CAPE MAY — Hissing, chugging, whistling, grease and oil dripping, coal and oil-fired steam locomotives once pounded the rails on a site where a new 54-unit condo-hotel has been approved by the city’s planning board. But, the city’s environmental commission has questions about that approval, and future clean up at the Coachman Motor Inn on Beach Avenue.
A pending CAFRA application sits with the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
The environmental commission wrote to DEP on Dec. 16, 2006, noting the planning board approved demolition of the Coachman Motor Inn, and construction of a new condo-hotel and restaurant, and waived the requirement for an environmental impact statement. Former railroad use of the property was never mentioned by anyone at the planning board hearing.
Files in the city’s Construction Office show, Cape Coachman Holdings L.L.C. had environmental reports on the need for site clean-up as early as July 25, 2006, but provided an environmental report to the city the day after the project was approved by the planning board on Dec. 6, 2006. The city clerk stamped “received” on the report Dec. 8.
“If the planning board had asked for it, we would have presented it, I guess,” Keith Bashaw, a partner in Cape Coachman Holdings, told the Herald. “I defer to our counsel on that. I don’t know why it would be material in any way.”
A site plan review application was received by the city on Oct. 31, 2006, but an environmental report was not included.
The environmental commission did not receive a copy of an environmental assessment, until it was sent to DEP with a CAFRA permit application, after the planning board had approved the project.
Sometime around 1870, the West Jersey Railroad constructed a train station at Grant Street and Beach Avenue referred to as Grant Street Station and Summer Station, since it was only open that time of year.
It was a handsome stick-style skeleton of a building with open palisades of heavy timber allowing the sea breeze to pass through, according to “Cape May, Queen of the Seaside Resorts,” written by George E. Thomas and Carl E. Doeby.
According to DEP Web sites, some historic railroad operations involved the use of chemicals along rail lines, including pesticides for weed control along tracks, such as lead arsenate; lubricating oil and grease that dripped from locomotives; coal ash from engines; and, creosote from railroad ties.
An environmental assessment was prepared for Cape Coachman Holdings by GEI Consultants, of Pennsauken, and submitted to DEP as part of an application for a CAFRA permit in December 2006.
The GEI report notes the West Jersey and Sea Shore Railroad system incorporated two sets of tracks, a small “pass” station perpendicular to Beach Avenue, a platform on opposite sides of the two tracks and curbed platforms surrounding the main platform.
“The railroad tracks were identified as being east of the existing Coachman’s Motor (Inn) office and potentially within the footprints of the 64-unit, three story motel structure and Rusty Nail Bar and Grill Restaurant,” said the GEI report.
A railroad spur line ran onto the property as late as 1950, according to GEI.
Cape Coachman Holdings requested and received a waiver for the requirement of an environmental impact statement from the planning board, citing “the proposed project is a demolition and reconstruction of an existing hotel and restaurant and the site is 87.5 percent impervious. The proposed building is also a hotel and restaurant use with less units with a proposed 81.1 impervious area.”
Cape Coachman’s application to the board noted, “reducing the impervious area of the site should be of benefit, therefore, no additional environmental impact is anticipated.”
In its letter to DEP, the environmental commission questioned if that state agency would continue investigation of the Coachman property, and supervise demolition.
The commission also asked if asbestos and lead-based paint in the motel created concerns for air contamination, and what was the specific remediation plan before and after demolition.
GEI recommended sampling soils located with a swale, analyzed for potential contaminants generated from “locomotives and historic fill.”
As early as July 25, 2006, Cape Coachman Holdings was aware of railroad-related contamination on the property, evidenced by a letter from GEI on that date to Bashaw.
A Nov. 17, 2006 letter from GEI to Bashaw revealed contaminated soil was present on the property in excess of DEP’s soil clean-up criteria from two soil borings.
One soil boring identified concentrations of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), which comes from incomplete combustion of fuels such as coal and wood. Some PAHs are suspected carcinogens.
A second round of soil borings were conducted on the Coachman site. A boring sample contained “historic fill material” used under tracks — ash, cinders, and brick.
The sample contained benzoanthracene, benzofluorathene and benzopyrene in excess of DEP standards, according to GEI’s July 25 letter.
GEI noted, “Fill material found at the subject property should be treated as contaminated.”
GEI recommended further site investigations targeting PAHs in blocks 1019, lots 126 and 137, to “delineate the lateral and vertical extend to contaminated historic fill within the paved area towards Coachman’s Inn.”
GEI recommended remediation of soils on the property by either limited removal of dirt or capping known contaminants, or through a deed restriction of the property.
It noted historical evidence has revealed locomotives used Poly Chlorinated Biphenyl (PCBs), and PAH in their operation.
The report said materials found in the soil borings were contaminated and would need to be taken to a facility for disposal if removed from the Coachman property.
The environmental commission’s letter to DEP asked if benzene-based compounds pose runoff concerns in a flood prone area; if monitoring wells or fencing may be necessary; what corrective measures will be taken to protect the health safety of Cape Island Creek, Cape May, and the ocean; and, is the property swale contaminated?
GEI’s Nov. 17 letter to Bashaw said contaminants were found in the courtyard area of the motel. It recommended excavation and disposal of soil at that location.
“Based on GEI’s limited site investigation/findings, the PAH impacted soils appeared to be confined within the Coachman Motor Inn’s courtyard,” said the report. “The fill material will be excavated during the site improvement activities, stockpiled separately, and sampled to determine whether or not they need to be disposed of as hazardous material.”
That has been completed. Bashaw said he estimated 200 tons of soil was removed from the courtyard area.
He told the Herald his group would be looking at the soil under the Rusty Nail after it is demolished and would remove it if necessary. Based on the soil borings, he said he did not believe any problems existed under the motel building.
Vollmer Associates, landscape architects and engineers from Toms River, estimated cleaning up “hot spots” on the property, identified by two soil borings, would cost $15,000. Vollmer noted it would petition DEP for “No further action for the soils at the subject property.”
Bashaw said he believed “no further action” would be asked for the courtyard. If borings locate more “historic fill, it would be removed when the buildings come down, he said.
Bashaw told the Herald, Jim Malanos, of Volmer, who conducted soil borings, would be on site during demolition. He said Malanos has been “in constant contact with the DEP.”
The environmental commission’s letter to DEP also questioned if disturbing the soil would be hazardous to runoff entering storm drains since the property is located in a flood-prone area. The commission asked if a list of remediation corrections would be available to the public, and what EPA permits may be needed?
Bashaw referred the Herald to Malanos for questions about run off from the soil. Malanos referred the Herald to Cape Coachman Holding’s attorney, Dottie Bolinski, of Drinker, Biddle of Princeton, who issued a written statement.
The statement said Stantec is conducting an investigation, including soil sampling, and, as necessary, removal of historic fill material related to a former railroad spur within the courtyard of the Coachman’s Motor Inn. The work is being done pursuant to DEP oversight and in accordance with the DEP’s Technical Requirements for Site Remediation, and all other applicable requirements.
Upon completion of the site work, Cape Coachman Realty LLC will ask the DEP to issue a No Further Action approval for the property. As of this date, such request has yet not been made, according to Bolinski.
“The property owner is taking an aggressive approach to any residual contamination related to the former railroad spur by excavating any historic fill material associated with the old railroad spur for proper off-site disposal, she wrote.”
“Pursuant to its Technical Requirements, NJDEP would allow the historic fill material to remain on-site with an appropriate deed notice. However, Cape Coachman Realty LLC, despite the increased cost, has decided to move to a permanent soil remedy for any residual historic fill material in the courtyard associated with the former railroad spur,” said her statement.
Bashaw said additional borings were conducted last week but results were not available.
“We’re cleaning up the site,” he said. “The environmental commission should be very happy with what we are doing there.”
Contact Fichter at (609) 886-8600 Ext 30 or at: jfichter@cmcherald.com
