February 25, 2013,the Certificate of Occupancy was issued because the Building Inspector determined that the developer had complied with the conditions set forth in the 1970 Board of Appeals decision, and that the developer could add a retail convenience store use in addition to the gas station use as a right. However, the developer has not complied with all the conditions of the 1970 decision,and the retail/convenience store use cannot be added as of right and the reasons are set forth in attorney Kevin Dalton's email to Robin Stein dated March 5, 2013, and thus we are requesting that both the building and occupancy permits be revoked until such time as developer comes into compliance. d. The public documents relevant to this dispute are as follows: A-1: 1970 Board of Appeal Decision A-2 July 16, 1970,letter of David Doyle to Board of Appeals A-3: Photograph of Service Station Building located in Arlington, MA A-4: Proposed Plot Plan 111-113 North Street dated January 27, 1970 A_5: Kenneth J. Lussier vs. Peabody Zoning Board of Appeals,447 Mass. 531 A-6: Joseph P. DiGiovanni vs. Board of Appeals of Rockport, 19 Mass.App. Ct. 339 A-7: January 12, 2009,letter of Scott Grover to Thomas St. Pierre; A-8: January 12, 2009,letter of Paul Prevey to Thomas St. Pierre; A-9: January 30, 2009,letter of Thomas St. Pierre to Haralampos Sidiropoulos; A-10: November 17, 2011,letter of City Council to Thomas St. Pierre; A-11: December 6, 2011, letter of Thomas St. Pierre to Council President and Members; A-12: July 11, 2007, Building Addition Concept Plan for 111 North St.; A-13: June 25, 2008, Building Permit Application for 111 North Street; A-14: February 25, 2013,signed Certificate of Occupancy; A-13: February 25, 2013, signed Building Permit; A-16: Aerial view of 111 North Street prior to removal of buffer in October, 2008 Relief Request: The Appellants request that the board exercise powers pursuant to the Massachusetts Zoning Act to reverse the decision of the Inspector by revoking both the Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy and ordering cease and desist of illegal use of site until it comes into compliance. Also requesting that the following conditions be ordered to address the violation: 1. Complete Michael Blier's landscaping plan,agreed to in December, 2011, by planting the remaining twenty-seven (27) 12-14 foot acer rubrums (maples) and eight(8) rhododendrons; 2. A maintenance plan to include watering, feeding, and weed control for minimum of 5 years to ensure successful growth; 3. The plantings are to be guaranteed by owner for a minimum of two years. Any planting that dies or fails to thrive is to be replaced at owner's expense. 4. The ongoing future maintenance of the landscaping shown on the Planting Plan becomes an obligation of any owner of the property and a condition to a Certificate of Occupancy for the property, S. No snow/ice stockpiled on planting beds to insure plant material thrives and matures; 6. Continued maintenance of in-ground irrigation system to water the plantings; 7. Continued maintenance of six (6) foot privacy fence on site; 8. Continued maintenance of retaining wall; 9. Escrow account of$5K to be used to replace plantings after two (2)year warranty expires; 10. Buffer to run with the land in perpetuity and referenced in abutters' deeds, in order to forever protect abutters and neighborhood from commercial activity; 11. Maintain property torear.gnd Sj 13. No business activity behind the building (i.e. deliveries,trash removal, employee activity, etc.). Back door to be used for emergency exit only; 14. Lighting in rear of building to be removed; 15.Lighting from light post on Yeannakopoulos'side to be directed away from Yeannakopoulos home; 16. Fencing for 16 Buffum St.to be repaired/replaced; 17. Rear of building to be painted a neutral color chosen by abutters and must be maintained; 18. Hours of operation for gas station and retail use to be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. No 24-hour retail/gas use; 19. Loading and unloading (this includes the servicing of dumpsters and the delivery of fuel) from 8:00 a.m. till 10:00 p.m; no servicing of dumpsters before 9:00 a.m. on weekends and holidays; 20. All of abutters reasonable attorneys'and landscaper fees to be reimbursed/paid by developer. L" Respectfully submitted, qdc P ado00 Helen Papadopoul s AV 44&wi4� George Pa adop ulos Us AUG 1 J 3 42 PN '70uttr of3�3�r�tl CITY ...3Tyj'01�` � "f ITTON 'OF SHF.r.r, OIL C0}tpANy, INC. , FOR WILLIAM f. n01pTiAL.� �nall.� n'aouLncll 1 '•�� J (• f i'R.ITT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF Jo:<nn r, DOYLI BTLE S"VICF: STATION AT 111=11 AN AUTET RR '""" I °"Ai• 11. DF:MOLTT.ION OF F•.XISrXNG SF,RVICE: STATION ATFSAID LOCATION. AIIII,YA lAgIf"Cpye ,1"fly f• rANlN The Inspector -Of Buildin?,s refused to' issue a ""ice station at this locutinn' a's the 'existin permit to construct a new for this district , zoned B-.1, Neit;hboi'hood busine•sse and nreferred peton , t t on.L•nf; company to the Board of Appeals.' The City Zonin pet •Lows such a use in accordance 'with Section he Ci uS e' Ordinance al- rl-1 Distriets" , when permission is obtained from theeBoardPof�At Uses. lrearin was Appeals. the petitioner, dabrutters ,this aboard PPORI members, and.to notices mailed postpaid to Published in the Salem Eveninr News. ' others, and advertisements All Board members we tend. re present, excepting Mr. Doyle who was . unable to at- Counselor David T.' Doyle appeared for petitioning Gallagher of said company, company with Mr. Edward Appearing iloa , M si. with the Ward Cournhlllor George McOabe Yeannakopoulos , Mr. ' Ercha , Fir. . a+ld Mrs. Wm. Heffernan and Mr, and Mrs. Robert Nelson. + were Nfr, + Mr. James Godfrey, The Board studied the facts presented by the petitioner and and it was the opinion of the Board that since a service statin eptly in at. thi, location, that a g op and and would be in tR .was Pres- the best interests of. the community and" thewas district. it _ was the further opinion of the Hoard that the demolition of the station grid the egnstruction of' a new station of colonial 'desi Promote the present Public health, safety, convenience, morals and the'-welfare of the inhabitants .o.f the City., At a meeting of the Board helii on Jul 2 to issue a Spacial Old- On dhell Oil Company ,it was unanimously voted oline service station of colonial design._ P y, Inc. ) to cnpstruct a station buildingin cruor rmity with the. service Avenue in Arlington, existing at the corner of g ( service nitted to- g. + Massachusetts, as shown in photof;ra 1 the this IIoard; the petitioner sha.12 have the further fblia1Q sitb- �f the maintenance of the property to the rear line-* bhe said b Potion ui.lding and the landscaping shall be in ' the con� ':ruct.i.on of �lan's ' subm3tted' by the petitioners to meet the ob;fectionsnof t1ehnthe rrew )nd which are further .incorporated In a letter from.Ie Y', David T. eif'O t t,, , Doyle,. to the Board, datdd .Jul Petitioners ' attor- ind letter become an into y isi 1. and said integral part of this decision. Plans ;PFCIAL PERMIT GRANTED AS REQUESTED. BOARD OF APP IS Ars BY1 , Act. ) Secretary DOYLE a DOYLE ATTORNEYS-AT.LAW gja�•I;iAi�1 81 WA9{INGM44TREET F . 3 o, lOgpM OOYL019M fisc tQ 3 ui F� ° � • 10UPN P.0Wnj J1{ Pi14N . M 74406.'fJ . ""P T.a0Y6q ' - wumeetioouMNo ptT SALEM, i4ASS. Jsily 16, 197C •11OARV. OF 'APPRAT:S . -City of Snl.rr+ Kalem, MAssaehusP'ttn Gentlemen: This- office rr - -.ja S11 Oil Com prttp concerning a spPrial permit for rhe r-ristruction of a ga.4oline service station at -11.1--113 Nnrrh ^I-rret, Salem, Mnssnr-Mistt'tt°s. A he.Aring was held•'hnfnrr flit, figs. Bonrd on April. 1• , 1970, at which time tb'e Rnnrll rhe- matter'undPr advisenrnt. Subsequent thereto th- rnp-d stit*Testrd that Attorfiey George F. McCabe in 'bis carnr{ty ns Ward 6 Councillor and I as ' the Attorney. for Sh0 t Oil Company attempt to resolve. the s problems preented ry thr nr,.?hhnrs.. In conformity with ' the aOArd's directive, !-.c hn,ve had di-senss{nn a• toith all parties concerned. To•-meet the nhPcttvns of the neighbors, the plans have been modif{ed in the following manner. 1. Chnnged landscaping on the left hand side 'of thn pronrrhy to alleviate compTsaint ahnut !*rade conditions nnct to keen- the retaining; wall there.(YeA'nnakopol-ous side) . 2: Moved the rear vnrd pa•ramet+t linP ten (IN fPet fltri�hrr at,7Ay from the rea+ property line. - .3: Chang pd .thr.' locltion of. the nndorlronne tinks so that they are now (,loser to the street.. .m 4; Relocated the five foot Cednr srrecn • fence to rhr top of the slope in the. 'rear- to further screen the snrv9.c„ station yard 'from the rens, and the cid� nrnrertics. 5.-- Relocat-ed the rubbish area Ernm the rear of-thentation to the side. DOYLE 8 DOYLF PF rE„` ATTORNEYS-AT.LAW NGTON STRIECT SA�AMAMACHUSEM „ o, � �� MUM r.porta . MpoF.Calla. a, PHOM 744OM CITT :,.�:. � 'a �rFICE Milo T."Ooyte „ M„CE,cC,,, M�„y SALEM, MASS. �, Jzly tb, 1970 6. Chnn *cd t:hn f r^r°n nr. /fi 1=. '� hai�ht of h ard 'to red:;ce .the ov�ra7_t !! r ? t: etntion prorerty, 7. A;tre.e..d' to, fi24ve 411 Iho- tr•7p.a to the rear, clear the area of. the rnr]• p'�bcp�inK willows, iri the treeI ,sc ' area of, the rr_nf 8.' Chnn-ed 'th(,- tr.nrl :n^ nn thn ri +ht side 'of the station CTobin side) 9. Mede known to tho -, 7t.�r.4 that Shell pit Crmnnny, Inc. was .agree8h?.a to r h t^r r fr.t%M a Colonial. to a P,anch Style design to reduc- ''11:. .,,:,,ra11. heir seen from a rear. >�rr h` o€ thr h,ti 1dinT as willing to do .th.i.s iP r ctiye. Tha �Crmpany is still the Roard deems 'it ndvisabl.r_', A new .Plan incorporating+ c11: of thesa ..chAnoea has Fitnrl ' with theI Rnilding inercctnr, Mr. Onn'iohere r, 7. 6t'- oa]nn, along a letter from Attorney Georf!e McCabe, I do ethat the neighbors and Attorney rpor!Te MoCabp stiz1 obier,t t� the eervice •stat9.bn and no afire-mrnl- r•^xvi.d he rear hed *het the, special permit could her on on the conil1tion.R as herein specified. As I said at the m^Ptlnc! hernrr .,rn,r 7innrA, ,F� old servi.ce' atation_will remnin• itt rev �.. `tl of. this 3pecinl Pew rmit ilt t �nt ndhi r,n hn oc.tn�ent nd't on of coloninl desirm with constrt)ctton nr.� aca tia?tion ( ncrc aI�pro�cimate $180,000.00. to ll.1.7 I rft At.fitys roxtemsi+tinK rh Hcaod 'cr. F.zvorrhl ,. on thi..s Permit at it'c no i 970. Thenk _•ou for your con, ider^tion, NJ ndm•, Jn1v 271 ' MI:Mm David T. . Do_.in 1. Cr,: Hi11.i�m 113hott James H. Roul,gPr CC: rmory Tarc't john M, Gray' Sr. Norman i7slr:h Arthur R. Attorney Ganri*e Pfc( nh� T,aRroc•oue i A -3 •#R� f 9 r se t , tij+t L d b l 4 + S ti iR 3 ,,s b-i` 4a t a'S a xs d R e �i x lrc t YY t £t Y� 'R '� :F °� g-� 4j � � a e �+q+. S t. ;.- £ - T9t •� i � _ �a r trie � l� � s+'�'� } fib P � t } fi°-' 3� aw.v#t:�E,��'S `v ( vi Yt k '. x y•{. ,Mk i # F t �4r i r tfiF VE �} si t' i. Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 21:02:11 -0500 _� To: kevdaltnmsn.com k KENNETH J. LUSSIER vs. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF PEABODY & others. [Note 1 447 Mass. 531 September 5, 2006 - October 12, 2006 Essex County Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, & CORDY, JJ. Zoning, Variance, Conditions. Municipal Corporations, By-laws and ordinances. Words, "Garage." This court concluded that a city's zoning board of appeals properly imposed conditions on a variance, apparent on its face, that limited the use of an addition to the plaintiff homeowner's property to that of a garage, and that limited its size. [533-536] CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 24, 2004. The case was heard by Patrick J. Riley, J., on a motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Leonard F. Femino for Ronald A. Sheehan & another. John R. Keilty for the plaintiff. CORDY, J. The zoning board of appeals of Peabody (board) granted a variance that permitted a homeowner to construct "an addition (22' x 22' attached garage)" with a sideyard setback of one foot, instead of the required twenty feet. Several years later, the homeowner sought and obtained a building permit to construct a second:story on the garage that exceeded its "22' x 22' " footprint and was to be used as living space. After the second-story addition was built, the board ruled that a new or modified variance was required. That ruling was reversed by a Superior Court judge who entered summary judgment for the homeowner. We reverse, concluding that the board properly imposed conditions on the variance, apparent on its face, limiting Page 532 the use of the addition to that of a garage, and its size to be twenty-two feet by twenty-two feet. Construction of an addition contrary to these conditions requires a new or modified variance. 1. Background. The following facts are not disputed in the summary judgment record. In 1995, the owner of a parcel of land, 719 Lowell Street, obtained a variance allowing construction of a garage attached to his residence. Located in an R-I zoning district, the land was subject to an ordinance requiring a twenty-foot sideyard setback from the property line. The variance specifically permitted the construction of"an addition (22' x 22' attached garage) showing a left side yard of 1 feet rather than 20 feet required." Plans submitted with the application for the variance showed a one-story, two-vehicle garage. The plans were neither attached nor incorporated by reference into the variance decision. Kenneth Lussier purchased the land in July, 1996, and subsequently built the garage as permitted by the variance. In October, 2003, Lussier applied for and received a building permit for the construction of a second story above the attached garage. As built, this second story exceeds the twenty-two foot by twenty-two foot footprint of the garage. o e 2 The second story was built for and is used as living space. [Note 31 The second-story addition does not implicate (or violate) any rule of the city of Peabody zoning ordinance other than the hventy-foot sideyard requirement for which the original variance had been granted. Note 4 Ronald A. Sheehan and Catherine E. Sheehan own the Page 533 property abutting Lussier's left sideyard. The Sheehans opposed the building of the second-story addition to Lussier's garage in 2003 and made written demand on the Peabody building inspector for an enforcement action prohibiting its construction. The building inspector refused to take the action and the Sheehans appealed to the board. Meanwhile, construction of the addition proceeded. The board granted the Sheehans' requested relief on the grounds that the second-story addition violated the sideyard requirement, as well as the terms and conditions of the 1995 variance that was granted for an attached twenty-two foot by twenty-two foot garage, and that the second-story addition exceeded the scope of relief requested in the original public hearing for the 1995 variance. The board ruled that the addition required a new variance or modification of the previous variance and overturned the building inspector's refusal of an enforcement action. Lussier appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17. Note 5 Lussier moved for summary judgment requesting that the judge vacate the board's decision and affirm the building inspector's underlying decision permitting construction. The board and the Sheehans opposed summary judgment on the grounds that the dimensions and use stated in the variance were conditions on which it was granted and a limitation on further expansion absent a new variance. Following argument, the Superior Court judge entered summary judgment for Lussier, vacating the board's decision and affirming the decision of the building inspector. The judge did not explain the basis of his ruling granting summary judgment. The board and the Sheehans appealed from the judgment, and we transferred the case from the Appeals Court on our own motion. 2. Scope of the 1995 variance. In granting a variance, a board may "impose conditions, safeguards and limitations both of Page 534 time and of use, including the continued existence of any particular structure." G. L. c. 40A, § 10. Variances are not allowed as a matter of right and should be "sparingly granted." Barron Chevrolet, Inc. v. Danvers, 44 Mass, 404 , 408 (1995), quoting Mendes v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 28 Mass Al2p t 527 , 531 12 (1990). Consequently, the language of a variance "is to be construed against the individual requesting the variance, rather than against the granting authority." DiGiovanni v. Board of Appeals of Rockport, 1919 Masa. gyp. Ct. 339 , 347 (1985). Mendoza v. Licensing Bd. of Fall River, 444 Mass. 188 , 206 (2005) ( "Where there is ambiguity on the face of a variance decision, it should be resolved against the holder of the variance"). Read in this light, the 1995 variance, on its face, imposes conditions on the variance. It limits the use to that of a "garage," limits the size to "22' x 22,' " and requires that it be "attached" to the house. Eote 61 The term "garage" is not defined in the zoning ordinance. "[W]ords undefined by zoning laws and ordinances are to be construed in accordance with common understanding and usage." Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Chatham, 52 Mass. App, Ct. 349 , 361 n.16 (2001), citing Williams v. Inspector of Bldgs. of Belmont, 341341 M�88 , 191 (1960); Langevin v. Superintendent of Pub. Bldgs. of Worcester, 5-Ma5s, App. t 892 , 892 (1977), and cases cited. A "garage" is generally accepted to be a place to store motor vehicles and household items. See Building Inspector of Falmouth v. Gingrass, 338 Masa 274 , 275 (1959) (building permit authorizing garage on single-residence lot did not permit storage of seaplane but rather of automobiles); Riverbank Improvement Co. v. Bancroft, 209 Mass. 217 , 222 (1911) ("garage is defined as 'a stable for motor-cars' "). ote 71 We have no difficulty concluding that the 1995 variance was limited to the construction of a building to be used for the storage of motor vehicles. The construction of a second floor for use as living Page 535 space violates the limiting condition of the variance that the addition be a "garage." The variance also specified dimensions of twenty-two feet by twenty-two feet. While the first story satisfies that condition, anything beyond that footprint exceeds the scope of the variance. Regardless whether the second story overhangs the garage in the front or in the rear, or both, it exceeds the footprint permitted by the variance. In order for conditions on a variance to be binding, they must be set forth in the variance decision itself. Mendoza v. Licensing Bd. of Fall River, supra at 205 ("Purchasers of property or their attorneys are not expected or required to look behind the face of recorded variance decisions to ascertain their effective scope . . ."). 8 P.J. Rohan, Zoning and Land Use Controls § 43.03[2] (2005) ("Conditions must be sufficiently definite to apprise both the applicant and interested landowners of what can and cannot be done with the land"). Rochester Historical Soc'y, Inc. v. Crowley, 14 A.D.2d 490, 490 (N.Y. 1961) (setting aside zoning board grant containing indefinite conditions due to lack of guidance in construction of terms). Warren v. Frost, 111 R.I. 217, 221 (1973) (conditions on variance running with land must be specific and clearly stated, preventing future speculation). The fact that the terms limiting the use and size of the addition are set forth in parentheses in the 1995 variance decision, however, is of no consequence. While it might have been preferable for the variance to have explicitly denominated these terms as conditions, their use as such is apparent on its face and in the context of the grant. Here, the variance permitted construction within a one-foot sideyard setback instead of the required twenty feet. The construction and use of a personal garage create a significantly less disturbing encroachment on abutting property than a living area. A living space often requires more complicated construction; results in more noise, light, and comings and goings than a garage; and diminishes the level of privacy enjoyed by an abutter. It would be unreasonable to ignore the word "garage" in this context merely because it is within parentheses. The 1995 variance permitting an addition one foot from the abutting property was granted on the condition that the addition be a "garage." Page 536 [W]hen a variance is granted for a project 'as shown by . . . plans' . . . the variance requires strict compliance with the plans, at least as far as the site location and the bulk of buildings are concerned." DiGiovanni v. Board of Appeals of Rockport, supra at 346-347. Here, Lussier's predecessor in title submitted plans with his application for the 1995 variance, but those plans were not incorporated into the variance. [Note 81 While the incorporation of the plans would have been helpful in determining the scope of the variance, a variance need not have plans attached to contain a limiting condition. Here, the words specifying the size and use of the addition are sufficient to constitute limitations on the variance, and to provide notice thereof. 4. Conclusion. The judgment of the Superior Court is vacated and a new judgment shall enter affirming the board's decision that the second-story addition exceeds the scope of the 1995 variance. So ordered. FOOTNOTES [Note I] Ronald A. Sheehan and Catherine E. Sheehan. ote 21 The parties dispute the amount by which the second story exceeds the twenty-two foot by twenty- two foot footprint. In his application for a building permit, Lussier proposed a twenty-two foot by twenty-six foot second level. The defendants submitted conflicting statements, in one instance stating the second story overhangs the garage by one foot in front, and one foot in the rear. At oral argument, counsel for Lussier conceded that the addition overhangs the garage in the front and the rear. The board heard evidence that the second story was not within the original footprint but that the protrusion was not into the sideyard abutting the Sheehans' property. [Note 31 To the extent the summary judgment record may have been unclear on the use of the second story, the parties agreed at oral argument that this was an undisputed fact. ote 41 The parties apparently agree that the height of the second story is within zoning restrictions. The applicable zoning ordinance provides a thirty-foot height restriction for property in an R-I zone. We need not address whether the construction of a second story used in a manner consistent with that of a garage and built within the footprint of the first floor would be within the 1995 variance, as those are not the facts before us. ote 51 In relevant part, G. L. c. 40A, § 17, provides: "Any person aggrieved by a decision of the board of appeals or any special permit granting authority . . . whether or not previously a party to the proceeding, or any municipal officer or board may appeal to the . . . superior court department in which the land concerned i% situated . . . by bringing an action within twenty days after the decision has been filed in the office of the city or town clerk." ote 6 There is no dispute that the garage is "attached" to the house. ote 71 While the Peabody zoning ordinance does not define "garage," it defines the term "[c]ommunity garage" as a "group of private garages . . . having a capacity of not more than ten(10) cars, arranged in a row or surrounding a common means of access and erected for the use of owners having no private garage on their individual lots." Lh[ote 8 The only reference to plans in the board's letter granting the variance is the word "showing" in the statement, "Permission is granted to construct an addition (22' x 22' attached garage) showing a left side yard of 1 feet rather than 20 feet required." This is insufficient to constitute an incorporation of the plans. • Home/Search • Table of Cases by Citation • Table of Cases by Name • Disclaimer Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Trial Court Law Libraries. Questions about legal information? Contact Reference Librarians. Subject: DIGIOVANNI vs. BOARD OF APPEALS OF ROCKPORT, 19 Mass.App. Ct. 339 From: Jaccuidalt&msn com Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 21:07:52 -0500 To: kevdaltCcDmsn com JOSEPH P. DIGIOVANNI &another Note 11 vs. BOARD OF APPEALS OF ROCKPORT&another. Noe 2 19 Mass. App. Ct. 339 September 13, 1984- February 13, 1985 Essex County Present: WARNER, KAPLAN, & ROSE, JJ. Since the judge who heard a proceeding for judicial review of a decision by a town's board of appeals respecting an application for a zoning variance lacked the power to substitute a form of relief different from that requested from the board, it was error for him to characterize the application as an appeal from the building inspector's stop work order and to conclude that the application was constructively granted by the board's failure to act on it within the time specified by G. L. c. 40A, Section 15. [343-345] A town's board of appeals did not exceed its authority in denying a land developer's petition for a zoning variance where construction already undertaken by the developer on the locus was in violation of a preexisting variance, where the only "hardship"which the developer suffered was the cost of correcting the unlawful siting of his buildings, and where the board did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in requiring the developer to conform his construction to the express terms of the variance. [345-350] CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Gloucester Division of the District Court Department on June 1, 1982. The case was heard by James W. Killam, III, J. The case was submitted on briefs. David Lee Turner for the defendants. Walter H. McLaughlin, Jr., for the plaintiffs. ROSE, J. The board of appeals of Rockport(board)appeals from the judgment of the District Court(denominated "Findings of the Court") annulling the board's decision that partially Page 340 denied DiGiovanni's petition for a variance. (Note 31 The board also contests the order of a District Court judge purporting to reinstate DiGiovanni's building permits. In the District Court, DiGiovanni successfully argued that a petition he submitted to the board on February 12, 1982, was constructively granted because the board did not act upon it within the statutory time limit. The judge also accepted his alternative argument that the board acted arbitrarily in denying him all the relief requested in a second, March 5, 1982, petition. The relevant facts may be summarized as follows. In 1978, DiGiovanni obtained a variance from the board to construct a cluster development on Rowe Point in Rockport. This variance was granted for a development "as shown by the plans submitted to (and on file with)this Board."At subsequent meetings, DiGiovanni asserts, he showed the board plans("1980 plans") that disclosed modifications of the 1978 plans, including, among other things, changes in the location, orientation and design of the buildings. DiGiovanni concedes, however, that he never specifically called these modifications to the board's attention. Later, the Rockport building inspector issued foundation and building permits on the basis of the 1980 plans. After DiGiovanni had poured eighteen foundations and substantially completed four units, the building inspector issued a stop work order. The building inspector's letter explained that the order was issued because construction was not in accordance with DiGiovanni's 1978 plans. It went on to state that DiGiovanni could request a modification of the 1978 variance or appeal the stop work order to the board pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, Section 15. [Note 4 The form the board provides for zoning-related matters contains four"boxes."Applicants mark a box to indicate whether they are seeking a special permit or a variance or are taking an appeal from an attached decision. For the uncertain, a fourth box, marked "and such other and further relief as the Board Page 341 deems appropriate," is provided. On February 12, 1982, DiGiovanni filed with the town clerk a form that requested "and such other and further relief as the Board deems appropriate." Specifically, he asked that the board grant "further relief from the plans that are on file with the Board of Appeals"concerning "Knowlton's Field." Note 51 He did not attach the building inspector's stop work order to the form (as is required for"appeals"), nor did he specify what "further relief' he wanted. On February 23, 1982, DiGiovanni met informally with the board. The substance of the discussion, as reflected by the minutes, was that DiGiovanni felt he was in substantial compliance with the 1978 plans. The board, however, apparently felt that a public hearing and modification of the variance would be required before he could continue construction. On March 5, 1982, DiGiovanni filed a second application with the town clerk. Although he checked none of the boxes on this application, he specified therein that this version was a"[p]etition . . . for modification of[a] variance . . . so that the building configurations and placements can be as shown on the[modified] plan . . . attached hereto." What subsequently became of the February 12 application was the subject of conflicting testimony at trial. The town clerk recalled that he had returned the application to DiGiovanni on March 5. DiGiovanni had no such recollection. The board's secretary testified that her files contained no February 12 form. The town clerk testified that the log he kept of zoning-related applications contained no record of the February 12 application. He further stated that no copy of the form remained in his office after he returned the February 12 application to DiGiovanni. The clerk admitted that he did not usually return such documents to applicants. DiGiovanni had two copies of the February 12 application in his possession. One bore the clerk's"original"stamp, the other was a photocopy. The town clerk could not remember whether DiGiovanni had submitted two copies and had both stamped or whether there was only Page 342 one stamped copy of which a photocopy was made for DiGiovanni's records. [Note 61 On March 30, 1982, the board held a hearing on DiGiovanni's March 5 application. In the course of that meeting DiGiovanni's lawyer stated that"[w]e have appealed the decision of the Building Inspector." Later, the lawyer asserted, "We are asking for relief. We did miscalculate. There's no question about it."The board's decision, filed May 12, 1982, treated DiGiovanni's application as a petition for modification of the 1978 variance. The board granted some relief but denied several of DiGiovanni's requests. Pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, Section 17, DiGiovanni appealed to the District Court. The trial judge found, in substance, that DiGiovanni's February 12 application was an appeal of the stop work order, and was constructively granted because the board failed to act upon it within the time limit specified by G. L. c. 40A, Section 15. He found that the board's secretary picked up applications once a week on Friday and that DiGiovanni's February 12 application was found in a board file folder. The judge further found that even if the February 12 application had been a request for modification of the 1978 variance, DiGiovanni was entitled to the variance as a matter of right. He also found that the 1978 plans were not made a part of the 1978 variance, that DiGiovanni was not bound to follow the 1978 plans exactly, and that Rockport was"estopped"to contest changes in setback that resulted from the requirements of the town's conservation commission. The judge found that changes in the orientation of the buildings were not substantial or significant deviations from the 1978 variance and that the changes were in any event available for the board's consideration, if not impliedly approved, in 1980. Page 343 Based on these findings, the trial judge ruled that the building inspector's stop work order should not have been issued because it was not based "on any substantial evidence'; that the March 5 application was unnecessary and a "nullity"; and that the board's May 12 decision was "arbitrary and not supported by fact or law."The judge, in effect, ordered the building inspector to reissue building permits and ordered vacated"any order, decision, condition, or requirement"of the town of Rockport subsequent to the stop work order. We review the trial judge's findings and conclusions under Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 365 Mass. 816 (1974). Findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous, that is, when there is no evidence to support them or when, "although there is evidence to support[them], the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Building Inspector of Lancaster v. Sanderson, 372 Mass. 157 , 160-161 (1977), quoting from United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). The judge's conclusions of law are not binding on this court. Newburyport Soc. for the Relief of Aged Women v. Noyes, 287 Mass. 530 , 532-533 (1934). 1. Order Reinstating Building Permits. It is well settled in Massachusetts that a "court hearing an appeal from the grant or denial of a variance or a special permit is without administrative discretion. . . . [A court may not substitute]forms of relief different from those originally asked for. . . ." Geryk v. Zoning Appeals Bd. of Easthampton, 8 Mass. ADD. Ct. 683 , 684-685 (1979). The only relief DiGiovanni requested from the board was a modification of his 1978 variance. The trial judge's characterization of DiGiovanni's February 12 application as an appeal from the building inspector's stop work order is erroneous. If a somewhat ambiguously worded document is understood by all concerned to be a request for a specific form of relief, the notice requirements of G. L. c. 40A, Section 15, are satisfied. We do not exalt form over substance in such a case. See Dion v. Board of Appeals of Waltham, 344 Mass. 547 , 553-554(1962); Spalke v. Board of Appeals of Plymouth, 7 Mass. ADD. Ct. 683 , 685 Page 344 (1979). Here, however, DiGiovanni's February 12 application cannot be construed as an appeal founded on the theory that the building inspector's stop work order was wrong as matter of law. Note 71 The form of relief he requested was "and such other and further relief as the Board deems appropriate," and "further relief from the plans that are on file with the Board of Appeals." No "relief'from the previously filed plans would have been needed if DiGiovanni had intended to assert that his present construction was in substantial compliance with the 1978 variance and that the building inspector had erroneously revoked his permit. The statutory requirement that Section 15 appeals from the decisions of building inspectors "specify[] the grounds thereof we understand as mandatory rather than directory. Generally, boards of appeals are without power to act upon appeals in the absence of public hearings of which the public has been previously notified. [Note 81 The board cannot undertake to notify the public of a hearing unless the board itself has adequate notice of the form of relief petitioners request. [Note 91 Because neither the February 12 nor the March 5 petition was an appeal from the building inspector's decision, Noe 101 the trial judge lacked the power to rescind, Page 345 in effect, the building inspector's stop work order. General Laws c. 40A, Section 14, gives the board only the"powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken." If there is no appeal, the board is without power; if the board has no power, the reviewing court likewise has none. "The board's decision may not[on appeal] be treated as if it were a decision in an appeal [from the building inspector's decision]." Pelletier v. Board of Appeals of Leominster, 4 Mass: Apo, Ct. 58 , 61 (1976). This same reasoning also prevents a too vaguely worded application from being constructively granted in accordance with G. L. c. 40A, Section 15. "Zoning relief granted constructively is not beyond judicial review. The relief so granted may be tested on appeal under G. L. c. 40A, Section 17, to determine whether facts exist which would have enabled the board to grant the relief. Were it otherwise a board of appeals could, through nonaction, put flagrantly unlawful zoning relief beyond judicial review." Girard v. Board of Appeals of Easton, 14 Mass. ADp, Ct. 334 , 338 (1982). Because boards cannot grant unrequested relief, and because DiGiovanni's February 12 application was not an appeal from the building inspector's decision, a constructive grant of this unrequested relief cannot survive appellate review. [Note 111 Page 346 2. Nullification of the Board's May 12 Decision. The trial judge's primary reason for nullifying the board's May 12 decision was that no modification of the 1978 variance was necessary because DiGiovanni had substantially complied with it. Note 121 This conclusion was based on his determination that the 1978 plans were not incorporated by reference into the 1978 variance, but that the 1978 variance, which was "thoughtfully and deliberately worded,"contained "[only] seven conditions."The judge's decision was "predicated solely on documentary evidence [and] permits the appellate court to draw its own conclusions from the record." Edwin R. Sage Co. v. Foley, 12 Mass. ADD. Ct. 20 , 26 (1981). The 1978 variance contained the following language: "Mhe siting of the buildings . . . will vindicate the purposes of the building separation and setback requirements. . . . Accordingly, a variance is granted so as to permit a 'cluster' development of eighteen units as shown by the plans submitted to (and on file with)this Board. . . ." We think it axiomatic that when a variance is granted for a project"as shown by . . . plans"that on their face give no indication that they are preliminary plans, Note 131 the variance requires Page 347 strict compliance with the plans, at least as far as the site location and the bulk of buildings are concerned. In granting a variance, a board may "impose conditions, safeguards and limitations both of time and of use, including the continued existence of any particular structures." G. L. c. 40A, Section 10. Given that no one has a legal right to a variance, Rose v. Board of Appeals of Wrentham, 352 Mass. 301 , 303 (1967), we conclude that the language of a variance is to be construed against the individual requesting the variance, rather than against the granting authority. fNote 141 Therefore, the trial judge erred in finding that DiGiovanni's site plans were not of themselves a "condition" imposed by the 1978 variance. Because the 1978 plans were incorporated by reference in the 1978 variance, and because the development(as built according to the 1980 plans) differs from that shown on the 1978 plans, Note 151 it remains only to determine whether portions of DiGiovanni's Page 348 request for modification of the 1978 variance were appropriately denied by the board. [Note 16 The board's decision states that the board was"unable to find any substantial legal hardship due to circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or unique to this land."The board further found that DiGiovanni himself created the financial hardship of which he now complains. The trial judge is required to review the board's decision de novo and determine the legal validity of its decision on the facts as found by him. Pendergast v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 331 Mass 555 , 558-559 (1954). Garvey v. Board of Appeals of Amherst, 9 Mass. App. Ct. 856 , 856 (1980). The judge (hypothetically) found that even if DiGiovanni had needed a variance, "[t]he reassertion of all[1978]findings of the Board from which there has been no change plus the additional hardship of being required in effect by the Conservation Commission to increase the setback from the top of the ledge is sufficient to support the continuity of the originally granted relief." This finding is erroneous in several respects. Because we have already determined that the 1980 plans were not in substantial compliance with the 1978 variance, the board's 1978 "hardship"findings cannot be used to justify the changes DiGiovanni made. Moreover, a variance becomes for some purposes part of a town's zoning by-law. The hardships justifying the grant of a variance no longer exist precisely because a variance has been granted. DiGiovanni may not argue that the conservation commission's setback requirements constituted a hardship that justified his unilateral departure from the terms Page 349 of the 1978 variance. The hardship from which he now suffers is the cost of correcting the unlawful siting of his buildings. If the commission's requirements prevented him from complying with his 1978 plans, it was for the board, : not DiGiovanni, to provide relief. [Note 171 Finally,while we agree that it is a misfortune that DiGiovanni has built buildings where they ought not to have been built, this is not the type of hardship that justifies a variance. Stark v. Board of Appeals of Quincy, 341 Mass 118 , 122 (1960). Ferrante v. Board of Appeals of Northampton, 345 Mass. 1Q , 163 (1962). Smith v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Scituate, 347 Mass 755 , 759(1964). See Garfield v. Board of Appeals of Rockport, 356 Mass 37 , 41 (1969). Under G. L. c. 40A, Section 17, a trial judge is instructed to annual a board's decision if he finds it"to exceed the authority of[the] board." 'The judge's function on appeal was to ascertain whether the reasons given by the . . . [board] had a substantial basis in fact, or were, on the contrary, mere pretexts for arbitrary action or veils for reasons not related to the purposes of the zoning law."Vazza Properties, Inc. v. City Council of Woburn, 1 Mass Aon Ct. 308 , 312 (1973). The fact that DiGiovanni's 1980 plans and construction violated the 1978 variance "was sufficient explanation for denial of a variance,especially on a record which falls well short of establishing facts which would have authorized the board to grant a variance." Gamache v. Acushnet, 14 Mass Apt), t 215 , 220 (1982). The denial of a variance is in excess of a board's authority only when the variance has been denied solely on a legally untenable ground or when the decision is "unreasonable, whimsical, capricious, or arbitrary." Pendergast v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 331 Mass. at 557, 559-560. Whether a variance ought to be granted is an administrative decision. Ibid. The board's finding that no hardship exists is a valid Page 350 reason for denying a variance. The board did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in requiring DiGiovanni to conform some aspects of his construction to the express terms of the 1978 variance. "Mhe burden rests upon the person seeking a variance . . . to produce evidence at the hearing in the Superior Court that the statutory prerequisites have been met and that the variance is justified." Dion v. Board of Appeals of Waltham, 344 Mass. at 555-556. DiGiovanni has not satisfied this burden. Therefore, nullification of the board's decision as being in excess of its authority was error. The judgment declaring the board's May 12, 1982, decision a nullity is reversed. The order requiring that DiGiovanni and Rowe Estates, Inc., be restored to their position prior to February 4, 1982, is vacated. The order vacating "any order, decision, condition, or requirement of. . . Rockport"and the order reinstating permits and rights to build are likewise vacated. A judgment is to be entered stating that the board's decision did not exceed its authority. So ordered. FOOTNOTES Note 11 Rowe Estates, Inc., a company wholly owned by DiGiovanni which succeeded him as owner of the property that is the subject of this appeal. Note 21 The building inspector of Rockport. Noe 31 Appeals from the District Court in G. L. c. 40A, Section 17, cases are to this court. Walker v. Board of Appeals of Harwich, 388 Mass. 42 , 47-50 (1983). Note 41 References to sections of G. L. c. 40A are to those sections as they appear in St. 1975, c. 808, Section 3. Note 51 Knowlton's Field and Rowe Point are synonymous. Note 61 Uncontradicted testimony at trial revealed that it was the town clerk's practice to place applications for the board in a box in his office. On the first Friday of every month at 4:00 P.M. the board's secretary picked up applications and made arrangements for publication of the public hearing notice. February 12, 1982, was the second Friday that month. Accordingly, the board secretary would not have taken DiGiovanni's application from the clerk's box until March 5, 1982. It was on this day, the clerk testified, that DiGiovanni "withdrew"his February 12 application. Note 71 In many communities, the procedural path to a variance or special permit is to appeal to the board of appeals from a refusal of the building inspector to issue a building permit on the ground that the plans filed do not comply with the zoning regulations. When we write of an appeal from the building inspector's order in the present case, we refer to an appeal in which the appellee takes the position that he is entitled to a building permit as matter of right under the zoning regulations and that such a permit has been wrongly denied. Note 81 A reviewing court may, of course, remand cases to boards for amplification or clarification of their findings or orders. In such instances, however, a hearing has already been held and a record already exists. See also Dion v. Board of Appeals of Waltham, 344 Mass. at 553. Note 9 "We assume that failure to comply with the statutory specifications, if prejudicial, or possibly so, could entail adverse consequences to the appealing party and indeed might defeat the appeal." Richardson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham, 351 Mass. 375 , 379 (1966). While Richardson concerned an appeal from a board decision, we are persuaded that statutory compliance is equally necessary in appeals to the board. Note 101 DiGiovanni's March 5 application requested a "modification of variance."At the March 30 hearing, DiGiovanni's attorney first argued that DiGiovanni did not need a modification because his 1980 plans complied with the 1978 variance. The board refused to accept this thesis. The remainder of the hearing was devoted to the question of what sort of variance DiGiovanni needed. We do not confuse matters of strategy at a public hearing with the evident and primary subject matter of the hearing. The board plainly understood that the hearing concerned a variance, not an appeal from the building inspector's decision. This view is strengthened by the fact that DiGiovanni met informally with the board and building inspector on February 23 and pressed the fact that he had "sort of complied"with the 1978 a variance. The minutes of the February 23 meeting leave us with the impression that DiGiovanni had been put on notice that an appeal of the building inspector's decision would likely not succeed. Noe 111 There is an alternative ground for disposing of DiGiovanni's claim that his February 12 application was constructively approved. We conclude that the trial judge's findings that the February 12 application was found in a board file folder and that the board's secretary received applications from the town clerk once a week are clearly erroneous. See note 6, supra. These erroneous findings may have unduly influenced the judge's consideration, of the credibility of the town clerk, who testified that he returned the February 12 application to DiGiovanni on March 5. 'The credibility of witnesses, particularly, is a preserve of the trial judge upon which an appellate court treads with great reluctance. . . . But it is not forbidden territory."Springgate v. School Comm. of Mattapoisett, 11 Mass. Ago Ct. 304 , 310 (1981). There can be no constructive approval of applications voluntarily withdrawn from the board's consideration. Noe 121 The judge's determination that Rockport is estopped to assert deviations from the site plan occasioned by the town's conservation commission requirements is incorrect as matter of law. "The right of the public to have the zoning by-law properly enforced cannot be forfeited by the action of its officers." Cullen v. Building Inspector of No. Attleborough, 353 Mass. 671 , 675 (1968). See also Ferrante v. Board of Appeals of Northampton, 345 Mass. 158 , 162 (1962). Likewise, neither the board nor the building inspector can approve nonconforming plans"by implication." N to 13 "Examination of the plans . . . show[s] them to be complete and comprehensive portrayals of the proposed development in sufficient detail to permit determination by the board of all issues of real substance. . . . The plans were very much more than mere schematic outlines of the proposal." Balas v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Plymouth, 13 Mass. Aon. Ct. 995 , 996 (1982). Note 141 Where noncompliance amounts to a matter of inches, we might reach a different conclusion. However, a substantial shift in building locations and near obliteration of the sea view of residents across the street from the locus cannot be trivialized. Note 151 The board described the major discrepancies as follows: "First,whereas we had approved four clusters separated by no less than 15 feet, the four buildings and fourteen other foundations . . . are in six clusters, two pairs of which are separated by 6 feet 2 inches at the farthest and 3 feet 4 inches at the closest. Second, one extremely important feature of the [approved 1978 plans) . . . is a 30 foot space between the clusters at the end of the point. That space preserves a view of the ocean from Granite Street. As built, the four buildings are only 15 feet from the adjacent foundations, and the buildings and foundations are at an angle to Granite Street that would further narrow the view. ks: I ;k Third according to the[1978 plans]the buildings on.the north and south arranged m an irregular manner :s ' [f]fey were<'designed so as to give a senseof separatwn which tends to'compensate for the,lack of,actual 'd: } separation: In contrasl,othe foundations built by(DiGioyanm)are in rows more.typlcal of traditional highway motel' i , 'designs Fourth, according to the[1978.plans] all buildings are;to be at'least 275 feet from Granite Street, and our.,�� �� 1978 degision placed great importance on•'the resulting open space'as a,factor compensatingfor the lack of building , i f s separation and setback`s Itis therefore of grave concern that one of the foundatwns built by[DiG�ovanm]comes ,? n with260 feet ofIT oin k°^ e 16 Th'e board,while expres§ly findmg;no statutory hardship, pu'rpoked to grant a vanarice, whicFi'we have " been asked to review .for 'a modified plan clianging,tfie sibng'of the buildings so long as it preserves both then° '? separatwns tietween clusters and the[27S'foot] public open space between the project and Granite Street In'othecx ' w words, the"modified plan must pidvide a miriimum of 1.5 feet_between any,t mlding§or groups of buildings that are not ; immediately adtacent [T]hs modift0 plah must leave enough open space at the end of the:point t- -d visual comdor perpendicular to Granite Street and at least 30 feet wide(measured parallel to Gramta'Street)at ds* 6 narrowe#ppin ,xu a+ N sh »,ivrrF asK 6'4 �, y. 5^w y F", .5,, ,eG e,�� 3«4 r t"4 t': r Note 1 4The:board ultimately denied relief Tram the 1978 setback requirements A:com}ment at the11982heanng by an+ member of the con`senatwn commisswn was to the effect thstthe commission haITT d neither required nor"approved!tia # decrease in the setback from GrandaStreet:The board was,we,think,entitled to fin'dthat a decrease in the 1978'-- c ,' setback was not required by the topography of Rowe Point G L c 40A Section 10 : 1 'oi ^. ¢ �• drfi A / f< z .'�5 rC r• a s }, t '• Table�of Cases tiv Citation � �- { � °; � �` � � w �" * � -�� `` r .� ` '• Table of Cases by Name � `� "r �� � � _` �, � � �`° s � , r^ � ,�° `<��" ""�` � �'� ��"` k ° Commonwealth of Massachusetts=That Court Law Libraries;Questions aboutllegalurt6rmati6n7 Contact 4 , k ` Librarians i '� `i x . sx i'v'a i ¢e y .J"'a' F � '.; i x5 \ t6, '� �� sY � r Yr x^(24" e t 4 r°� ns:rr z K nW t `'. t a ♦ 3t k ti't +b M 'H-Sri - nsFrY r w. �s ar ✓ ry � 6 i t r w x� - r � 4 � r ,� >: o t L ,f.N' �` pS v t• a r a�a �ak 'i lg} - �. 3 5,, ,v n if t r '' vdr y *'�{, t Y� r j y t 1 : ,� 1P �t ,✓ rr +t v;,r, :�S ,ire y y] 5S r � {'^s '�' y µ t 1 Cr , , r e{ a r•t :`tr .� r�"j"7 y (A1 fi P 4 .r7 v kvr k k jx �S 4' n 34 76 v t 8 dti ':>-7 ' lufry k' ` A t�a ss 3 a,5}sr�Ys o •s�+ 5�,A i a a .a. „a. r .+ + c� 0 , K n r ' r r ' - w 2. 6L r. w ...w .. �,.....�Y✓n .:.'�.� a....ry.i �: v .r... .+n.a_ v�K v.....h .s.-...a.. . .,..4 4 inn.y.�.yxvax ...:-rte ._ v a. y. e v .. TINT[, QUINN, GROVER & FREY, P.C. 27 CONGRESS STREET,SUITE 414 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 WILLIAM J.TINT! dnti®dndlawc WILLIAM B.ARDIFF((%5.1995) 7IIFPtK)NE WILLIAM F.QUINN (978)7458065 • (978)741.2948 MARCIA MULFORD CIM W88amrQu nnOwLm OF COUNSEL SCOTT M.GROVER TELECOPIER JOHN D.KEENAN mW0-r®6ntda- m (978)745-3369 OF COUNSEL wwvdntilavmm MARC P.FREY mp(te,®dndia. m MARCY D.HAUBER mluo6er®dntBawrom JAMES G.GILBERT 1®Iben tindlaws January 12,2009 VIA TELECOPIER(978)740-9846 Mr.Thomas St.Pierre Director of Inspectional Services 120 Washington Street,3rd Floor Salem,MA 01970 RE: 111-113 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts Dear Tom: I represent a group of Salem residents whose properties abut the property at 111-113 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts(the"Property')owned byHaralampos Sidiropoulos, Trustee of Trickett Realty Trust(Trickett'). After purchasing the Property last September,Trickett proceeded to completely clear all the existing trees,shrubbery and other vegetation behind and on both sides of the Property. This action was a clear violation of a Special Permit issued by the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals in August, 1970,notice of which was recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds(copy attached).The Pemrit,which allowed the construction of a service station on the site,specifically required the property owner to leave all trees to the rear of the property undisturbed. The record of the proceedings before the Board of Appeals makes it abundantly clear that the Board issued the permit upon conditions which preserved the natural and dense screening between the residential properties on Bugum Street and commercial activity of a service station. My clients have tried over the course of several months to work with Trickett to solve the problem,however,we have encountered nothing but empty assurances and missed deadlines. Mr. Thomas St.Pierre January 12,2009 Page Two I am writing now pursuant to M.G.L. C. 40, Section 7 to request that you take action to enforce the terms of the Special Permit by rescindinBuilding Permit until the violation has been rectified g Trickett I appreciate your attention to this matter. Very hely yours, ve SMG:kr C: Timothy Love(Via Email) Paul Prevy(Via Email) Joseph Correnti,Esquire(Via Telefax) January 12, 2009 Thomas J. St. Pierre Director of Inspectional Services Public Properties Department 120 Washington Street, 3h Flr. Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. St. Pierre: By way of this letter, I am requesting that enforcement action be initiated against Trickett Realty Trust, located at 111 North Street in Salem. Specifically, in the fall of 2008, Trickett Realty purchased the property at the aforementioned location and cut down approximately 30 to 40 trees. For decades, these trees acted as a natural buffer and barrier for the neighbors who abut the property id-back on Buffum St. It was later learned that this action was in violation of a 1970 Salem Board of Appeals (BOA) order which prohibited the removal of the vegetation to the rear of the property. As you aware, Trickett Realty expressed a willingness to create a new buffer area that would include landscaping and re-create many elements of what was lost by Trickett Realty's actions. Despite ongoing negotiations with Trickett Realty and myself, the neighbors, Attorney Scott Grover, Trickett Realty's counsel Attorney Joseph Correnti and yourself, no plan has been submitted to the satisfaction of the neighbors or the City. At this point, Trickett Realty has failed to demonstrate any good faith effort to any of the involved parties despite multiple deadlines over the course of several months. In view of the aforementioned, I respectfully request that you begin enforcement action on Trickett Realty for violating the 1970 BOA order. Very truly yours, Paul C. Prevey Councilor, Ward 6 ore CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT • 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3R0 FLOOR . SALEM. MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 FAX: 978-740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR January 30,2009 Haralampos Sidiropoulos,Trustee Trickett Realty Trust 1180 Main Street Tewksbury,MA 01876 Re: 111-113 North Street Dear Mr. Sidiropoulos: This Department has been working with all parties involved to resolve the landscaping issues behind your property.At this point,a Zoning Board of Appeals Decision as well as a landscape drawing,both dating back to August of 1970,have been located.This Decision and Landscaping Plan are still valid and in effect. I have supplied a copy of the Decision and a copy of the plan to your attorney,Joseph Correnti. You are directed to submit plans,prepared by a Landscape Professional,showing your plan to bring the project into compliance with the 1970 Decision. A certificate of Occupancy will be held up until this issue is resolved. If you feel you are aggrieved by this order, your Appeal is to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals. SIG Y, 4""Pt'L—� Thomas St. Pierre Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer cc. Scott Grover,Esq. Joseph Correnti, Esq. Elizabeth Rennard, City Solicitor Mayors Office Councillor Paul Prevey of �&alem, Iju.�ett� Office of the citp (tountil Tit? jball COUNCILLORS•AT-LARGE JERRY L RYAN WARD COUNCILLORS 2011 PRESIDENT THOMAS H.FUREY CHERYL A.LAPOINTE 2011 JOAN S.LOVELY STEVEN A ROBERT K.MCCARTHY PINTO CITY CLERK MICHAEL SOSNOWSKI ARTHUR C.SARGENT III JEAN M.PELLETIER JERRY L RYAN November 17,2011 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL C.PREVEY Thomas St.Pierre JOSEPH A OWEEFE.SR. Building Commissioner/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 120 Washington Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Re.Trickett Realty Trust 111 North Street Dear Commissioner St.Pierre: By way of this letter,we,the members of the Salem City Council,would like to express Our firm belief that a certificate of occupancy should not be issued to the owner of 111 North Street, Trickett Realty Trust (TRT), until all unresolved issues on the property have been satisfactorily addressed. These issues include removal of the un-permitted drainagetrecharge system which was installed without authorization from and knowledge of the City Engineer, removal of the mounds of dirt and fill, re-grading of the slopes, establishment of previously discussed retaining wall and fencing, and implementation of the proposed landscaping/planting of trees, shrubs and bushes contained in a separate landscaping plan. In addition,all of the various. were ordered by"the Salem Zoning Board of Appealsconditions which order issued in August 1970, should be complied with as well. As you are aware,the City Council,and its Committee on Public Health, Safety and Environment have had numerous public meetings about this particular site and the ongoing unresolved problems which gave rise to the Council's involvement. The Council feels very strongly that TRT has been uncooperative with the abutters, as well as with city officials in trying to resolve all of the issues which have created a serious negative impact on the abutting neighbors. Despite efforts by the abutters, their counsel,city officials and members of the Council to move this forward in a productive manner, the property owner has consistently failed to cooperate in any demonstrable fashion. Most recently, a proposal to grant TRT a certificate of occupancy contingent upon the owner signing an agreement and performance bond assuring completion of all of these matters in the spring was offered to the abutters and the Council. It is the unequivocal sense of the Council, and the neighbors, that this proposal is completely unacceptable. Trickett Realty Trust has SALEM CITY HALL•93 WASHINGTON STREET-SALEM, MA 01970-3592 •WWW,SALEM.COM demonstrated no good will from the very beginning, and as such, there is no reason to believe that signing an agreement or making promises of any sort will guarantee a different result TRT has made no convincing argument that the issuance of a certificate of occupancy is warranted or necessary in light of everything that remains outstanding. Lastly, the Council does not believe that Trickett Realty Trust is eligible for a certificate of occupancy based upon the stated requirements of the Massachusetts Building Code. Based upon the aforementioned reasons, the Council urges you not to issue a certificate of occupancy to the property at 11 I North Street. In conclusion, the Council would also request that you respond in writing to this letter so that the Council is aware of your position on this matter. Respectfully yours, (./ Q 19 - 1 QTY OF SALEM MASSACHUSEM Bui t-DING DEPARTMENT 7.1 "G WkSHNGTON STREET,3""FLOOR TEL.(978)745-9595 KINfBERLEY DRISCOLL FAX(978)740-9846 MAYOR T!Hm) sSTYIERRE DWcC"O2C`1RCF P1LM➢G PROPERTY/BUILDING WNWISS1ONER December 6 ,2011 Council President and Members Salem City Council 93 Washington Street Salem Ma. 01970 Re: 111 North Smred Dear Members, I am in receipt of your letter regarding the is=zxe(tufa 00 for this property. For the record, neither Trickett Realty nor their representatives have auk bar a Car ificate of Occupancy. Early in this project, l informed Trickett Realty of the zoming a mdadi'm md that a C/O would not be issued until such time as the zoning issue was resolved. '1<'uiinIcU Rczky responded and understood that no C/O would be issued. The"New Drainage"plan aopg www by DzwW Knowlton is being implemented as we speak. This project shall be treated the same as aamy odm7 pn*ct that comes before this office. A routing slip is circulated to the various Depaammocnft for asigmature. When all signatures are collected and the Building Code requirements are met„Ac o-Appilnrmt mum be issued a C/O. I am well aware of the issues surrounding this property and I hai%v beam ii®mgmiar:communications with the City Solicitor's office and will continue to do so. Sinc ly 1161 Thomas St.Pierre cc. Mayor Driscoll, Elizabeth Rennard 111 NORTH STREET - -- GIS#:____._- 236 2082-08 -M -- �------- COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ap- ------------ Block: -- Bloex: CITY OF SALEM Lot: _ 0348 Category: Addition —_ �Pernut##------;2082-03 --- BUILDING PERMIT Project# I]S-2008-001715 ----------=— Est. Cost: $189,000.00 Fee Charged: $2,084.00 Balance Due oo ---- -- PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO: Const. Class: Contractor: License: Use Group: Expires -P--_.____<_-___-..____—Carter Construction&Development Inc. Lot Size(sq_ft.):131219.8376 _.._ -----__—Otvaer: TRICKETT REALTY TRUST ,Zoning-Units Gained:Gained: I Applicant: Carter Construction&Development Inc Units Lost: — — —_�AT. I1 I NORTH STREET Dig Safe#: ISSUED ON: 25-Jun-2008 AMENDED ON: EXPIRES ON: 25-Nov-2008 TO PERFORM THE FOLLOWING WORK: PUT ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING AS PER PLANS INCLUDING TANKS&PIPING jhb POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET Electric Gas Plumbine Buildine Underground: Underground: Underground: Excavation: Service: bleier: Footings: Rough: Rough: Rough: Foundation: Final: ]Final: Final: Rough Frame: D.P.W. Fire Health Fireplace/Chimney: Meter: Dill Insulation: House p Smola: Final: Water: Alarm: Assessor Treasury: Sewer: Sprinklers: Final: THIS PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED BY THE CITY OF SALEM UPON VIOLATION OF ANY OF ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS. Signature: Fee Type: Receipt No: Date Paid: Check No: .Amount: BUILDING REC-2008-002206 25-Jun-03 3029 52,084.00 GeoTiVSO 2009 Des Lauriers Municipal solutions,Inc. Crf -111 .1c D1.7 P.uuu�, j F—xFPU—Li-AT10N FOR PLAN )NAND FHU,LDILNG I ERNI I I ALL STRUCTURES T1 AND 2 FAAHL rWKj4—",v("s I R,r%ivr. tIpplicunt, SITE INFORATATF0 mu'l Somelete all itemix ion tin,page Locution Name Property Ad4dress 1 0 Vap 41 Luca Ld in: ri:=— I Jv Use Groups (check one) 'I'vpe of improvement Residential 0 or more rniis) 112 (check one) Residential RI New Buildina AsNembly(churches) Addition ddition Assembly(nightclubs etc) A2 ,Mt,mt.,n Assembly(restaunints,reercmi,n) ,L3 Rcpuir/Replacement�"co`aio Business B ""o .....n Educational li '-)vnio ition E .movC'Reloc—mc Factory(moderate liazwd) I ' R ne Factory(low hazard) Vot"Idalion Only A"QSWry Building High Hazard ce (),her(describe) Institutional(residential ,r,) I I Institutional(incapacitawd) 12 1115litutiOnal(restrained) 13 Mercantile VI Storage(moderate hazard) Sl Stonge(low hazard) S2— ( 0NER.Slur tope nr Print Clearly) OWNER Name 7-ritt-le& b-lsp 1'elephone1? 9 IWS(7t1 P 1'10N OF 7 P-f I-1 I 0V V- IrJ117 -Ls j 13 CONSI HU"1.1(1,4 -T(?-n 1J )r P. 2 2FaM HP LPSERJE7 32�� CITY OF p�BLIC H.EjkjY ...:.r,•, r , V l: �.Hn nmben I:: �\ „I c••.. .!,•li..✓,la •lntryetorSlk:laclrlcianil vibil f•.1 ` •ast Frit iiL' IIuilJtr�ICu ('urnQeniull°lt Iniu /) � 1 r�-or .76 3�-l12 01 6 O7 Phota 9'.�=+'.rm�Y fvyultedl'. 1 � cYn,ln,.hon N dew ZIQ r P bu/' rorntYr anJ 1 aJtt'dnll Ike'PI ° date❑ mt a general e. ... O ltem + 1; mub.euntracturi . cMld°Ser.rlhevk J .ehdcJlhe . 1. ❑ITmaliuun 11Y ilia, �hec1.' nnh .�� • nlhe hast p'11uilJiag+Jditiun ,.•In(+l`ISar arl.iunel h,IcJY ImBs a• repair'of ,Sect(full+nJ'ar P' ..Anel• 1'h.,e mubwllnvac ar P •.wnP tniuranet• 111,0 Eleelrlaal repW IJJilion/ prop" calkers uu!°f` +mule P 'nu elnpluyees 1 eYrpormian°nJ IH I I ❑plumbing f0 11a,'Y aeJy. S c3 \VO are; rlrs i,K mem+Ily c+V ,,rYlwn have aaerciseJ their 1..❑q°uf ler ung 111+uranee un Per Fll)L aurlleri conlP right ui axone J v e haven° ptl ar� +ireJ.l +Il walk C. ISt.6lfU1.°n 1S= n a hurl my^cr JYing' loycclt INO wur4er1 eu . zulnp. cmP ve reyuireJ.l Wwn Wr.r Inrulm+ry°•,nt,uva'^alealln/ en. .,elf.IN0 worleets cumP•iniuran vYliu:v,Nnpw veT vw uiredl h rin/Itw u+vwwm � nfn •wmr r Yfarl�d reN t,•1,1'a• w/,f„„oue llY0la•rG°Ie1dH+na , yCrY rnd%°�� IJl uyl @•mr�tlan �Not Ylr,+lir RJnsot%of wp•uM P +1 ,nvJ+Isu +un/1\•r.rr aun! (° R, li c1vw I!IAt hr.1•N+ rmJ+•n•n0i.• uyld"o d• tr nlr frlp ynl�FY a fip111Yr Sur 4:0 l ,dn.W mvh hw pyd au:haJ an d. m If dead 'erlor I .,,rl�p•Q/ 1 ruviJir/Ya/len ` I✓ ,l ) ��..- "OPlYSrr rhrl u,f•� �a E%P1N(iun ,)a( Ye Nron. n Na'ne' O � 1atN�•iP u/rle/INrel• "el'amPly' � fl cily.5 bertip (ihrwin{tAt D°not num L n:.°: �� +hie. , f I ydf�ini h� N+n,J a tint r or. I V t ,ilius of crl'nl OP nf. 1 I V Iley Jetltr•Ilnn PUki I.,J UI d;Y�mP', f 152 un tons j a 'Tnp\11 io 1hU UOiae Y \JJre}+ cnmptni•IhlnQe °ts:\, i�l('lLJ• ,+rJe ate' w0rllrrs Seems uuhtem In Iht he LIn" rw� ,^•erpy n((he pequireJ w,Jar ,yell am al,J M' - Imnene.Is ,i Ih,r aaly„lent a,ay Y,cr+Be as r In,Pr m' J Ih+l a,oPy• e v"fe< lit !J\%, •s IK NI` IMI jPJ•pr..16Y`,i„I+IOt 1110°. LSI/1 the ,,r,ant;' miJtd a.l,`,r is sur anJ Or � rhr in)irrnWlGm 1 ,� ��—• 1 Flu 111.\ inr�ii:al.ince:, Ihul prtjuq' 1 r,. arm cud) ,l hrrtAY n•r1i(' mrtr Ilam CONTRACTOR INFORMATION �- Name ORPet (liesd �i t�abmc+l lkc, eawtti Address 3 /t e-d tt' Telephone 7 gi-W c l 6/7 .306-W H Construction Supervisor's Lie# CS,;t 7M t/ -1007 Home Improvement Contractor# ARCHITEMENGINEER INFOMIATION Name Toce�S11R Address G/ iJag+r / S7' /'✓d PoWm? ni f4,�-j Telephone /-F S- &4V- 3373 lMass. Registration # t'EILMIT FEE CALCULATION Residential est. cost x $7/$1,000+ $5.00 = Commercial est. cost x S11/51,000 + $SAU= ZD 535/ COMMENTS The undersi ned does hereby attest that all information stated above is true to lite best of my nawle a under the penalties of perjury Signed Date S-:,t o - O S� t-D JUN 24 2008 10: 02RM HP LASERJET 3200 P• 3 WORKERS COI%2ENSATION AND EMPLOYERS LIABELM COVERAGE CERTIFK'ATE 'NC OO 04 14 NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN O WNERSHIp ENDORS]rMF,NT 790) Policy Number: 6007089012008 Policy Effective Dae: 04117/200gz 04/17d2oog Policy Change Number: Change Effective Dare:04/17/2008 Insured Carter Construction&Development Inc Company: A.I.M.Mutual Insurance Co Carrier Cute: 26158 Experience rating is mandatory for all eligible members. The experience rating modification factor, if any,applicable to this certificate,may change if there is a change in your owrtershipor in that of one or more o::the entities eligible to be combined with you for experience tgting purposes. Change in ownership includes sales, purchases, other transfers, mergers, consolidations,dissolutions,formations of a new entity and other changes provided for in the applicable experience rating plan manual. You must report any change in ownership to us in writing within 90 days of such change. Failure to report such changes within this period tray result in revision of the experience rating modification factor uss:4 to determine your premium Capyri�1990 i+.000.t t:oum7 a c�mum taaraos na<,.�otnumae Certificate No: 2082-08 Building Permit No.: 2082-08 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City of Salem Building Electrical Ntechanical Permits A� "Ellis is to Certify that the CONIbIERML located at �oQ Dwelling Type 111 NORTH STREET in the CITY OF SALEM N Address 7owCily flame I [S HEREBY GRANTED A PERMANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY I l l NORTH STREET SHELL STATION This permit is granted in conformity with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto, and expires unless sooner suspended or revoked. Expiration Date i Issued On: Nlon Feb 25, 2013 Geo7RIS3J 2010 Des Launers Municipal Solutions,Inc. 111 NORTH STREET __ 2082-08 It ta[S#. 266 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTSp: Block CITY OF SALEM !Lot: - 034& Category - . Addition Permtt# '"' 2082-O8t BUILDING PERMIT Project# JS-2008-001915•, lEst Cost $189,006.00- 'Fee Charged:,^ $2;094.0T.111,11, Balance I)ue ' $.00:: PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO: Const. Class;.' Contractor: License: Expires Use Group: Carter Construction&Development Inc. Lot Size(sq.,R.): 31219.8876 fZonin . B1 Owner. TRICKETT REALTY TRUST g� , Units Gained! Applicant: Carter Construction&Development Inc. Units Lost: ' AT.• 111 NORTH STREET Dig Safe#: J ISSUED ON: 25-Jun-2008 AMENDED ON: EXPIRES ON: 25-Nov-2008 TO PERFORM THE FOLLOWING fVORK. PUT ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING AS PER PLANS INCLUDING TANKS&PIPING jhb POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET Electric Gas Plumbing Building Underground: Underground: Underground: (� j-�cy Excavation: Service: ,teter. -6�J I Footings: Rough: ys�J^u �' Rough:, g ///.� �'! Rou Ir�C�/Yt'�/y ��, t Foundation: ' _ e /a / Final: F Final: .��j ..a-3" Rough Frame: Q y 7 q Fireplace/Chimney: D.P.W. Fire Health / A ' s//�/ Meter: Oil: Insulation: Q f C (//� house# Smoke: ' _) Final: V Water: Alarm: .�" ,C •ny Assessor Treasury: P 13 ' Sewer: Sprinklers: Z/ ry1 Final: THIS PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED BY THE CITY OF SALEM UPON VIOLATION YY OF ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS. Signature: Fee-type: Receipt No: Date Paid: Check No: Amount: BUILDING REC-2008-002206 25-Jun-08 3029 $2,084.00 ei i..'r,r rs r .- CaIl for I")%i r . l� Occupl _.- Gni 1',\ISeg 2008 Des Laurier:\luaicipal Solutions,Inc. .w rk a S ��� t?� `��. �"W� �� tib S•Y3���x�P aye�'�.'�" S �.NT_ y I � "f�, Y .q,4 3 '44t, a,e'R�€ x e .. !♦ ��� Y � ..� ftx ��.," s�;r,�Ys��9lti.,aaq� ��';y'�. �+e"�y' (Y'[-'kfy s�� ��a _,�_�.tt�`,yitei"�^•.' ,s,s � P i .m� � `c, , v � b t 1 b � y r — r• « YaN +' w f, ( e ix S� i F$:.Pax•er "nf, 1, "`** av a"aerc.waswf ;...,.,x, 'kM°°rW^rte♦^ ^N .r:m,*.n ' ;r i „ '. f ;♦ t J e g y 3 a s Frry f. y 'd a4 p t a x w 'FC1 ]t`` i t '3 S•J" , J' , � s L x 6 '4 CN i Rr 21 ^Rego x F m R2 __________J �IE mOpo - .O26L1 OL.SG195 ' L m N Rp ygaF. r---- — zmoo amA y m'^y I m ° A N mN2 N .(yip F L I O i�H F - x I - mvm- �°mw� � arc: mix mix i, o m QnF.' -mi „� y HA I 80 ❑ ❑ 1 I 'dgzi IH- FIT .. '1 .�mgm ^09 1 °O j V py1 q ,�_ 1 I I 0 I u' L it u l B•Saps " SO �IO �O IN I \" . �II.1 L ]Os I • 4 �+d 1 4 ' \VIm p x p '1 m ;FO°A m b •IA I UZ; q .. NC \tlN q 1 m "'NO, -01, a2 � 3NIl Nov j3S _ 3 BL.Ia4SN � °A N mo mN 9PBN ' pTamO � ♦jYSNI IIIIT '2L��m. NVR yog 3 x ee ppp �r RECEtVEO - B INSPECTIONAL SERVICES 4 W At lb A 1^33 R B ® tIiit } S - P:R'EPARED FOR :.PREPARE° 81 Y3"g£ t1F(Lm�a`w TRICKETT REALTY,TRUST R E v 5 s 1 o x s ad�P♦A wz nvmromi er - 8� $ . 1180MAIN SmEET AYOUB'ENOINEERIN- EN1( 0 N 7SBURY 1876' ENBIIfHiWO B AJxHITecruRA4 EawEr pG� a t 0 u w 976-610-63 00-67JY yyp Q 0 _ : .. CORP RATE OFFICE' .. ♦ Y � ,. PROJECT ADD E S 8- 414 BENEFIT STREET e �P �A 9 T DE RHO :ISLAND 02861 a 'q x. SALEM :M� PnwiyrJlEP (40u)2R 11.112 FSA (40U 724-1110 ' 111 NORTH STREET FAX:254-B N. BROAo.AV STE 206 v3 g]g SALFlI.NEW HAMPSHIRE 03079 la g6t .j • : S H E E T 0 E 8 C R 1 Plii'I O N P—:(603)894-4820. ,055i bd n BUILDING ADDITION , P°� `°Os)B°4 R2) `' ;: x g ° CONCEPT PLAN 9 i�AI INFOm4Y0UBF GINEFRtNG.0 19 �y9 . II F�- February 28,2013 Via Electronic Submittal Mr.Robert E. Rule Motiva Enterprises LLC 3139 Village Drive Waynesboro,VA 22980 Re: Abandonment of Monitoring Wells Former Shell-Branded Service Station#137838 111 North Street Salem,Massachusetts RTN 3-26179 Dear Mr.Rule: Sovereign Consulting Inc. (Sovereign) prepared this letter to document the abandonment of groundwater monitoring wells located at the above-referenced location. A Site Location Map, Site Plan and Surrounding Land Use Map are included as Figures 1,2 and 3, respectively. Well decommissioning activities were performed in accordance with standard procedures as described below. On December 19, 2012, a Sovereign representative oversaw the abandonment of seven monitoring wells located on-site at 111 North Street and located off-site at 8 Foster Street by Drilex Environmental, Inc. of West Boylston, Massachusetts. The monitoring wells were identified as: MW-2R, MW-3,MW-1048, MW-204R, MW-204D,MW-301 and MW-302. Initially, each well was inventoried and gauged to determine depth to water and depth to bottom. Monitoring wells MW-2R, MW-3, MW-1048, MW-204R, MW-301 and MW- 302 were removed and each location was then filled with a Portland cement and bentonite chip slurry mixture to within six inches of grade by use of a positive displacement pump. Monitoring well MW-204D could not be removed; however, it was abandoned in place by filling the well with a Portland cement and bentonite chip slurry mixture to within six inches of grade. The remaining six inches of each location was filled with concrete. The concrete aprons of each of the on-site well locations were in excellent condition; therefore, the steel roadboxes were removed and the void space was completed to grade with concrete. The concrete apron and roadbox of off-site monitoring well MW-301 was removed and completed to grade with concrete. 4 Open Square Way, Suite 307 • Holyoke, MA 01040 •Tel: 413-540-0650 • Fax: 413-540-0656 Abandonment of Monitoring Wells February 28,2013 Former Shell-branded Service Station,111 North Street,Salem,MA If you have any questions with the information provided, please contact the undersigned at 413-540-0650. Sincerely, SOVEREIGN CONSULTING INC. Tamara Hagie Project Manager Attachments: Figure 1:Site Location Map Figure 2:Site Plan Figure 3:Surrounding Land Use Map Well Abandonment Reports cc: Trickett Realty Trust,H.Sidiropoulos,Trustee Clart Realty Trust Salem Building Department Sovereign File-2E814 1' � '�►--;�,a Vis► � d f IL C y' r Me SOVEREIGN CONSULTING . .. FIGURE 1 SITE LOCATION Shell-Branded Service Station#137838 • �. 111 North Street(RtI14),Salem,MA l MONITORING WELL LOCATION \ ® SOIL BORING DISPOSAL SITE BOUNDARY TELEPHONE POLE — OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UNE Nv-Los / UFT/ ND STATIUN BUILDING 1 ASANDONED/DESIORYED MONITORING WELL / \ • 2000 SITE DECOMISSIONNIG SOIL SAMPLE iG.. ( ° __--_-_ 1 OMif3 OF EXCAVATION VPH EPC 1 DISPOSAL SIZE BOUNDARY ® 4-401 B-2116AREA 2 07 49 • •�OWS-4ORTH (101 \ C__� FORMER UST L•$fix B-402® (14') — 11 NOTE. MW-302 AND SB-401 TO SB-409 01 ATER �506� B-503_— ®1 ° LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE FROM JUNE 2011 ARATOR LOB 1 DISPENSER ISLAND _ MV-2* WEST 1 OPoWNC ACTIVITIES. FORMER I i MV-2 B®00® i((111.B210 - PRE-1972 1 - - 1 - %s ,1 NORTH /_ . BOTTOM. -103LISTBS- i ��cd-�4 ; 1 BKEMP OTTOM it . FORMER 1 i 1 1 1 11 SI�� {1�} My-L PRODucT i i 1 • i 1 1 (12 TNV-302 UNE L_ P21(4')d'- P19�4)��P1814'1__ 502 --------------- ti / 1 _______________ ______ 201 �- ZZ Z' _�__4- � \ / --"-� B-4 1 • 20 0 20 40 VAPOR SIS 1 MW-W36) ® 1 ONE (12') 1 B® 4B R-407 B-505 1 " APPROXIMATE SCALE MV-204D INV-104 B-5041 FIGURE 2 MV-204RNV-204 LANDSCAPE ® -1041 _j CURB PLAN CURB - FORMER SHELL—BRANDED SERVICE STA71ON LOCATED AT LANDSCAPE LM+nscAPE J 111 NORTH STREET d L SALEM, MA PREPARED FOR MOTIVA ENTERPRISES LLC O 3 plumm �9 NORTH STREET (ROUTE 114) SOVEREIGN CONSULTING INC. �_ 4 OPEN SQUARE WAY,SUITE 307 HOLYOKE,MA 01040 TEL:(413)540-0650 '� �q z k0 pr a\off' ' ®�'6 0`��3 RR R ]AT rye® Dpbb R 0 Itis 10% i 0�'1 1 A� ® RF ® pb0 ® ry® b ® b'bb ® ry R brL ^/ l� Lj ^' 1b � X66 O� p �bry o � `'? 006 001 'L `02 ?i ® /` ® `o ? 6- 35 ' ; 4Y 2j 0 4F 6-0358 R '1 f ® Pei ® 0`ti ? �i R C9 o5eo s, ° 01e, , b5yry � �� O ® \0� � �Oo ry, ryry �6\O GH V�OJ�` ryb( '� �� Off' ® 27-0312 '� 10. ® ® Jj'o ct 6 © h`� 6 00® , 2B 26-0378 26-0353 �'S Ho ry�P �Ory9 O 54 't9 ® ® © 9� ry^ ® , O ds\00�l R ryb 05b, b'o "P R \0�'s O�,p ry �9b , 'Lb O� ry ,T O® O IP s ® b �O rybi 0�6 b �•I� `V ® 'is SITE ?s 079' O ryb' b O fib' ryb o 26-0363 ' 39 C LEGEN b'b 6� O 6\0 0y , ryb O OObp b Oh (. D `IABANDONED/DESTROYED el R © 'O) C 2' C O MONITORING WELL O 1 ph 2 1K C b ©b ® RESIDENTIAL 07 ® b6 ry 'O p'Sb b ® 0/1 60^� O © COMMERCIAL 0` '0� 'i0 ry �' bq 00I G9 , '0© ® 4INDUSTRIAL 26\0 0 lOs ) ryb� ,Lb bT `pry ORto c 9 o0 b°� ss R �6 6 �' .10 `O \OJg ms s 6 "e" 6 ?6 QJ o 50 p .0" ® APPROXIMATE O 760`J ® , RR b,Iry i as FIGURE3 006s Sovereign Consulting Inc. SURROUNDING LAND USE MAP 006 4 Open Square Way,Suite 307 I ?s s Holyoke,MA 01040 FORMER SHELL-BRANDED SERVICE STATION 2 I �6 mos (413)540-0650 Fax(413)540-0656 111 NORTH STREET RAC DATED 3/15/06. °Os $06 &je( Pa.:SALEM.NORTH-Vtcm.a Dart:31n09 SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection U-1 WELL DRILLER Please specify work performed: Address at well location: Decornmlesloned Street Number. Street Name: 771 NOMSTREET Please specify well type: Bullding Lot#: I'Assessors Map#: MordtDdrg Assessor's LOW—; � ZIP Code: Number Ol Welis: u City?own: Well Location SALEM In public rghtwf-way. .GPS (GPS for the deepest well) O Yes (3'No North: West: 42.52727 70.90150 SubdivisionFropertylDescription: Mailing Address: U Glck here if same as well location addr rProperty Owner. Street Number. Street Name: I 0 OPENSQUARE WAY GgRown: Stale: Engineering Ptm7: Ha-yovE MASSACHl1SE 1S SOVEREKNCONSI1LTOv ZIP Gods: II Board of health permit obtained: G Yes if,Not Reguked Permit Number: Date Issued: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection–Well Driller Program tWell Completion Reports(Decommisslon) Well Driller- Decommission Form WELL INFORMATION Date Decommissioned 1Z19I2012 Depth of Decommissioned Well a1.2g Area of group(sq.ft) 11600 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION(FAVABABLE) Original WCR#for Well ended In formation type Decommissioned Well ':Overburtlen C..Bedrock Was a new well drilled? ❑ne WCR#for New Weg DEP 21E Site# DEP Groundwater Discharge# �� CASING _ Casing Type P.—W l Chbnde-- --1 Casing Diameter 0 Was casing ripped or Was Casing left In place? C Yes .G Pb perforated? G Yes n Pb Were obstructions left In the well? G Yes C W ifYe ,what type? e? Chnose Description•- Surface Seal Type DECOMMISSIONING MATERIAL From To Material 1 Weight Material 2 Weight Water Batcbe Method Of Placement I0 t 41.29 Morita Grout •-Choose Matadsl•– reins WATERLEVEL Date Measured Static Depth BGS(R) Flowing Rate(upm) 1Z19f2Dt2 � � . Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection—Well Driller Program Wett Completion Reports(Decommission) COMMENTS C WELLASANDONED SAME DAYISAME CREW WELL DRILLERS STATEMENT This well was drilled or altered under my direct supervision,according to the applicable rules and regulations,and this report is complete a knowledge. - DrillerJAMESHASTINGS Raglstrallon 4f 353 Monitoring IMJ FM-1 Supervising Dri Firm DWLEXENVIROMNENr Rig Permit# 810 Date Job Com NOTE:Well Completion Reports must be filed by the registered well driller within 30 days of well completion. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection—Well Driller Program r `1~ Well Completion Reports(Addendum) WELL DRILLER -ADDENDUM FORM WELL COMPLETION ADDENDUM FORM MONITORING WELLS Well ID Well Depth OPS Coordinates(WOS 1984)Degree Decimals MW2R 15.34 North: 42.52727 West: 70.90150 MW104R 16.21 North: 42.52727 West 70.90150 MW204R 16.72 North: 42.52727 West 70.90150 - MW301 15.22 North: 42.52727 West 70.90150 MW302 15.85 North: 42.52727 West: 70.90160 NOTE:Well Completion Reports must be filed by the registered well driller within 30 days of well complelton. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection I Bureau of Resource Protection WELL DRILLER Please specify work performed: Address at well location: Decommissioned Street Number: Street Name: Jill NORMSTREEr Please,speclfy well type: Building Lot#: Assessor's Map#: [Monitodng � L—�� Assessor's Lot#: ZIP Code: �Number Of Wells: I— J Cityfrown: Well Location SALEM In public right-of-way: GPS (GPS for the deepeslwell) North: West: 42.52727 7090150 SubdlvisionlProperly/Descdption: Melling Address: j❑dick here if as well location add Property Owner: Street Number. Street Name: OPENSQUAREWAY City/Town: Slate: Engineering Finn: JKOLYCKE MASSACHUSETTS SOVEREIGNCONSULM ZIP Code: Board of health pemth obtained: O Yes C�Not Required Permit Number: Date Issued: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection—Well Driller program P Well Completion Reports(Decommisslon) Well Driller- Decommission Form WELL INFORMATION Date Decommissioned 111211912012 Depth of Decommissioned Well 19.89 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION(IFAVAILABIIE) Original WCR#for Decommissioned Well Well ended in formation type C Overburden C eedrock Was a new well drilled? r Ye WCR#for New Well DEP 21E Site# DEP Groundwater Discharge# CASING Casing Type PolyNnyl Chloride Casing Diameter �4 Was casing ripped or Was Casing left In place? C'.vas r.M perforated? Q Yea O)W Were obstructions left in the well? ,Yea G sb If yes,what type? --Choose Descrlptbn-- Surface Seal Type DECOMMISSIONING MATERIAL From To Material Weight Material 2 Weight Water(gel) Batche Method Of placement 0 19.8E ntonile Grout ..Choose Material--- ramie WATER LEVEL Date Measured Static Depth BGS(ft) Flowing Rate(ppm) 12nsr291z Its �—� Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection—Well Driller Program i� Well Completion Reports(Decommisslon) i COMMENTS - Y MWS ABANDONED SAME DAYBYSAME CREW WELL DRLLLERS STATEMENT This well was drilled or altered under my direct supowlslon,according to the applicable rules and regulations,and this report Is complete a knowledge. Driller IJAMES HASTINGS Registration It 1553 1 Monitoring[MJ Supervising Dr! Firm Will Permit# 510 1 Date Job Com NOTE:Well Completion Reports must be filed by the registered well driller within 30 days of well completion. - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection_ WELL DRILLER Please specify work performed: Address at well location: Decommissioned Steel Number: Street Name: Jill 1 NORIHS7REET Please specify well type: Building Lot#: Assessor's Map#: Modtoring ---] I Assessor's Lot#: ZIP Code: Number Of Wells: citymmam Well Location .SALEM In public right-of-way: GPS (GPS for the deepest well) f?Yes ri fb North: West' 42.52727 70.90160 SubdivtsionlPropertyfDescription: 0 Mailing Address: dick here 9 same as well location addre Property Owner: Street Number: Street Name: OPENSQLW SWAY City?own: State: Engineering Firm; HOLYOKE MASSA( IUSETTS SOVEREXiNCON9ULTIN ZIP Code: Board of health pamnit obtained: f`Yes G Not Required Permit Number. Dale Issued: t I Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection }.-— Bureau of Resource Protecilon—Well Driller Program Well Completion Reporis(Decommisslon) Well Driller - Decommission Form WELL INFORMATION Date D000mmissloned 12/19/2012 Depth of Decommissioned Well 19.69 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION QF AVAILABLE) Original WCR#for Decommissioned Well Well ended In formation type C O�eMUMen C Bedrock Was a new well drilled? r Ya WCR#for New Weg DEP 21E Site# DEP Groundwater Discharge# CASING Casing Type PdyWryl CNodds Casing Diameter L Was casing ripped or Was Casing left in place? O Yes hh perforated? C•Vea r Pb Were obstructions left In the well? Ell Ves C�'tb Ifyes,what type? -Choose Description-- Surface seal Type p DECOMMISSIONING MATERIAL FromTo Materiel 1 Welghtbtaterlel 2 Weight Water atr Betche Method Of Placement e 19.69 8enton6e Groui � —Choose Mammal-- � � � Tramie WATER LEVEL Date Measured Static Depth BGS(it) Flowing Rate(gpm) 12/19/2012 11.5 E Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection—Well Driller Program Well Completion Reports(Deoommisslon) '1 COMMENTS 12-MWS ABMDOPW SAME DAY BY SAME CREW WELL DRILLERS STATEMENT This well was drilled or altered under my direct supervision,according to the applicable rules and regulations,and this report Is complete a knowledge. DrillerJAMES HA—STMC>S Registration# Monitoring IM] —1 Supervising Drl Firm Rig Permit# Date Job Com NOTE:Well Completion Reports must be filed by the registered well driller within 30 days of well completion. � � ; � � � i � \ ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PETITION FORM C-wirt- CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS Y ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3RD 2�I3 MAA 2b A 9 3$ FLOOR SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 FILE it CITY CLERK, 5ALEH, HASS. Thomas St.Pierre,Director of Inspectional Services i t.978-619-5641/f.978-740-9846 Danielle McKnight,Staff Planner TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: t.978-619-5685/f.978-740-0404 The Undersigned represent that he/she is/are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at: Address: 14 &I-Xi p-A 45I _ Zoning District: R --I An application Is being submitted to the Board of Appeal for the following reason(s): This statement must describe what you propose to build, the dimensions, the zone property is in,and the zoning requirements. Example 1 am proposing to construct a 10'x 10'one story addition to my home located at 3 Salem Lane, in the R-2 Zoning District. The Zoning Ordinance requires the minimum depth of the rear yard to be 30 feet. The current depth of my rear yard is 32 feet;the proposed addition would reduce the depth of the rear yard to 22 feet. —Ing-IQ\1 IhnOy' toy II 113 �Tczr 1n 6t-r_ u+ J h MD Knurl to i na . a 40 A For this reason I am requesting: ( )Variance(s)from provisions of Section of the Zoning Ordinance,specifically from (i.e. minimum depth of rear yard). What is allowed is (ft?sq ft?stories? %?), and what I am proposing is (ft?sq ft?stories?%?). ( )A Special Permit under Section of the Zoning Ordinance in order to ( Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector(described below): S_U, e2. a w)il& 7 i s c cFi QUI Iz)YI'S eYYIGtiI Ruby 5}z1n dcvl�I marc1� Sl aol3 (cll��.CR�dJ The Current Use of the Property Is: Are the lot dimensions included on the plan? (example: Two Family Home)_ ( )Yes ( )No n/a because .. 11 /a The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and allow the project to be constructed as per the plans submitted,as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws would involve ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be PETITION FORM derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. y !panted without substantially The following written statement has been submitted with this application: ( )For all Variance requests a written Statement of Hardship demonstrating the following must be attached: a) Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land,building,or structure involved, generally not affecting other lands,buildings,and structures in the same district; b) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involved substantial hardship to the applicant;and c) Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good,and without nullifying or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. ( )For all Special Permit requests a Statement of Grounds must be attached. An application for a special permit for a nonconforming use or structure shall include a statement demonstrating how the proposed change shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood in accordance with Art. V, § 5-3. Such a statement should include reference to the following criteria: a) Social,economic,or community needs served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Impacts on the natural environment,including drainage; e) Neighborhood character, and f) Potential fiscal impact,including impact on City tax base and employment. Previous applications to the Board of Appeals involving this property have been submitted with this petition form. The Building Commissioner can provide documentation ofprevious applications to the petitioner or his representative. (� gia)3I jcre1 Cpad 05 If different from petitioner: Petitioner d�,p �S t Property Owner: Address: Address: Tele hone: kA-949a%-1- Telephone: Signature 3 Signatuacceptable) Date (Attached consent letter is also ac Date Date A TRUE If different from petitioner. ATTEST Representative: ke V) i'1 UQ )7In ✓t Address: --- gsL f q2 h�hQS ler rn p 01944. Telephone:—9 q IV -571?a� Signature Date DATE SUBMITTED TO BOARD OF APPEALS: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PETITION FORM CITY CLERK This original application must be filed with the City Clerk From: Kevin M. Dalton fkevdaltemsn.coml Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:59 PM To: Robin Stein Cc- Beth Rennard; Kevin M. Dalton; Joe Corrend; John Carr; Helen Papadopolous; Pat DeSantls; Thomas St. Pierre Subject: FW: LUSSIER vs. PEABODY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, 447 Mass. 531 Robin: Here is the Lussi€C decision which I referred you to in our telephone call yesterday. Lussier is really just a minor extension of a decision out of Rockport (copy to follow) dating back many years which says that a variance or special permit is conditional upon continuing compliance with the design plans submitted in support of the application for a variance or special permit. If the land owner materially changes the structure, without first obtaining additional zoning relief, the original special permit or variance lapses. The land owner's only recourse is to obtain anew or modified special permit or variance. In our case, Sideropolos has built a substantial additon to the gas station building approved by the ZBA back in 1970, without fust obtaining the additional required zoning relief from the ZBA. Compliance with the building design submitted to the ZBA back in 1970 is a clear, express condition of the 1970 special permit. That condition was blatantly violated when Sideropolos constructed the 1800 square foot addition. The building inspector never should have issued the building permit and for that reason he should now revoke both the building permit"and the occupancy permit. Mr. Sideropolos can then apply to the ZBA for the required zoning relief and this controversy can be resolved in the proper public forum. Clear cutting of the trees was also a material violation of another express condition of the 1970 special permit which caused that special permit to lapse. The building inspector does not have jurisdictional authority to waive that violation and issue new conditions. Any such conditions which the building inspector may purport to impose are unenforceable because of that lack of authority. Only the ZBA can deal with those violations and issue new, enforceable conditions meant to address the violations of the 1970 conditions. Barlow v. Planning Board of Wayland. 64 Mass App Ct 314,321 (2005) (substantive amendments to special permit conditions are subject to the same procedural requirements for notice and public hearing, and the same decision making standards, as the original grant). Note that the dual primary uses (gas station and convenience store) and expanded structure might have been legitimized under the sir year statute of limitations set forth in Section 6 of C. 40A, if this situation were allowed to persist much longer. As for piggy-backing the retail/convenience store use, upon the specially permitted gas station use, I think it fundamentally self evident that this can not be done without first obtaining a new or modified special permit from your ZBA. Certainly, the 1970 ZBA never contemplated the intensification which will accompany this additional primary retail use when it granted the special permit back in 1970. It doesn't matter that the retail use may be permitted as of right. What matters is that the proposed retail use will make a material change in the intensity of the use of the site, thus necessitating ZBA review and further zoning relief before it may be allowed. If Sideropolos were correct in his contention that one can add a use permitted as of right to a specially permitted use, as of right, than one could add =of the uses permitted as of right in the subject zoning district, on top of the gas station use, without any ZBA review whatsoever. This is an illogical, nonsensical outcome which is strongly disfavored in the interpretation of zoning ordinances and by laws. The rule (that one can't add, as of right, a use permissible as of right, on top of a specially permitted use) is so fundamental that I don't think you will find any case law directly on point, prohibiting such an illogical scenario. However, I suggest you shift the burden to Sideropolos and ask him to cite you some authority permitting a land owner to add back or piggyback a use permitted as of right, to a specially permitted use, without having to first obtain a new special permit or modification. I sincerely doubt that there is any authority supporting such a position. The occupancy permit should also be revoked because there has been no use of the site as a gas station for more than two years, resulting in an abandonment of the 1970 special permit(under both Chapter 40a and relevant provisions of your Zoning Ordinance). Further, even though the building permit may have issued to Sideropolos prior to the effective date of the 2009 Zoning Ordinance, construction has not proceeded in a reasonably diligent fashion as per Section 6, and therefore the project is fully subject to the requirements of the 2009 Zoning Ordinance - it is not grandfathered to any extent under the prior version of the Zoning Ordinance. Without limitation, Sections 5.1.10, 6.3 and 8.2 of the 2009 Zoning Ordinance now apply to this site. I must reserve all rights to contest the dimensional compliance of the structure as I have not had an opportunity to review the plans that accompanied the building permit application, or the application, nor have we had an opportunity to confirm the setbacks listed on the application and plans, through an inspection in the field. I have been told that the plan tiled with the application depicted a rear yard set back of thirty feet, plus or minus, which, in my opinion, would be insufficient to warrant issuance of a building permit, given the 30 foot rear yard setback requirement in this zone. In sum, we would like to see the building inspector and the City come down on the right side of this issue, by enforcing what is clear law and precedent and revoke the occupancy permit. blr. Siderropolos cannot legally use the site for a gas station without fast obtaining additional zoning relief from the ZBA and any such use made without first obtaining such relief is illegal and in violation of the Zoning Ordinance and Chapter 40A. This is not the first time, and it won't be the last time, that a building inspector may have mistakenly issued a building permit after which he is obliged to revoke the building permit and any ensuing occupancy permit. Neither the Building Inspector nor the municipality is estopped in such circumstances. Nichols v. Cambridge. 26 Mass App Ct 631. 634-35(1988). 1 look forward to hearing from you after you have had a chance to review and consider this email and the two decisions I am forwarding along to you. I also need you to provide me with the date on which the occupancy permit issued, so I can measure my clients' thirty day appeal period accordingly. Thanks, Kevin March 25, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals City of Salem 120 Washington Street, 3m Floor Salem, MA 01970 RE: Notice of Appeal under G.L. c. 40A,Section 8 Appellant: Helen and George Papadopoulos 14 Buffum Street Salem,MA 01970 Nature of Appeal: Unable to obtain enforcement action from the Building Inspector to revoke the Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy for the property of 111- 113 North St.for non-compliance of the 1970 Board of Appeals decision. While the Inspector initially withheld the Certificate of Occupancy, he ultimately issued the Certificate of Occupancy on February 25, 2013. Grounds for Appeal: a. Appellants sought enforcement action by way of Attorney Scott Grover who initially requested the revocation of the Building Permit on January 12, 2009 (document A-7). b. The Appellants enforcement request was addressed in Tom St. Pierre's letter dated January 30, 2009,in which he stated that the Certificate of Occupancy would be held up until issue was resolved (document A-9). c. On February 25, 2013,the Certificate of Occupancy was issued because the Building Inspector determined that the developer had complied with the conditions set forth in the 1970 Board of Appeals decision, and that the developer could add a retail convenience store use in addition to the gas station use as a right. However, the developer has not complied with all the conditions of the 1970 decision, and the retail/convenience store use cannot be added as of right and the reasons are set forth in attorney Kevin Dalton's email to Robin Stein dated March 5, 2013, and thus we are requesting that both the building and occupancy permits be revoked until such time as developer comes into compliance. d. The public documents relevant to this dispute are as follows: A-1: 1970 Board of Appeal Decision A-2 July 16, 1970, letter of David Doyle to Board of Appeals A-3: Photograph of Service Station Building located in Arlington, MA A-4: Proposed Plot Plan 111-113 North Street dated January 27, 1970 A_5: Kenneth J. Lussier vs. Peabody Zoning Board of Appeals,447 Mass. 531 A-6: Joseph P. DiGiovanni vs. Board of Appeals of Rockport, 19 Mass.App. Ct. 339 A-7: January 12, 2009,letter of Scott Grover to Thomas St. Pierre; A-8: January 12, 2009, letter of Paul Prevey to Thomas St. Pierre; A-9: January 30, 2009,letter of Thomas St. Pierre to Haralampos Sidiropoulos; A-10: November 17, 2011, letter of City Council to Thomas St. Pierre; A-11: December 6, 2011, letter of Thomas St. Pierre to Council President and Members; A-12: July 11, 2007, Building Addition Concept Plan for 111 North St.; A-13: June 25, 2008, Building Permit Application for 111 North Street; A-14: February 25, 2013,signed Certificate of Occupancy; A-13: February 25, 2013,signed Building Permit, A-16: Aerial view of 111 North Street prior to removal of buffer in October, 2008 Relief Request: The Appellants request that the board exercise powers pursuant to the Massachusetts Zoning Act to reverse the decision of the Inspector by revoking both the Building Permit and Certificate of Occupancy and ordering cease and desist of illegal use of site until it comes into compliance. Also requesting that the following conditions be ordered to address the yiolation: 1. Complete Michael Blier's landscaping plan,agreed to in December, 2011, by planting the remaining twenty-seven (27) 12-14 foot acer rubrums (maples) and eight(8) rhododendrons; 2. A maintenance plan to include watering, feeding,and weed control for minimum of 5 years to ensure successful growth; 3. The plantings are to be guaranteed by owner for a minimum of two years. Any planting that dies or fails to thrive is to be replaced at owner's expense. , 4. The ongoing future maintenance of the landscaping shown on the Planting Plan becomes an obligation of any owner of the property and a condition to a Certificate of Occupancy for the property, 5. No snow/ice stockpiled on planting beds to insure plant material thrives and matures; 6. Continued maintenance of in-ground irrigation system to water the plantings; 7. Continued maintenance of six (6) foot privacy fence on site; 8. Continued maintenance of retaining wall; 9. Escrow account of$5K to be used to replace plantings after two (2)year warranty expires; 10. Buffer to run with the land in perpetuity and referenced in abutters' deeds,in order to forever protect abutters and neighborhood from commercial activity; 11. Maintain property torear.gnd 6'Ide. lkoz� 12. No car washes or drive-thrus to be permitted; 9 13.No business activity behind the building (i.e. deliveries,trash removal, employee activity, etc.). Back door to be used for emergency exit only; 14. Lighting in rear of building to be removed; 15. Lighting from light post on Yeannakopoulos'side to be directed away from Yeannakopoulos home; 16. Fencing for 16 Buffum St. to be repaired/replaced; 17. Rear of building to be painted a neutral color chosen by abutters and must be maintained; 18. Hours of operation for gas station and retail use to be limited to 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. No 24-hour retail/gas use; 19. Loading and unloading (this includes the servicing of dumpsters and the delivery of fuel) from 8:00 a.m. till 10:00 p.m; no servicing of dumpsters before 9:00 a.m.on weekends and holidays; 20. All of abutters reasonable attorneys'and landscaper fees to be reimbursed/paid by developer. Respectfully submitted, Helen Papadopoul s AV 41- 4Mi4� George Pa adop ulos • � .•�, 14\'111!{�, •. ,AUG I 42 CITY rcS�iGl'r r WILLIAM K'U amps Cynh G :•i,.:�it', ITTON 'OF SHFLI• OIL COMPAA'Y, � INC.. Jnan.n n'aovLncn ''•�• J "".TT TO ALLOW COA STRUCTION OF + FOR .,,..,l cavLe DT1.E SI pVTCi: STATION AT 111=113 NORTH STRFJFJT JtFTrRO "nAV, 20. DEMOLT. T.TON OF EXISTING SF,RVICE STATION ann mn Lnum rove ' .1 an n. 0. IANtl. AT SAID LOCATION. J y,1rr51J\ .VIrLCII. Jn. Thrt Tnspoctor -of Duildinr-s refused '""4vice station at this Inca tion ' n'stthes'existin sue a permit to construct a new for this district , zoned 13_1 , . Nei,;hborhood bus ine•ssa is. non conforming . tionlnf; companv to the Board of Appeals.' The Cit + and referred •Lows such a. US' in accordnnco with Sals-' Th Y Zonin • pet ' Districts" B-5 Special 'Permitnuses, al- , , when permission is obtained from the Board of Appeals. !fearing was held on .this appoll Pursuant to notices mailed the petitioner, abutters , beard members, and others and postpaid to published irl the Salem Evening udws. + advertisements All Board members we tend. re present, excepting Mr. Doyla who was ' unable to at- Counselor David T. Doyle appeared for petitiocompany with Mr. Gallagher of said coning mpany. Edward Appearing in. apposition with the 'Ward CouruAllor George McCabe' YeannakopaulosI Mr. ' Ercha, Air. . slid Mrs.' Wm. Heffernan .and Mr-, and Mrs. Robert Nelson, + were ey . , Mr: James Godfrey, The Board studied the F and it was the acts o Presented by the petitioner and entl pinion of the Board that since a Opponents , Y in at this location, that a S Service statin pros- and would be in the best interests of, the commurlit wawaWas ted pecial Permit was warranted was the further opinion of the Board that the demolition of station and the eonstrucOf t eBof' new Y and the district; t promote the public health station of- colonial 'design presort the inhabitants of , safety, convenience gn 1°o+ii.d' the City., r morals and the'-welfare of At a meeting of the Board held- on July 27, 1970t to issue a Special Permit 6to Shell 0;1 Company ' it was unanimouslyv olive service station o'f colonial design.-InP y+ Inc. , to souse voted station buildin � cotPFIno" with the. ct a gas_ ' g Presetitly existing at the corner of q 1 service Avenue in. Arlington, Massachusetts, as shown in p pre Mass Witted to- 3 } Massachusetts this Board,- the petltioner shall hoto , p lama �f the me of the have the further f -,) sitb— the said building and property to the rear line• ' Potion the landscaping , the' con H ':ruct.i.on of )fans submitted b P o shall be in accordance with the riew ,nd which are further eincorporated 'iri aeet the objections of tlle n 1eY, David T. Do le letter from. the eirhbors, ind letter become an intthe Hoard, datdd .July .16 Petitioners ' atter- gral part of this decision970, and said plans PECIAL PER14IT GRANTED AS REQUCSTED. HOARD OF APP L`:1i,S BY � ;',`, .. • . .; � L' /`. -."` - i 1. Act. ) Secretary COYLE d COYLE • ATTORNE"-AT-LAW r�`(.'la r c� 81 lYI3tINMN$1REEt' '• - " t oto �c IQ 3 vi M Ila :01FPN P.OOYLH . jasg P.MYL3.l({ PHCNE)744"" . 044P r.OMA swm,es�aau,N,wP OITY b..r...n.: J1410 SALE,4, ,LASS. •hily lh, 197C •$OARD. OF 'APPFa1:S . City of •Sol.cm lalPm, Massachn 't antn Gentlemen: Thix office the She11 Oil Company eoncPrntn� a sOprial permit for rico enq.struction of a gaAoline service station st -11.1-113 North ^trret, Salem, bi+tQanrhttsPtts. A hearing was held. hnfnrr .;he ftt7:1. gourd on April, 7., 1970, at which time th'e gnarl n•it: the' matt er'L`nder a&i;;mPnt. Subsequent thereto the P1rrd Al-tg:lestrd th'aY Attorney George F. McCahe in 'his carnrity os Ward 6 'Cottncillor and I as * the Attorney. tor ShW Oil Company attempt to resolve. the problems presented C±, the nr":,ihhors.. In conformity with ' the HOArd .4 directive, • s•e, hrve had disenssions• cs.ith all parties concerned. To,-meet the ohjPet`bn3 of the neighhors, the plans have been modified in the fallowing titanner: 1. Changed landscAPinn on the left hand aide 'of 'th� rronrrty to alleviate compl:aint obewt Krede. conditions and to kc-e-' the retaininE; wall there.(Yeatina o�olott4 side) Z: Moved tho rear rnrd -palrement lino ten (1.0.) -fact fttrthor Away from -the rear property line, 3: ChAngod .the.' loantion of fhe nndor-.roure tanks so that they are, now closer to the atreot. • .e1 4; Relocated the Eive foot Cedar ari-enn • fence to the top of the slope in the *rear- to further screen the Gnrv�cn station yard 'from the rear- and the side, nrnaert4^s, S. Relocated the. rubbish Ares from the rear of.the ^tation to the side. ! _ DOYLE A DOYLE arrorrnEvs_Ay.LAW - 3ALM a u'�o,m?.uc �ZPH F.Cans.Ja. - PHCNM NUM C1TT ;,..,.. JrFICE . OAku T.Cane ' SALEM, FiASS. e . tb, 1 .70 6. ht of rhe+ prorc+rty..,.ird to rerty .the ovnralt . :, -.:t.•;,. �}n ttatt 7• Agreed' rr �G'gVe 6th r �l2 trre.s to the rear, cte@1^ the -IrPOCf.th ern pr N�inn Tiilbegs, in the treeless area of, the ren 8•' Chnn"cd fhc• len.!^�- ++n nn the ri;+ht Cidp oP rhe stnti�n (Tobin side.) 9. was Agie abtr tofrhn ?nhfrrmthat Shell. all Comnany, Inc. " a Colonial. to a P,anch Style design to reduces ! tl,+ .>,:rra11. hniKht or the h,xildinr ns seen from a roar. ')�r. �ncctive. The 'cnmpanv is still willing to do .thi-3 if the hoard dcnms 'it ndvisabl.e. A neva .plan incorporating .rli: of 'hoso ..ch}ln e.9 h,,9 here `i1.cR with thri. Rr6m Ang Iharcctnr, Mr, OnTricq n'ArIon, along '•r•th a 7.etter, from Attorney George McCabe. Ido emjrhRaize that the neighbors and Attorney Gnprgp Mn,Cnb, st;.1J h sectio the .service •atatibn and no n7remm�nt n�ul.d he reArhcd +hnt the, spacial permit could be tron'od on the condition ne herein specified. • As I said at the m^ntin� her vn„r Sn.,rd eh„ old service eatation will remnin. in rr�> - nr. rnd' thn r„rl,�gn of. thi-9 special. rarmit_ wttl he to co^..gtn�r_t 'a stn�ion of Alipro im testern with,con."trVctton nr.-1 nc'.r1iR;'tion cnct,q . , aI'pr� ctmate $1`,$0,000.00. 'tht'.9 I respect fill.t.y r. . .t thnt the, go rd ,ct Favor.h? .. on t l`:70.peTh nl!At ic nn,vt meotin!r v ?,-r,.y it �fondnv, ell u For yor cnnsiciernt9.rn. J„?y 7 7, V-.ry trnl� gau v,j TM:mm David T.. Do..I^ O"t �. VC: 1.11.11-1sm �.tihntt Jnmes ii. noul.ger CC: cmc+.*;v Tnnch John M. Gray' S, : :Noonan il�tt:h Arthur R. T,aRr�cou� Attorne}• Grror.Ae �fcCnhn . a , 0 2 � 5 M l V' k r �- b' 'h J "fix Ar � —•?L < .�,: •�-,, } } .� '. \Tln } � ! } 1 Y 0. S• � � xtf4� }T� �, f' � ( f ; a � r s , c t r 5�rii` ray REV, . I f - Date: Yue, 5 Mar 2013 21:02:11 -0500 _� To: kevdaltnmsn.corn -rr rrt Ft t; KENNETH J. LUSSIER vs. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF PEABODY & others. [Note 11 447 Mass. 531 September 5, 2006 - October 12, 2006 Essex County Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, & CORDY, JJ. Zoning, Variance, Conditions. Municipal Corporations, By-laws and ordinances. Words, "Garage." This court concluded that a city's zoning board of appeals properly imposed conditions on a variance, apparent on its face, that limited the use of an addition to the plaintiff homeowner's property to that of a garage, and that limited its size. [533-536] CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Superior Court Department on May 24, 2004. The case was heard by Patrick J. Riley, J., on a motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Judicial Court on its own initiative transferred the case from the Appeals Court. Leonard F. Femino for Ronald A. Sheehan & another. John R. Keilty for the plaintiff. CORDY, J. The zoning board of appeals of Peabody (board) granted a variance that permitted a homeowner to construct "an addition (22' x 22' attached garage)" with a sideyard setback of one foot, instead of the required twenty feet. Several years later, the homeowner sought and obtained a building permit to construct a second story on the garage that exceeded its "22' x 22' " footprint and was to be used as living space. After the second-story addition was built, the board ruled that a new or modified variance was required. That ruling was reversed by a Superior Court judge who entered summary judgment for the homeowner. We reverse, concluding that the board properly imposed conditions on the variance, apparent on its face, limiting Page 532 the use of the addition to that of a garage, and its size to be twenty-two feet by twenty-two feet. Construction of an addition contrary to these conditions requires a new or modified variance. 1. Background. The following facts are not disputed in the summary judgment record. In 1995, the owner of a parcel of land, 719 Lowell Street, obtained a variance allowing construction of a garage attached to his residence. Located in an R-1 zoning district, the land was subject to an ordinance requiring a twenty-foot sideyard setback from the property line. The variance specifically permitted the construction of"an addition (22' x 22' attached garage) showing a left side yard of 1 feet rather than 20 feet required." Plans submitted with the application for the variance showed a one-story, two-vehicle garage. The plans were neither attached nor incorporated by reference into the variance decision. Kenneth Lussier purchased the land in July, 1996, and subsequently built the garage as permitted by the variance. In October, 2003, Lussier applied for and received a building permit for the construction of a second story above the attached garage. As built, this second story exceeds the twenty-two foot by twenty-two foot footprint of the garage. LNotc 21 The second story was built for and is used as living space. [Note 31 The second-story addition does not implicate (or violate) any rule of the city of Peabody zoning ordinance other than the twenty-foot sideyard requirement for which the original variance had been granted. I Note 4 Ronald A. Sheehan and Catherine E. Sheehan own the Page 533 property abutting Lussier's left sideyard. The Sheehans opposed the building of the second-story addition to Lussier's garage in 2003 and made written demand on the Peabody building inspector for an enforcement action prohibiting its construction. The building inspector refused to take the action and the Sheehans appealed to the board. Meanwhile, construction of the addition proceeded. The board granted the Sheehans' requested relief on the grounds that the second-story addition violated the sideyard requirement, as well as the terms and conditions of the 1995 variance that was granted for an attached twenty-two foot by twenty-two foot garage, and that the second-story addition exceeded the scope of relief requested in the original public hearing for the 1995 variance. The board ruled that the addition required a new variance or modification of the previous variance and overturned the building inspector's refusal of an enforcement action. Lussier appealed to the Superior Court pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, § 17. Mote 5 Lussier moved for summary judgment requesting that the judge vacate the board's decision and affirm the building inspector's underlying decision permitting construction. The board and the Sheehans opposed summary judgment on the grounds that the dimensions and use stated in the variance were conditions on which it was granted and a limitation on further expansion absent a new variance. Following argument, the Superior Courtjudge entered summary judgment for Lussier, vacating the board's decision and affirming the decision of the building inspector. The judge did not explain the basis of his ruling granting summary judgment. The board and the Sheehans appealed from the judgment, and we transferred the case from the Appeals Court on our own motion. 2. Scope of the 1995 variance. In granting a variance, a board may "impose conditions, safeguards and limitations both of Page 534 time and of use, including the continued existence of any particular structure." G. L. c. 40A, § 10. Variances are not allowed as a matter of right and should be "sparingly granted." Barron Chevrolet, Inc. v. Danvers, 4.12 Mass. 404 , 408 (1995), quoting Mendes v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 28 MaApp t 7 , 531 0990). Consequently, the language of a variance "is to be construed against the individual requesting the variance, rather than against the granting authority." DiGiovanni v. Board of Appeals of Rockport, I9 th App, t. 339 , 347 (1985). Mendoza v. Licensing Bd. of Fall River, 444 Mac,�1 gg , 206 (2005) ( "Where there is ambiguity on the face of a variance decision, it should be resolved against the holder of the variance"). Read in this light, the 1995 variance, on its face, imposes conditions on the variance. It limits the use to that of a "garage," limits the size to "22' x 22; " and requires that it be "attached" to the house. LNote 61 The term "garage" is not defined in the zoning ordinance. "[W]ords undefined by zoning laws and ordinances are to be construed in accordance with common understanding and usage." Davis v. Zoning Bd. of Chatham, 52 Mass, App Ct. 349 , 361 n.16 (2001), citing Williams v. Inspector of Bldgs. of Belmont, 341 Marc 188 , 191 (1960); Langevin v. Superintendent of Pub. Bldgs. of Worcester, 5S N1aAp t 89 , 892 (1977), and cases cited. A "garage" is generally accepted to be a place to store motor vehicles and household items. See Building Inspector of Falmouth v. Gingrass, 338338 M� 274 , 275 (1959) (building permit authorizing garage on single-residence lot did not permit storage of seaplane but rather of automobiles); Riverbank Improvement Co. v. Bancroft, 209 Mass. 217 , 222 (1911) ("garage is defined as 'a stable for motor-cars' "). [Note 71 We have no difficulty concluding that the 1995 variance was limited to the construction of a building to be used for the storage of motor vehicles. The construction of a second floor for use as living Page 535 space violates the limiting condition of the variance that the addition be a "garage." The variance also specified dimensions of twenty-two feet by twenty-two feet. While the first story satisfies that condition, anything beyond that footprint exceeds the scope of the variance. Regardless whether the second story overhangs the garage in the front or in the rear, or both, it exceeds the footprint permitted by the variance. In order for conditions on a variance to be binding, they must be set forth in the variance decision itself. Mendoza v. Licensing l3d. of Fall River, supra at 205 ("Purchasers of property or their attorneys are not expected or required to look behind the face of recorded variance decisions to ascertain their effective scope . . ."). 8 P.J. Rohan, Zoning and Land Use Controls § 43.03[2] (2005) ("Conditions must be sufficiently definite to apprise both the applicant and interested landowners of what can and cannot be done with the land"). Rochester Historical Soc'y, Inc. v. Crowley, 14 A.D.2d 490, 490 (N.Y. 196 1) (setting aside zoning board grant containing indefinite conditions due to lack of guidance in construction of terms). Warren v. Frost, I I 1 R.I. 217, 221 (1973) (conditions on variance running with land must be specific and clearly stated, preventing future speculation). The fact that the terms limiting the use and size of the addition are set forth in parentheses in the 1995 variance decision, however, is of no consequence. While it might have been preferable for the variance to have explicitly denominated these terns as conditions, their use as such is apparent on its face and in the context of the grant. Here, the variance permitted construction within a one-foot sideyard setback instead of the required twenty feet. The construction and use of a personal garage create a significantly less disturbing encroachment on abutting property than a living area. A living space often requires more complicated construction; results in more noise, light, and comings and goings than a garage; and diminishes the level of privacy enjoyed by an abutter. It would be unreasonable to ignore the word "garage" in this context merely because it is within parentheses. The 1995 variance permitting an addition one foot from the abutting property was granted on the condition that the addition be a "garage." Page 536 wW]hen a variance is granted for a project'as shown by . . . plans' . . . the variance requires strict compliance ith the plans, at least as far as the site location and the bulk of buildings are concerned." DiGiovanni v. Board of Appeals of Rockport, supra at 346-347. Here, Lussiees predecessor in title submitted plans with his application for the 1995 variance, but those plans were not incorporated into the variance. [Note 8] While the incorporation of the plans would have been helpful in determining the scope of the variance, a variance need not have plans attached to contain a limiting condition. Here, the words specifying the size and use of the addition are sufficient to constitute limitations on the variance, and to provide notice thereof. 4. Conclusion. The judgment of the Superior Court is vacated and a new judgment shall enter affirming the board's decision that the second-story addition exceeds the scope of the 1995 variance. So ordered. FOOTNOTES ote I] Ronald A. Sheehan and Catherine E. Sheehan. ote 21 The parties dispute the amount by which the second story exceeds the twenty-two foot by twenty- two foot footprint. In his application for a building permit, Lussier proposed a twenty-two foot by twenty-six foot second level. The defendants submitted conflicting statements, in one instance stating the second story overhangs the garage by one foot in front, and one foot in the rear. At oral argument, counsel for Lussier conceded that the addition overhangs the garage in the front and the rear. The board heard evidence that the second story.was not within the original footprint but that the protrusion was not into the sideyard abutting the Sheehans'property.' Mote 3] To the extent the summary judgment record may have been unclear on the use of the second story, the parties agreed at oral argument that this was an undisputed fact. [Note 4] The parties apparently agree that the height of the second story is within zoning restrictions. The applicable zoning ordinance provides a thirty-foot height restriction for property in an R-1 zone. We need not address whether the construction of a second story used in a manner consistent with that of a garage and built within the footprint of the first floor would be within the 1995 variance, as those are not the facts before us. Mote 5]5] In relevant part, G. L. c. 40A, § 17, provides: "Any person aggrieved by a decision of the board of appeals or any special permit granting authority . . . whether or not previously a party to the proceeding, or any municipal officer or board may appeal to the . . . superior court department in which the land concerned is situated . . . by bringing an action within twenty days after the decision has been tiled in the office of the city or town clerk." Note 61 "There is no dispute that the garage is "attached" to the house. Note 71 While the Peabody zoning ordinance does not define "garage," it defines the term "[c]ommunity garage" as a "group of private garages . . . having a capacity of not more than ten (10) cars, arranged in a row or surrounding a common means of access and erected for the use of owners having no private garage on their individual lots." [Note 81 The only reference to plans in the board's letter granting the variance is the word "showing" in the statement, Permission is granted to construct an addition (22' x 22' attached garage) showing a left side yard of i feet rather than 20 feet required." This is insufficient to constitute an incorporation of the plans. • Home/Search • "Table of Cases by Citation • Table of Cases by Name • Disclaimer Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Trial Court Law Libraries. Questions about legal information? Contact Reference Librarians. Subject: DIGIOVANNI vs. BOARD OF APPEALS OF ROCKPORT, 19 Mass.App. Ct. 339 From: Jac ouidaltEMmsn com Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2013 21:07:52 -0500 To: kevdallm2msn com 13 JOSEPH P. DIGIOVANNI &another fNote 11 vs. BOARD OF APPEALS OF ROCKPORT& another. Noe 2 19 Mass.App. Ct. 339 September 13, 1984- February 13, 1985 Essex County Present: WARNER, KAPLAN, & ROSE, JJ. Since the judge who heard a proceeding for judicial review of a decision by a town's board of appeals respecting an application for a zoning variance lacked the power to substitute a form of relief different from that requested from the board, it was error for him to characterize the application as an appeal from the building inspector's stop work order and to conclude that the application was constructively granted by the board's failure to act on it within the time specified by G. L. c. 40A, Section 15. (343-345] A town's board of appeals did not exceed its authority in denying a land developer's petition for a zoning variance where construction already undertaken by the developer on the locus was in violation of a preexisting variance, where the only"hardship"which the developer suffered was the cost of correcting the unlawful siting of his buildings, and where the board did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in requiring the developer to conform his construction to the express terms of the variance. [345-350] CIVIL ACTION commenced in the Gloucester Division of the District Court Department on June 1, 1982. The case was heard by James W. Killam, III, J. The case was submitted on briefs. David Lee Turner for the defendants. Walter H. McLaughlin, Jr., for the plaintiffs. ROSE, J. The board of appeals of Rockport(board) appeals from the judgment of the District Court(denominated "Findings of the Court")annulling the board's decision that partially Page 340 denied DiGiovanni's petition for a variance. [Notte l The board also contests the order of a District Court judge purporting to reinstate DiGiovanni's building permits. In the District Court, DiGiovanni successfully argued that a petition he submitted to the board on February 12, 1982, was constructively granted because the board did not act upon it within the statutory time limit. The judge also accepted his alternative argument that the board acted arbitrarily in denying him all the relief requested in a second, March 5, 1982, petition. The relevant facts may be summarized as follows. In 1978, DiGiovanni obtained a variance from the board to construct a cluster development on Rowe Point in Rockport. This variance was granted for a development"as shown by the plans submitted to (and on file with) this Board."At subsequent meetings, DiGiovanni asserts, he showed the board plans(1980 plans") that disclosed modifications of the 1978 plans, including, among other things, changes in the location, orientation and design of the buildings. DiGiovanni concedes, however, that he never specifically called these modifications to the board's attention. Later, the Rockport building inspector issued foundation and building permits on the basis of the 1980 plans. After DiGiovanni had poured eighteen foundations and substantially completed four units, the building inspector issued a stop work order. The building inspector's letter explained that the order was issued because construction was not in accordance with DiGiovanni's 1978 plans. It went on to state that DiGiovanni could request a modification of the 1978 variance or appeal the stop work order to the board pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, Section 15. fNQte 4 The form the board provides for zoning-related matters contains four"boxes."Applicants mark a box to indicate whether they are seeking a special permit or a variance or are taking an appeal from an attached decision. For the uncertain, a fourth box, marked "and such other and further relief as the Board Page 341 deems appropriate,"is provided. On February 12, 1982, DiGiovanni filed with the town clerk a form that requested "and such other and further relief as the Board deems appropriate."Specifically, he asked that the board grant"further relief from the plans that are on file with the Board of Appeals"concerning "Knowlton's Field." Note 51 He did not attach the building inspector's stop work order to the form(as is required for"appeals"), nor did he specify what "further relief' he wanted. On February 23, 1982, DiGiovanni met informally with the board. The substance of the discussion, as reflected by the minutes, was that DiGiovanni felt he was in substantial compliance with the 1978 plans. The board, however, apparently felt that a public hearing and modification of the variance would be required before he could continue construction. On March 5, 1982, DiGiovanni filed a second application with the town clerk. Although he checked none of the boxes on this application, he specified therein that this version was a"[p]etition . . . for modification of[a]variance . . . so that the building configurations and placements can be as shown on the[modified] plan . . . attached hereto." What subsequently became of the February 12 application was the subject of conflicting testimony at trial. The town clerk recalled that he had returned the application to DiGiovanni on March 5. DiGiovanni had no such recollection. The board's secretary testified that her files contained no February 12 form. The town clerk testified that the log he kept of zoning-related applications contained no record of the February 12 application. He further stated that no copy of the form remained in his office after he returned the February 12 application to DiGiovanni. The clerk admitted that he did not usually return such documents to applicants. DiG[ovanni had two copies of the February 12 application in his possession. One bore the clerk's "original"stamp, the other was a photocopy. The town clerk could not remember whether DiGiovanni had submitted two copies and had both stamped or whether there was only Page 342 one stamped copy of which a photocopy was made for DiGiovanni's records. [Note 61 On March 30, 1982, the board held a hearing on DiG[ovanni's March 5 application. In the course of that meeting DiGiovanni's lawyer stated that"[w]e have appealed the decision of the Building Inspector." Later, the lawyer asserted, "We are asking for relief. We did miscalculate. There's no question about ft."The board's decision, filed May 12, 1982, treated DiGlovanni's application as a petition for modification of the 1978 variance. The board granted some relief but denied several of DiGiovanni's requests. Pursuant to G. L. c. 40A, Section 17, DiGiovanni appealed to the District Court. The trial judge found, in substance, that DiGiovanni's February 12 application was an appeal of the stop work order, and was constructively granted because the board failed to act upon it within the time limit specified by G. L. c. 40A, Section 15. He found that the board's secretary picked up applications once a week on Friday and that DiGiovanni's February 12 application was found in a board file folder. The judge further found that even if the February 12 application had been a request for modification of the 1978 variance, DiGiovanni was entitled to the variance as a matter of right. He also found that the 1978 plans were not made a part of the 1978 variance, that DiGiovanni was not bound to follow the 1978 plans exactly, and that Rockport was"estopped"to contest changes in setback that resulted from the requirements of the town's conservation commission.The judge found that changes in the orientation of the buildings were not substantial or significant deviations from the 1978 variance and that the changes were in any event available for the board's consideration, if not impliedly approved, in 1980. Page 343 Based on these findings, the that judge ruled that the building inspector's stop work order should not have been issued because it was not based "on any substantial evidence"; that the March 5 application was unnecessary and a "nullity"; and that the board's May 12 decision was"arbitrary and not supported by fact or law."The judge, in effect, ordered the building inspector to reissue building permits and ordered vacated "any order, decision, condition, or requirement"of the town of Rockport subsequent to the stop work order. We review the trial judge's findings and conclusions under Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 365 Mass. 816 (1974). Findings of fact will not be set aside unless they are clearly erroneous, that is, when there is no evidence to support them or when, "although there is evidence to support [them], the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Building Inspector of Lancaster v. Sanderson, 372 Mass. 157 , 160-161 (1977), quoting from United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948). The judge's conclusions of law are not binding on this court. Newburyport Soc. for the Relief of Aged Women v. Noyes, 287 Mass. 530 , 532-533 (1934). 1. Order Reinstating Building Permits. It is well settled in Massachusetts that a "court hearing an appeal from the grant or denial of a variance or a special permit is without administrative discretion. . . . [A court may not substitute] forms of relief different from those originally asked for. . . ."Geryk v. Zoning Appeals Bd. of Easthampton, 8 Mass. Apo. Ct 683 , 684-685 (1979). The only relief DiGiovanni requested from the board was a modification of his 1978 variance. The trial judge's characterization of DiGiovanni's February 12 application as an appeal from the building inspector's stop work order is erroneous. If a somewhat ambiguously worded document is understood by all concerned to be a request for a specific form of relief, the notice requirements of G. L. c. 40A, Section 15, are satisfied. We do not exalt form over substance in such a case. See Dion v. Board of Appeals of Waltham, 344 Mass. 547 , 553-554(1962); Spalke v. Board of Appeals of Plymouth, 7 Mass. App. Ct. 683 , 685 Page 344 (1979). Here, however, DiGiovanni's February 12 application cannot be construed as an appeal founded on the theory that the building inspector's stop work order was wrong as matter of law. Note 71 The form of relief he requested was "and such other and further relief as the Board deems appropriate," and "further relief from the plans that are on file with the Board of Appeals." No "relief'from the previously filed plans would have been needed if DiGiovanni had intended to assert that his present construction was in substantial compliance with the 1978 variance and that the building inspector had erroneously revoked his permit. The statutory requirement that Section 15 appeals from the decisions of building inspectors "specify [J the grounds thereof'we understand as mandatory rather than directory. Generally, boards of appeals are without power to act upon appeals in the absence of public hearings of which the public has been previously notified. [Note 81 The board cannot undertake to notify the public of a hearing unless the board itself has adequate notice of the form of relief petitioners request. fNote 91 Because neither the February 12 nor the March 5 petition was an appeal from the building inspector's decision, I'Note 101the trial judge lacked the power to rescind, Page 345 in effect, the building inspector's stop work order. General Laws c. 40A, Section 14, gives the board only the"powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken." If there is no appeal, the board is without power; if the board has no power, the reviewing court likewise has none. 'The board's decision may not[on appeal] be treated as if it were a decision in an appeal[from the building inspector's decision]." Pelletier v. Board of Appeals of Leominster, 4 Mass, App, Ct. 58 , 61 (1976). This same reasoning also prevents a too vaguely worded application from being constructively granted in accordance with G. L. c. 40A, Section 15. "Zoning relief granted constructively is not beyond judicial review. The relief so granted may be tested on appeal under G. L. c. 40A, Section 17, to determine whether facts exist which would have enabled the board to grant the relief. Were it otherwise a board of appeals could, through nonactton, put flagrantly unlawful zoning relief beyond judicial review."Girard v. Board of Appeals of Easton, 14 Mass. Apo Ct 334 , 338(1982). Because boards cannot grant unrequested relief, and because DiGiovanni's February 12 application was not an appeal from the building inspector's decision, a constructive grant of this unrequested relief cannot survive appellate review. (Note 111 Page 346 2. Nullification of the Board's May 12 Decision. The trial judge's primary reason for nullifying the board's May 12 decision was that no modification of the 1978 variance was necessary because DiGiovanni had substantially complied with it. I'Note 121 This conclusion was based on his determination that the 1978 plans were not incorporated by reference into the 1978 variance, but that the 1978 variance, which was "thoughtfully and deliberately worded,"contained "[only] seven conditions."The judge's decision was "predicated solely on documentary evidence[and] permits the appellate court to draw its own conclusions from the record." Edwin R. Sage Co. v. Foley, 12 Mass, Apo. Ct. 20 , 26 (1981). The 1978 variance contained the following language: "Mhe siting of the buildings . . . will vindicate the purposes of the building separation and setback requirements. . . . Accordingly, a variance is granted so as to permit a 'cluster' development of eighteen units as shown by the plans submitted to (and on file with) this Board. . . ." We think it axiomatic that when a variance is granted for a project"as shown by . . . plans"that on their face give no indication that they are preliminary plans, Note 131 the variance requires Page 347 strict compliance with the plans, at least as far as the site location and the bulk of buildings are concerned. In granting a variance, a board may "impose conditions, safeguards and limitations both of time and of use, including the continued existence of any particular structures." G. L. c. 40A, Section 10. Given that no one has a legal right to a variance, Rose v. Board of Appeals of Wrentham, 352 Mass. 301 , 303 (1967), we conclude that the language of a variance is to be construed against the individual requesting the variance, rather than against the granting authority. [Note 141 Therefore, the trial judge erred in finding that DiGiovanni's site plans were not of themselves a "condition" imposed by the 1978 variance. Because the 1978 plans were incorporated by reference in the 1978 variance, and because the development(as built according to the 1980 plans) differs from that shown on the 1978 plans, fNote 151 it remains only to determine whether portions of DiGiovanni's Page 348 request for modification of the 1978 variance were appropriately denied by the board. fNote 16 The board's decision states that the board was "unable to find any substantial legal hardship due to circumstances relating to soil conditions, shape or topography of the land or unique to this land."The board further found that DiGtovanni himself created the financial hardship of which he now complains. The trial judge is required to review the board's decision de novo and determine the legal validity of its decision on the facts as found by him. Pendergast v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 331 Mass 5 , 558-559 (1954). Garvey v. Board of Appeals of Amherst, 9 Mass, Apo, Ct. 856 , 856 (1980). The judge (hypothetically) found that even if DiGiovanni had needed a variance, [t]he reassertion of all[1978]findings of the Board from which there has been no change plus the additional hardship of being required in effect by the Conservation Commission to increase the setback from the top of the ledge is sufficient to support the continuity of the originally granted relief" This finding is erroneous in several respects. Because we have already determined that the 1980 plans were not in substantial compliance with the 1978 variance, the board's 1978 "hardship"findings cannot be used to justify the changes DiGiovanni made. Moreover, a variance becomes for some purposes part of a town's zoning by-law. The hardships justifying the grant of a variance no longer exist precisely because a variance has been granted. DiGiovanni may not argue that the conservation commission's setback requirements constituted a hardship that justified his unilateral departure from the terms Page 349 of the 1978 variance. The hardship from which he now suffers is the cost of correcting the unlawful siting of his buildings. If the commission's requirements prevented him from complying with his 1978 plans, it was for the board, not DiGiovanni, to provide relief. (Note 171 Finally, while we agree that it is a misfortune that DiGlovanni has built buildings where they ought not to have been built, this is not the type of hardship that justifies a variance. Stark v. Board of Appeals of Quincy, 341 Mass 118 , 122 (1960). Ferrante v. Board of Appeals of Northampton, 345 Ma 158 , 163 (1962). Smith v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Scituate, 347 Mass 755 , 759 (1964). See Garfield v. Board of Appeals of Rockport, 356 Maw37 , 41 (1969). Under G. L. c. 40A, Section 17, a trial judge is instructed to annual a board's decision if he finds it"to exceed the authority of[the]board.""The judge's function on appeal was to ascertain whether the reasons given by the . . . (board] had a substantial basis in fact, or were, on the contrary, mere pretexts for arbitrary action or veils for reasons not related to the purposes of the zoning law."Vazza Properties, Inc. v. City Council of Woburn, 1-Maga. App, Ct. 308 , 312 (1973). The fact that DiGtovanni's 1980 plans and construction violated the 1978 variance "was sufficient explanation for denial of a variance, especially on a record which falls well short of establishing facts which would have authorized the board to grant a variance."Gamache v. Acushnet, 14 Mass. Ago t 215 , 220 (1982). The denial of a variance is in excess of a board's authority only when the variance has been denied solely on a legally untenable ground or when the decision is"unreasonable, whimsical, capricious, or arbitrary."Pendergast v. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 331 Mass. at 557, 559-560. Whether a variance ought to be granted is an administrative decision. Ibid. The board's finding that no hardship exists is a valid Page 350 reason for denying a variance. The board did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in requiring DiGiovanni to conform some aspects of his construction to the express terms of the 1978 variance. "[11he burden rests upon the person seeking a variance . . . to produce evidence at the hearing in the Superior Court that the statutory prerequisites have been met and that the variance is justified." Dion v. Board of Appeals of Waltham, 344 Mass. at 555-556. DiGiovanni has not satisfied this burden. Therefore, nullification of the board's decision as being in excess of its authority was error. The judgment declaring the board's May 12, 1982, decision a nullity is reversed. The order requiring that DiGiovanni and Rowe Estates, Inc., be restored to their position prior to February 4, 1982, is vacated. The order vacating "any order, decision, condition, or requirement of. . . Rockport"and the order reinstating permits and rights to build are likewise vacated. A judgment is to be entered stating that the board's decision did not exceed its authority. So ordered. FOOTNOTES Note 1 I Rowe Estates, Inc., a company wholly owned by DiGiovanni which succeeded him as owner of the property that is the subject of this appeal. Note 21 The building inspector of Rockport. Noe 31 Appeals from the District Court in G. L. c. 40A, Section 17, cases are to this court. Walker v. Board of Appeals of Harwich, 388 Mass. 42 , 47-50 (1983). Noe 41 References to sections of G. L. c. 40A are to those sections as they appear in St. 1975, c. 808, Section 3. Noe 51 Knowlton's Field and Rowe Point are synonymous. Noe 61 Uncontradicted testimony at trial revealed that it was the town clerk's practice to place applications for the board in a box in his office. On the first Friday of every month at 4:00 P.M. the board's secretary picked up applications and made arrangements for publication of the public hearing notice. February 12, 1982, was the second Friday that month. Accordingly, the board secretary would not have taken DiGiovanni's application from the clerk's box until March 5, 1982. It was on this day, the clerk testified, that DiGiovanni "withdrew"his February 12 application. ote 71 In many communities, the procedural path to a variance or special permit is to appeal to the board of appeals from a refusal of the building inspector to issue a building permit on the ground that the plans filed do not comply with the zoning regulations. When we write of an appeal from the building inspector's order in the present case, we refer to an appeal in which the appellee takes the position that he is entitled to a building permit as matter of right under the zoning regulations and that such a permit has been wrongly denied. [Note 81 A reviewing court may, of course, remand cases to boards for amplification or clarification of their findings or orders. In such instances, however, a hearing has already been held and a record already exists. See also Dion v. Board of Appeals of Waltham, 344 Mass. at 553. Note 9 "We assume that failure to comply with the statutory specifications, if prejudicial, or possibly so, could entail adverse consequences to the appealing party and indeed might defeat the appeal." Richardson v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham, 351 Mass, 375 , 379 (1966). While Richardson concerned an appeal from a board decision, we are persuaded that statutory compliance is equally necessary in appeals to the board. rNote 101 DiGiovanni's March 5 application requested a "modification of variance."At the March 30 hearing, DiGiovanni's attorney first argued that DiGiovanni did not need a modification because his 1980 plans complied with the 1978 variance. The board refused to accept this thesis. The remainder of the hearing was devoted to the question of what sort of variance DiGiovanni needed. We do not confuse matters of strategy at a public hearing with the evident and primary subject matter of the hearing. The board plainly understood that the hearing concerned a variance, not an appeal from the building inspector's decision. This view is strengthened by the fact that DiGiovanni met informally with the board and building inspector on February 23 and pressed the fact that he had "sort of complied"with the 1978 variance. The minutes of the February 23 meeting leave us with the impression that DiGiovanni had been put on notice that an appeal of the building inspector's decision would likely not succeed. ote 11 I There is an alternative ground for disposing of DiGiovanni's claim that his February 12 application was constructively approved. We conclude that the trial judge's findings that the February 12 application was found in a board file folder and that the board's secretary received applications from the town clerk once a week are clearly erroneous. See note 6, supra. These erroneous findings may have unduly influenced the judge's consideration, of the credibility of the town clerk, who testified that he returned the February 12 application to DiGiovanni on March 5. 'The credibility of witnesses, particularly, is a preserve of the trial judge upon which an appellate court treads with great reluctance. . . . But it is not forbidden territory."Springgate v. School Comm. of Mattapoisett, 11 Mass App. Ct. 04 , 310 (1981). There can be no constructive approval of applications voluntarily withdrawn from the board's consideration. fNote 121 The judge's determination that Rockport is estopped to assert deviations from the site plan occasioned by the town's conservation commission requirements is incorrect as matter of law. "The right of the public to have the zoning by-law properly enforced cannot be forfeited by the action of its officers."Cullen v. Building Inspector of No. Attleborough, 353 Mass 671 , 675 (1968). See also Ferrante v. Board of Appeals of Northampton, 345 Mass 158 , 162 (1962). Likewise, neither the board nor the building inspector can approve nonconforming plans"by implication." Not 13 "Examination of the plans . . . show[s] them to be complete and comprehensive portrayals of the proposed development in sufficient detail to permit determination by the board of all issues of real substance. . . . The plans were very much more than mere schematic outlines of the proposal." Balas v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Plymouth, 13 Mass Aoo, Ct 995 , 996 (1982). Note 141 Where noncompliance amounts to a matter of inches, we might reach a different conclusion. However, a substantial shift in building locations and near obliteration of the sea view of residents across the street from the locus cannot be trivialized. Note 151 The board described the major discrepancies as follows: "First, whereas we had approved four clusters separated by no less than 15 feet, the four buildings and fourteen other foundations . . . are in six clusters, two pairs of which are separated by 6 feet 2 inches at the farthest and 3 feet 4 inches at the closest. Second, one extremely important feature of the [approved 1978 plans] . . . is a 30 foot space between the clusters at the end of the point. That space preserves a view of the ocean from Granite Street. As built, the four buildings are only 15 feet from the adjacent foundations, and the buildings and foundations are at an angle to Granite Street that would further narrow the view. Third, according to the[1978 plans,]the buildings on:the north and south'; . . are arrange in a! irregular manner: [ hey were.'designedso as to give asense of separation which tends to compensate far the lack of:actual separation: In contrast; the foundations built by[DiGiovanni] are in rows morehighway moteK typical of traditional ' designs Fourth, according to the[1978 plansl, all buildings are to be at least 275 feet from Granite Street, and our ' 1978 decision placed'great importance on'the result(ngopen'space'asa factor,compensating for the lack of building a r separation and setbacks Itis therefore grave concern that one of the foundations built by[DiGiovanmf comes.. '; within 260 feet of Granite Street." 0 1 Th'a board;;while expressly finding no statutory hardship, purported to grant a variance, whichwe have not > been asked to review,for"a modified pian changing the siting of the bwldings so long as it preserves both the separations;:between:*clusters and the[275 foot]public open space between the project and.Granit$Street In other: words, the'modified plan must provide a minimum of;15 feet between any bwldings or groups o f buildingathat are;not immediately adjacent [Tlhe modified plan must leave enough open spaceat the end of the point to provide ar,x wsuae comdoh perpendicular to Granite Street and at least 30 feet wide(measured parallel to Granite Streetr at its narrowestpoint e Th'e board ultimate) denied relief from the:197i? setba` TM :da 5 tt tiy' ✓w Y ckrequirements a.commentatthe198Zheanngbyan member of the conservation commission.was to the effect that the commission had neither re'qulred nor?'approved'"a 1 decrease I n the setback from GranIta,Sfr'eef The board was;We`.think; entitled to find that a decrease in the 1978.`; 'setback was not required by the.topography`of Rowe Point GA. c:40,x;Section:10""' • Home/Gearch •Table ofcases'liv station; • :Tableof Cases by Name Disclaimer, 1 ' Commonwealth of Massachusetts Trial Gourt Law Libran a Questionsabout legat'rnformatlon?Contact Reference 1 n 1 � 1 f S•- L t' ( 4 Y y1 1 1 I' 1 t { f 3 � r 't 4 Y � 5 t I 4 ...1•. 4` r , TINT[, QuiNN, GROVER & FREY, P.C. 27 CONGRESS STREET,SUITE 414 SALEM,MASSACHUSE'IS 01970 WILLIAM I TTHn dnd®tlnd6wm TELEPHONE WIWAM IS ARDIFF(1965-1995) WILLIAM F.QUINN (978)7458065• (978)7442948 MARCIA MU(FORD CIM WOriumFQumn®aoLm OF Ct UNM SCOTT M.GROVEIL TTLEODPIER JOHN D.KEENAN -W0-T 9dnU6w.mm (978)7453369 OF cmt wwvdmi6v.apm MARC P.FREY mp(my@tInd6w. MARCY D.HAUBER m(uu6v6dntil.."m JAMES G.GR.BERT jpimen®dnd6wc January 12,2009 VIA TELECOPIER(978) 740-9846 Mr.Thomas St.Pierre Director of Inspectional Services 120 Washington Street,3`d Floor Salem,MA 01970 RE: 111-113 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts Dear Tom: I represent a group of Salem residents whose properties abut the property at 111-113 North Street,Salem,Massachusetts(the"Property)owned by Haralampos Sidiropoulos, Trustee of Trickett Realty Trust C Cricket(). After purchasing the Property last September,Trickett proceeded to completely clear all the existing trees,shrubbery and other vegetation behind and on both sides of the Property. This action was a clear violation of a Special Permit issued by the City of Salem Zoning Board of Appeals in August, 1970,notice of which was recorded with the Essex South District Registry of Deeds(copy attached).The Permit,which allowed the construction of a service station on the site, specifically required the property owner to leave all trees to the rear of the property undisturbed. The record of the proceedings before the Board of Appeals makes it abundantly clear that the Board issued the permit upon conditions which preserved the natural and dense screening between the residential properties on Buffum Street and commercial activity of service station. My clients have tried over the course of several months to work with Trickett to solve the problem,however,we have encountered nothing but empty assurances and missed deadlines. Mr. Thomas St. Pierre tt' January 12,2009 Page Two I am writing now pursuant to M.G.L,c.40, Section 7 to request that you take action to enforce the terms of the Special Permit by rescinding Trickett's Building Permit until the violation has been rectified I appreciate your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, • ve SMG:kr C: Timothy Love(Via Email) Paul Prevy(Via Email) Joseph Correnti,Esquire(Via Telefax) January 12, 2009 Thomas J. St. Pierre Director of Inspectional Services Public Properties Department 120 Washington Street, P Mr. Salem, Massachusetts 01970 Dear Mr. St. Pierre: By way of this letter, I am requesting that enforcement action be initiated against Trickett Realty Trust, located at 111 North Street in Salem. Specifically, in the fall of 2008, Trickett Realty purchased the,property at the aforementioned location and cut down approximately 30 to 40 trees. For decades, these trees acted as a natural buffer and barrier for the neighbors who abut the property id`back on Buffum St. It was later learned that this action was in violation of a 1970 Salem Board of Appeals (BOA) order which prohibited the removal of the vegetation to the rear of the property. As you aware, Trickett Realty expressed a willingness to create a new buffer area that would include landscaping and re-create many elements of what was lost by Trickett Realty's actions. Despite ongoing negotiations with Trickett Realty and myself, the neighbors, Attorney Scott Grover, Trickett Realty's counsel Attorney Joseph Correnti and yourself, no plan has been submitted to the satisfaction of the neighbors or the City. At this point, Trickett Realty has failed to demonstrate any good faith effort to any of the involved parties despite multiple deadlines over the course of several months. In view of the aforementioned, I respectfully request that you begin enforcement action on Trickett Realty for violating the 1970 BOA order. Very truly yours, Paul C. Prevey Councilor, Ward 6 u a CITY OF SALEM9 MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC PROPERTY DEPARTMENT n 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FLOOR - SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 TELEPHONE: 978-745-9595 EXT. 380 FAX: 978.740-9846 KIMBERLEY ORISCOLL MAYOR January 30,2009 Haralampos Sidiropoulos, Trustee Trickett Realty Trust 1180 Main Street Tewksbury, MA 01876 Re: 111-113 North Street Dear Mr.Sidiropoulos: This Department has been working with all parties involved to resolve the landscaping issues behind your property.At this point,a Zoning Board of Appeals Decision as well as a landscape drawing,both dating back to August of 1970,have been located.This Decision and Landscaping Plan are still valid and in effect. I have supplied a copy of the Decision and a copy of the plan to your attorney,Joseph Correnti. You are directed to submit plans,prepared by a Landscape Professional,showing your plan to bring the project into compliance with the 1970 Decision. A certificate of Occupancy will be held up until this issue is resolved. If you feel you are aggrieved by this order,your Appeal is to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals. Smc y, �m1.d Thomas SL Pierre Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer CC. Scott Grover, Esq. Joseph Correnti, Esq. Elizabeth Renard, City Solicitor Mayors Office Councillor Paul Prevey of 4iarem, �la�l�acfju�ett� —/0 ®ffitt of tqt (city Council (fit? fall COUNCILLORS-AT-LARGE JERRY L RYAN 2011 PRESIDENT WARD COUNCILLORS THOMAS H. ECHERYL A.LAPOINTE 2011 JOAN B.LOVELY LY STEVEN ROBERT K.MCCARTHY A PINTO CITY CLERK MICHAEL SOSNOWSKI ARTHUR C.SARGENT III JEAN M.PELLETIER JERRY L RYAN November 17,2011 JOHN H.RONAN PAUL C.PREVEY Thomas St.Pierre JOSEPH A.O KEEFE,SR. Building Commissioner/ Zoning Enforcement Officer 120 Washington Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Re-Trickett Realty Trust 111 North Street Dear Commissioner St. Pierre; By way of this letter, we, the members of the Salem City Council, would like to express our firm belief that a certificate of occupancy should not be issued to the owner of 111 North Street, Trickett Realty Trust(TRT), until all unresolved issues on the property have been satisfactorily addressed These issues include removal of the un-permitted drainage/recharge system which was installed without authorization from and knowledge of the City Engineer, removal of the mounds of dirt and fill, re-grading of the slopes, establishment of previously discussed retaining wall and fencing, and implementation of the proposed larrdscaping/planting of trees, shrubs and bushes contained in a separate landscaping plan. In addition, all of the various conditions which were ordered by the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals order issued in August, 1970, should be complied with as well. As you are aware, the City Council,and its Committee on Public Health,Safety and Environment have had numerous public meetings about this particular site and the ongoing unresolved problems which gave rise to the Council's involvement The Council feels very strongly that TRT has been uncooperative with the abutters, as well as with cityofficials in trying oto resolve all of the issues which have created a serious negative impact on the abutting neighbors. Despite efforts by the abutters, their counsel, this forward cit} officials and members of the Council to move any demonstrable fashion.a productive manner, the property owner has consistently failed to cooperate in Most recently, a proposal to grant TRT a certificate of occupancy contingent upon the owner signing an agreement and performance bond assuring completion of allof these matters in the spring was offered to the abutters and the Council. it is the unequivocal sense of the Council, and the neighbors, that this proposal is completely unacceptable. Trickett Realty Trust has SALEM CITY HALL•93 WASHINGTON STREET tSALEM. MA 01970-3592 • WWWSALEM.COM demonstrated no good will from the very beginning, and as such, there is no reason to that signing an agreement or making promises of any sort will guaranteebelieve a different result. TRT has made no convincing argument that the issuance of a certificate of occupancy is warranted or . Lastly, the Council does not belie necessary in light of everything that remains outstandingve that Trickett Realty Trust is eligible for a certificate of occupancy based requirements of the Massachusetts Building Code. upon the stated Based upon the aforementioned reasons, the Council urges you not to issue a certificate of occupancy to the thatat YOU respond property at I 1 I North street. fn conclusion, the Council would also request YOU in matter. writing to this letter so that the Council is aware of your position on this Respectfully yours, U�v Q _moo . 12 0 V s" CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT 12C WASEIINGTON STREET,3"°FLOOR B TEL.(973)745-9595 FAX(978)7449846 KI�IBERLEY DRISGOLL &L\YOR TI-fows ST.PIERRE DILMQ.'D'tL`IRkFT- TUICPROPERTY/BUILDINGCONWISSIONER December 6 ,2011 Council President and Members Salem City Council 93 Washington Street Salem Ma. 01970 Re: t I 1 North Same Dear Members, I am in receipt of your letter regarding the issue 01a 00 for this property. For the record, neither Trickett Realty nor their representatives have asked fur a Cermidreate of Occupancy. Early in this project, I informed Trickett Realty of the zorn*9 ViVh =and.that a C/O would not be issued until such time as the zoning issue was resolved. Tnic'ken Rc9tp responded and understood that no CIO would be issued. The"New Drainage"plan aypmved by David Knowlton is being implemented as we speak. This project shall be treated the same;as amp oarpmvjW that comes before this office. A routing slip is circulated to the various Depaatmmts ,for a sigmature. When all signatures are collected and the Building Code requirements are met,,the Aipppicalt must be issued a CIO. lam well aware of the issues surrounding this property and I haxle been in regmilarcommunications with the City Solicitor's office and will continue to do so. Sine- ly, 7��-� � Thomas St.Pierre cc. Mayor Driscoll, Elizabeth Rennard I NORTH STREET .GIS 2032-08 1236 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Map: 6 Block: CITY OF SALEM 0348 Category: Addition Permit# ,2082-08 BUILDING PERI IIT Project# !JS-2008-001715 Est. Cos-t—, '$189,000.00 Fee Charged: ;$2,084.00 Balance Due: i PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED TO: i Const. Class: Use Group: Contractor: License: Expires se roup: Carter Construction&Development Inc. .Lot Size(sq. ft.): 31219.8876--- 1. 1- 11 Kgrung: TR:.-.. ICKETT REALTY TRUST Units Gained: PP l!A I- 1 cant.* Carter Construction&Development Inc. .Units Lost: A T. I1 I NORTH STREET Dig Safe#: ISSUED ON.- 25-Jun-2008 AMENDED ON. EXPIRES ON.• 25-Nov-2008 TO PERFORM THE FOLLO�i�ING �l'ORK PUT ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING AS PER PLANS INCLUDING TAINKS&PIPING jhb POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET "70b 15 k,7 'ding SO I L I VI I FROM 'In P'umbin Electric GO Plumbiny Buildin Underground: Underground; Underground: Excavation:arlo"_ Excavation: Service: Meter: Fooling is F s: Rough: Rough: Rough: Foundation: Final: Final: Final: Rough Frame: Fire Health F replace/Chimmey: Meter: Oil: Insulation: House# Smoke: Final: Water: .Yarm: Tre arm: Assessor Treasury: Sewer: Sprinklers: Final; THIS PERMIT MAY BE REVOKED By THE CITY OF SALEM UPON VIOLATION OF ANY OF ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS. Signature: ------------ Fee Type: Receipt No: Date paid: lnecj(�10: aUll-DING Amount: 25-Jun-08 7029 52,084.00 (;co r,\vq�2009 Des Lauriers Municipal Solutions,Inc. CITY )j UWXI'dITN FOR'PLA,14 P..X. A FI—ONAIN Fr) 13UILDING "Irr FALL STRUCTURES EXCEPT I AND 2 FbV1LYDKL�Lj.jjV(,,,q rSITE INFORNIn I ItIff. t com 'etc 1111 flims on this—P g, SITE .4 Locution Name i ".11) -1 Pmr,crly.Ad4mq—S_-1 Building 14LLZ.9 Map 4 Located in: f hiloric district Y/Iij Use Groups (check one) Type ype Of i m provelueut Residential(i or more[:nits) (check we) Residential R New LitildinS Assembly(churches) A,jddilion Assembly(nip ghtchlb.s etc) Assell3b], A2 y(resWull"Its,recrentit),l) %3 Repair/Rcplucenom Bosilloss Demolition Educational E Factory ojjQj,,uje hoturd) F1 1`0011dalion Only Factory hozilrd) 1-2 ALVCSmy Building High Hamrd Other(duscrij,C) I'mitiltional(residential car.) Insrilutinnal(illvainacitaccd) 12 Institutional(rusinjillcj) 1.1 Mercantile of SIOMUC(inedemb!hazard) Sf- -SlOnge(lom hav,.ud) S2 (PICIlse I)[*or[print c1cart.9 OWNER Name Tea At; �71 re ,kddss //gel I'Clellhone DES[-IIID FION OF N t)jt6 lY1 UEPERI 01011.1) 00 (1, �04 To tjH,.t-, 1)CONS-I Im( 110,4 7?n e P. 2 2s NP IpSERJET 3200 CITY OF pL;gLIC I'�l)I'H,ER'Tll I' tra<lurtrlltetrluslt pri Inmber amulinn U,surao`tIluilJtralCun Ito dllu ,J,f ` VL Vot 3��1t4 of 6� ulrtd►, Vew Yun,u�ution ZIV' „ r1JIf YYa: CoJthnd 4. IYe APPr p tut J gancrul a rerscatr anJ ;. Q •CMt'► J, 01' (.4 the Rcm ttuplY)er. Itaceh11 hcc6t Uemltlitiun hl a woh ! • n the AnacheJ,hJ Q'IWilJiad AJJ11iun e,M ) ' t uu,1. 11 heV. t U , J•Cor Pat ' ,ub•�^ntraauts 1, its Cor aJJitione tycd ifull Jn ell I'hast ineuranue• watk¢rti cComD IILQ Eleetrlcal rft uVs Cor aJllilinne A sole p(I, 'IV\1f or P Cotillion anJ its AnJ hove nY elnpi"ytes t o corp 11 Q Plombind P y ❑ We at ttarclaejthe,r j„t Int m my caplet haw er M1II, �geuf tcpalrs rind oil)ertY iunP I.• �� ylUtkllS wmp. ntw)an.e right Col JS!tnPend a't lyvt nu Aitcdl Juinit all W01Y e. 1!?,111 �Ne wotker$ I,LQ ahar� n•A home`I`vnet �n,ploycef.i itcJ.l Novurkcn'r.Colnp. ,np Inaur1ertyY .ulnpana,Wuletmw\!.Ainno.nAe m�va nJaw Np1. ,eli..l . ew �,r'Inro „�� t.ladlua NlW1 of kkt{inM pNOVIYt[aon`I\I +nJ I�yJnd%t�A�e ,Coro+• we Ian.,tr YIIFIa It AVIA Q\v II.110.1 tYar+Pt"'At Wt ate 0yn[tl tot suk•cu^ aflrA i! \nlNyatlM{ 1nvWn4 nl fn1/IYjn•�' .Ad �hlt dwl Ae.J,huunel.kr[I 'T net\tW fuhTUlAu AItIJ �tytjUn 11t1YrenN l// )I iw<Y she Y`al'nu•1 Au•YaJ '[0111/[ 0' viJiY(uv+rdera � I ���� �/ I ,✓A vsnpW)•n then It 'f 1 ry Eapirutiun • � ��a ,.e l'JmN^y y.Jlne'. O 0 -�"� thou► ' (gtyStarttl.Vp berandnpkeden e of ticliln4 Lw• e' h� �� ”( ent(vMwint lot patle)' ^un+ 1,fcnlninal pen AttieI e J hto vitiun ORDER r,la ^ 11/ u Ilrf JctueJllnn P `An LuJ pI ehY imp`TOP tVORK rc \Jdtcs4 n4oUun p+ NtiL c. 1 51 the t;lnn..t u J to the l)Iliat Y worker! cnmpt ,S\Cot ' uahltl In vArJt Cor the SecuCon - he hm' .� haespy JuuJJt enl.us,•tllascil7 - Ilcrade as rcquire ,j d„s>ulcmcnt m+y Yw ri+r uoPns'lit AJa..J Ihtt u.,Ipy' �•rrtct to Col walrt<` Juu,r ' AmJ I\ p�o Sl.cl{t INl,Iuy'ofl l;:.,uon. INr Il1C`a ,KI,1 dt JIIII Y[1\IIII[ Illtm.u,cc the inJilnuvtivn l �. ,ILA An,�n,.A IIW 1)LY Ituehi.•\✓ 1 I ,,_ =YJ1�� �derlit,11" tYJi� hr reA) CONTRACTOR INFORMATION Name ektPf Od-40 f Ow w1opme k .,�v Address 3�2 -ire Lead fit' Telephone 7 t'f't-WV-' V/7cell 6/7-3o&W 6 Construction Supervisor's Lie# CS x79/9 Home Improvement Contractor# ARCInTECIYENGINEER IN OWNIATION (] Name JI Cl' S)ri1R I. iAddress l /./dy n' CC,. ewf r` Telephone &4x- -4sg Mass. Registration # jt7`.'S' l'E161iT FEL CALCULATION Residential est. cost x $7/$1,000 +$5.00= Commercial est. cost x S11/S1,000 + $5.()0- 0 s3 y COMMtL•'N'1'S The lutdersi ued does hereby attest that all itlforulaliou stated above is true to the best of a+y )4Wle a under the penakies of perjury "\ Signed Date JUN 24 2008 t0: 02RN HP LRSERJET 3200 P• 3 WORKERS COk1PENSATfON AND EMPLOYERS LLIBII.ITY COVERAGE CERTIFICATE VC 00 04 14 NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP ENDORSI,'MLp (Ed- 790) Policy Number: 60117089012008 Policy Change Number: Poliry Effective Date: 04/172008 eo 04/17f2009 Loured: Caner Construction @Development Lc Change Effective ])age:04/172009 Company: ALM.Mutual Laurance Co Carrier Cc-It: 26158 Experience rating is mandatory for all eligible members. The experience rating modification factor, if any, applicable to this certificate,may change if there is a change in your ownership or in that of one or more o:.the entities eligible to I)e combined with you for experience PAting purposes. Change in ownership includes sales, purchases, other transfers, mergers, consolidations, dissolutions,formations of a new entity and other Plan manual. changes provided for in the applicable expetience rating You must report any change in ownership to us in writing within 90 days of such change. Failure to report such changes ' within this period may result in revision of the experience rating modification factor us:d to determine your premittm Capy,iog 199014amur coawmC-mm L� . Pmcnc*"14'MX Certificate No: 2082-08 Building Permit No.: 2082-08 Commonwealth of Massachusetts City of Salem Building Electrical Ibfechanicai Permits This is to Certify that the COMMERUAL located at Dwelling Type l I I NORTH STREET in the Address CITY OF SALEM Town/City Pmme IS HEREBY GRANTED A PERINIANENT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY I I l NORTH STREET SHELL STATION This permit is granted in conturmity with the Statutes and ordinances relating thereto,and expires uoless sooner suspended or revoked. Expiration Data Issued On: Mon Feb 25, 2013 GeeTM1ISw7 2017 Das Laurinrs Municipal Solutions,Inc. 11I NORTH STREET G1S#: --- - 236 — __ Z�s2-03 [slap: 26. COMMONWEALTHOF MASSACHUSETTS 1 lock: CITY OF SALEM Lor. 0348 iCateg�or}r. —Addition Pemtit#" ' '03z-03 BUILDING PERiYIIT Project# ' JS-2003-001715• Est Cost:, $189,000.00 Fee Charged $2,084.00. . Al0 Balance DuePE&VIISSIONISIIEREBYGRANTED TO: V Const. Class. Contractor. License: Use Group: Expires Carter Construction 3c Development Inc. Lot Size(sq::ft:): 31219.8876 Zoning: BI Owner. TRICKM REALTY TRUST Units Gained: . A llcant: Carter Construction& Development Inc Units Lost: AT.' 111 NORTH STREET Dig Safe#: -1 ISSUED ON. 25-Jun-2008 AIYIENDED ON: EXPIRES O/V: 25-Nov-2008 TO PERFORM THE FOLLOWING {PORK: PUT ADDITION TO EXISTING BUILDING AS PER PLANS INCLUDING TANKS Bc PIPING jhb POST THIS CARD SO IT IS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET Electric Gas Plum bine Butdine Underground: Underground: Underground: Flnaljy�r�t Jap i Rough, � ll ni Excavation: Service: leter: Footings: Rough: Roug : :Final: � 14, Foundation: y ,/PPRough Frame: )K / op D.P.W. Fre Health Fireplace/Chimney: 9 Meter: Oil: Insulation: of( GGA G IlouseH Smoke: FInaI:eV Water: Alarm:' Final: �Assessor Treasurys:: ` J X1 � I� G�� ✓'f�5/� Seklerr. 113 Serer: SprinZ THIS PERMIT NIAY BE REVOKED BY THE CITY OF SALENI UPON VIOLATION NY OF ITS RULES AND REGULATIONS. Signature: Fee Type: Receipt No: Date Paid: CheckNo: .%mount: BUILDING REC-20034)02206 25-Jun-08 ..a\+s..vw>m-.._...:,,.:..,...W.... ...�. .,.,.::..... ........,.. ..� J029 52.033.00 1 17i (�, l � \ i• d r+rn ( �1I11 fr r ii I?', 1":It t0 (icc py ,'-.. ... . .. � - i 1.. / Ge0'I'.\IS10 200N Der I.auriers:Municipal Snhitions, Inc. '4 fTf psi �"J , e •..�k"+'fir^v'��„''fya� 1_ j4A� s �5� •+ .y"S, A`''' F�d^w nit �-rc55� `'- � '�, t ':. yw`'� f�,�y�.yY- `"3` til �" C `;�• :„ �,xw. �'�§°' h''fi Yl j dK ®R , � IN .� qty.d a aiv rv ” �.- PAR. �rt5� ��,�y.'�Rr` �+�' 4 yF ', �' "!T•}rf T'�{Y�" �p��{-Y� c'�, t f4�.��ty q:A.�- Yr ",;4�& , ^ei p�.5. �„'£�.u 'w1 3 lice+ � wx(ili yyy�, 'e $. 1 • ty?�-" 2-Ni Z";, � e`� _ x a� -�°`u i,�� .,sero V' '�� ��� �L r '�i•,R I� *��,e��'�•�Kp'��-.,E� � � � i zrv����� \ r !•} .L'f lc ".- � 'rfli�i+ ; mak., �.?° y .,:u•"`1 .{,'V,F '4 � i E t < 4 >VB �fy�'�, e`i'•+�''�` qs'��� a'Y �.Y <rj+Lx.Yu� J'�.h. � < .w tk A ��`��.���,r V-c�✓'.��, �s�r di.%"'.x ams �. a,�� ..q ��� �, 5 ,' hatPC "',w,,,li-x L l4 ~ •CSS. iiy'*s. a s :�2Cq'k,p"` `' �`a s r ., ,a' e�e" l�k ' .nig w. . yz� �-S� �mCj'�.Ytr'` Rd 'P f!rpv ` -ya.fM III I III!IN III III I W t 1 L j � r � T. J S f..S ♦ k s� eZ .�t { t w 1 1' 4 '�` t f r3 e..11 ., '• i J - Y #t. {vr1VTJ h_ xrn f iay 4� N4.7t .c C -L8o F ui "' yom\ z \\Vy N �p __ `� _J IE 00$ � .OZ'fL1 Od.6L1P5 ' F]O m ap$ pN �QQAr° ]NIl XJy9L35 JN4gZ.0! � �— -IE �2� r 2010 >mO V y q2D a I I m1?i man " ppp ^ Ur do I NNO _ F I s^g N i I Apx N m0 Q^ I I $ym a�8o ,o's okx I i t p p 9 mD int I ��". $tio goo OO$� I I 8NG yp O l " NpA N 4Ap I' I �pOq� y pTp � ayiA I 22iN 1"�A N inn I I ya:R � �iiA m O I r N I 70m i r---- —Y------- — -- gpLa CQ� -� aggo � TFNC I G I I j.�OO�2 spy \ x �— 0 I F ---------- >px " l q oo iii .'EILCwwpE,�,� u Z4 ] A uPo v � il� i m la Ix _^po a T n I p i u>a Oo N I � � Trsom w aQ I$ C yoA< I i I 3N1�v � On�Z p1� I N oyx OZ.ILSLN N pE u �p� 4 r;V- mL IST '6f V < ]_LL,9pOBN ;x y Nhm 4 MA lb A 1131 xAp^i ��ry� NpN>m N m� �2ox I mA hoz d AFCErvEO I t � /' S INSPfL00MAL SER'lICE3 � tl ��' N;.. p 1 _ I aa PREPAp Cp ip a d 9 TRICKETT REALTY I RUST P R E P A R E D B Y A ✓I ap A� RE YISIOp2 1180 uaw SrnES7 AYOUB ENOINEERM4 gg _ 1E67(S978- 0-63AIA .01876 FsmIr�IND a gRcplreclw.L CBN T $5 a n 978-610-6JJ2 : a CO TE O F,1: y� A D D R E S S 414 BENEFIT STREETIIQ SALEM, M Q( P° 1•B—JR 02961 s PNpNE:(401)728_5533 111 NORTH STREET FAL(401)724-1No kQ yb 254-B N. BROADWAY.SM. 206 In Y Qea g S X E E i D E S O p I Pi I O N SALFM,NEW MAlW9XIRE 03079 Fax: A BUILDING ADDITION PA'' `6058894-`•2'8 F (003)894-4827 �� PPPDD36 CONCEPT PLAN N E-Mau,: BPWBAYIXgFNOp1EERING.0 1 �N Qpp �1y17 m _ � Q.].tu Yli ei•4.LV .' I - L.ltf ii :�':.CV ��� - I .�. ...�..� � _ - �L�� I � S.i1M VEp � �'"S �_ .ACT. ' -1 _ � 1 e0.c•T J4 ufb , (1lV enu .. - _ • 1 ilk"r p�� i i•. •. :- � - I � y � . . � � , -. s _ It ! CIE,LU n1ml ✓Y LE¢ nl•oaAl u '44u _'T¢a6 • ' -:.\-�, tf iTn� . t18 5 keaw, (5 ��� - 3 M1' 3 4 j6 I: 4 neap •�oC r T6 $1 �.{� C t L x 1 a I 1 a A]F g WWZ N y 1.. .} 10.• C •t L 1a r?d���'I'. txfl j :I \ 1. ,\�'. 1 1• _ •\ _ _� ._ t r r - 3 Ae'rJ q*l 0 11 l Mu:.,F14 4Pu _ r. 4er rra E - I P1 1 r iz44'pd�:_ '4 t d.' ;I 11 : S • ou5)u0 �17U- V� - f r p'! rt-,tt 1 s • }I ac }� Y(�U tV: I. 4L pt Il+:r ` T 5. L �• ' .. ti s`'+'.,•�ar � i,p � 9� i � II T WLYAIIi�' I `$!oa¢• I E,aS e I - Il°ST} I : r qt• - )� t+ x .1 !'; �I 1I 1 � :;,. M i•Ig E tJ i���� a I � ..,t. . / h�'ae`i _ 1 1 t �d i /. 4�it.Leli ' I � � d)o � .. � . . I�,wo iC t/ yI�y- "I p +.+ _• 'Exl-T p6- innrva^. ^t..OG - : +t..6 1'irl 1 Z'. love 2tK Ise. Y 1 � - FC-r, �UO Ib!_! `� h.ww 4•n J� •!" + �� .Il - /� ,il � i - � 1 7L` Ea¢ ua� e r e.w YE i v �47 q bJtb. - _ } # t'� , -' !I Wi,.t-r;�: .4.. .p,.�aa •p.p \—�'� --��`.�'�. c¢• r.a.u.n..ai .. t,t_-d -_ .uEc.J _n o I'° L1�9'O w.0as w•; is Lltc)u-l SHELLTi GC NG EASTERN MARKEYNQ RE PLOTFLAU i n I-IIs N o k.'N .I E l- t £ � fi l � IiWC ua e• .. ' ve¢w� ep,exa • IO-p pr¢n aOn pwll - r !An 1_ .. � IROwpY pliR .. v OLA•! All.nbutQ_ D�.'ZI70-3A