Judging by her face, Southeastern Massachusetts Educational Collaborative (SMEC) Executive Director Catherine Cooper was bracing herself for disappointment.

For months, Cooper had been negotiating with the SMEC subcommittee to rent space at ORR for a special education program for three to eight students with significant developmental delays, including Autism, from other districts who are part of the collaborative.

The SMEC program at ORR would be based out of a substantially separate classroom, but the SpEd students would be gradually integrated into the general classroom setting at ORR.

ORR Principal Michael Devoll had concerns about what he called a difference in philosophy, implying the separated SpEd classroom program would clash with the school’s full-inclusion program for SpEd students.

“We do have the space,” said Devoll. However, he said the school prides itself on welcoming its SpEd students into the general classroom, and worried that a self-contained classroom would send mixed messages to students and staff at ORR.

“We do a great job with our students,” said Devoll. “And we believe it (full inclusion) works.”

School Committee members were unclear about the segregation aspect of the program and how Cooper envisioned the program would function at ORR.

Two parents in attendance spoke out against the separation aspect of the program, saying the full-inclusion program worked well for their kids, and one mother whose child graduated from ORR said she was against any model that included separation of the SpEd students from the general education setting.

The SMEC program would not be an entirely separate classroom program, but rather a partial-inclusion program that Cooper said is recommended by each of the students’ Individualized Education Programs (IEP), which is developed by the student’s IEP team that consists of the student’s parents, educators, and therapists.

Cooper said most of the would-be program’s students are non-verbal, and a full-inclusion setting would not be appropriate at the present time. She said the ultimate goal of the program is to gradually integrate the students into the general classroom, and then reintegrate the students into their home districts.

The students would be based in their own self-contained classroom, but attend a regular ORR class and gradually attend more if appropriate.

ORR’s culture of welcoming special needs students into the integrated setting is what drew Cooper to ORR, she said. Some other program sites were unsuccessful in other districts, she said, because the school’s culture was not welcoming of the special needs students and the administration of the school was not supportive of the program.

The phrase “difference in philosophy” came up several times.

Committee member Robin Rounseville said she did not think it was a different philosophy per se, because full integration was the main goal of the program. She acknowledged that, due to the severity of some of the needs of the students, they might need “a little longer to get there.”

Chairman James O’ Brien, who is on the SMEC subcommittee, asked after hearing some debate from Devoll and the two parents, “Are we truly a member of that collaborative, or are we choosing to be when we want to be?” He said the SMEC program would be the least restrictive setting – a concept that is mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

“I’ve gone back and forth like five times,” said School Committee member Nick Decas. “I don’t know how I’m going to vote, honestly.” He said he was not sure if ORR was ready for the program and if staff were properly trained for the change.

Cooper stated that specific teachers would be approached before students were placed.

“We’ll know fairly quickly who will be great, who is willing, and who wants nothing to do with it,” said Cooper. But without the administration’s support, the program might not be successful.

“This is a chance to give these children a huge opportunity,” said committee member Michelle Oullette.

Student representative Renae Reints told the committee she did not think the program sounded too restrictive and separate, saying that perhaps the SMEC students just needed a little more separate program, but the students would welcome them. Decas later stated that Reints’ comment persuaded him to vote in favor.

The vote to accept the program was unanimous, with committee member Charles Motta “passing” on the vote because he was unsure.

Also during the meeting, committee members discussed school choice options for next year and based their decision primarily on class size. The junior high has the highest average class size in the district at 24.5 students.

There currently are 94 school choice slots at ORR – 72 at the high school and 12 at the junior high.

The board voted to continue to offer 72 slots at the high school, but will refrain from offering any slots at the junior high, at a loss of $60,000. The district receives $5,000 for each school choice student.

In other news, Devoll announced that this year’s graduation ceremony will begin at 12:00 pm, rather than the traditional 1:00 pm.

He said, for many years, some students have had to make some “hard decisions” over whether to attend graduation or miss out on other events, like track competitions.

In other matters, O’ Brien pointed out that this was the first ORR School Committee meeting to be held since the 2011 ORR cyber-theft incident was discussed at a joint meeting with the Tri-Town selectmen.

“In several instances, I rolled up my sleeves to support this committee,” said O’ Brien. He added that the committee members give up their time to work on behalf of the students, and he mentioned the criticism the School Committee has received from the Tri-Town selectmen over the committee’s handling of the incident.

“Enough!” said O’ Brien sternly. He commended the committee for “try[ing] to do what’s right for the kids.” He told the committee members to “stay strong” before adjourning the meeting.

The next ORR School Committee meeting will be June 11 at 6:00 pm in the superintendent’s conference room at ORR.

By Jean Perry

Approving a definition of ‘light manufacturing’ under the Marion’s zoning by-law was the final step that the Zoning Board of Appeals needed to win in a Land Court lawsuit against the Town by two residents who were denied a building permit to construct a solar facility.

            Laura and Dale Briggs, owners of a parcel of land on County Road, filed their application before the Town had a solar by-law, and their application was denied because solar production is not regulated under the zoning by-law, and light manufacturing is not allowed in a residential zone.

            The Briggses were present on May 15 when Town Counsel Jon Whitten read the approved definition for light manufacturing relative to solar energy production.

            The zoning by-law defines light manufacturing as “fabrication, assembly, processing, finishing work, or packaging.”

            When Judge Alexander Sands found in favor of the Town in his decision rendered on February 6, 2014, he ordered the Town to relate the definition of light manufacturing to solar energy production before he could find in favor of the Town, which is what Whitten read aloud during the meeting.

            “Solar facilities utilize ‘solar cells’ … to convert sunlight to electricity for commercial sale. The conversion of sunlight to electricity for commercial sale entails ‘processing’ as that term is used in the by-law definition of ‘light manufacturing,” said Whitten.

            “That’s just totally not true,” said Norman Hills, a member of the Planning Board and Conservation Commission, and who was present that evening. “There is no production involved.”

            “But you’re producing energy,” replied Chairman Eric Pierce. He added that it was a commercial activity in a residential zone, as well.

            “We’ve got plenty of businesses in residential areas,” said Hills, “so it’s not unheard of.”

            Resident Jennifer Francis used cranberry bogs as an analogy of allowed commercial uses within residential zones under the zoning by-law. She said in cranberry bogs, the growing and the harvesting is more of a complex production.

            “Whereas solar panels just sit there,” said Francis. “They make no sound.”

            Francis then questioned the board’s motive for the initial denial of the permit.

            “Why are you so bent on disallowing this use?” asked Francis. “You’re just pulling at straws to find some way to call this light manufacturing so you can shut it down.”

            She said Town Meeting just approved a solar by-law, so clearly the Town is “OK with solar.”

            “You’re not representing the sentiment or the spirit of the Town,” said Francis.

            Whitten fired back, saying the board was upholding the law, and the zoning by-law did not allow this type of use.

            “I don’t think anybody’s opposed to this project,” said Whitten. “And the analogy of the cranberry bogs to solar farms is not a helpful one.”

            He said the Briggses could have applied with the Planning Board under the zoning by-law, but they chose not to do that, probably, he said, because it would trigger a site plan review and special permit process.

            “As your attorney, I’m trying to uphold the rule of law,” said Whitten. He said if the Town should arbitrarily allow certain projects that it liked, in spite of the zoning by-laws, it would be “a world of anarchy.”

            Whitten told the residents that if the Briggses acted now, “This project could be up and running … by the end of June, first week of July.”

            Another resident chastised the board for the delay and costs accrued in fighting the building permit application.

            “And it just raises the blood pressure of this town,” he said.

            “I agree with you,” said Pierce. “We should’ve had a solar by-law … years ago.”

            After the meeting, in a follow-up interview, the Briggs said they will move forward with applying for a variance with the ZBA under the new solar by-law, and they will do it promptly.

By Jean Perry

The May 14 agenda of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission could have borne the title of ‘Water, Water Everywhere’ as several items the commission heard during the course of the meeting dealt with too much water in all the wrong places.

The two cases causing the most controversy were drainage issues at Appaloosa Lane and at Brandt Point Village. Developers or their representatives were asked to attend the meeting to address specific ConCom issues.

Brian Grady of GAF Engineering was on hand to answer questions regarding expansion of drainage basins associated with the housing development on Appaloosa Lane. Residents along River Road came out to complain that since the developer has resumed work on engineered drainage basins, water has been flowing into their yards. Also referred to as retention ponds, these water collectors were designed to be ‘dry.’ However, with a high water table and wet weather conditions, they have been full and overflowing. As the construction team attempted to move water from one basin to the other, it was discovered that the soil content is mostly clay, causing Conservation Agent Liz Leidhold to wonder aloud if they would ever be able to sufficiently re-charge water back into the ground. Highway Superintendent Barry Denham shared those concerns from his own observation of the soil.

It was also brought to the commission’s attention that a vast amount of soil material had been dug out and piled high at the site rather than being removed from the area. Denham said, “I didn’t receive any notification that work would be taking place there … they have removed a significant amount of material (but) I don’t know why it wasn’t removed off site … I question if it’s (drainage basins) going to be able to handle storm water … they were supposed to be dry basins.” Nearly at a whisper he commented, “How can they install a septic system when the water is so close to ground level?” Commission member Bob Rogers replied, “Well, that’s not for us to determine.”

Patricia Apperson, a River Road resident, said that pumps and hoses were being used that very day to suck water out of one of the basins. However, the hoses were placed in such a manner that the water purposefully flowed into her yard. She said that every time someone new purchased the land, new and greater water problems were created and yet it seemed that developers were being given increasingly easier permissions. Brian Cook of 11 River Road stated he now had water in his basement for the first time.

Chairman Peter Newton said that the first step had to be to allow the developer to complete the drainage work as engineered and then to see where things stood. This did not appease the neighbors whose frustrations were very evident.

Grady will visit the site and continue to work with the contractor on ways to eliminate some of the drainage problems and report back to the commission.

The Brandt Point Village cluster housing project received equal, if not greater, outrage from residents in that area. Coming before the commission was Curtis Mello, one of the development trust partners. The commission wished to discuss the long-overdue wetlands remediation area. But it was drainage issues on the minds of abutters. A naturally flowing historic brook had been planned to accept storm water re-charged into the surrounding area. Denham again spoke and said that three drainage easements on Gary Lane adjacent to the site ran into the brook already, but that the brook was not part of any easement and, therefore, he couldn’t clean it out to help it flow better. He questioned if the brook would be viable to handle more.

Denham said that when angry residents call him for help with drainage issues, he is faced with housing developments where “developers don’t seem to follow their plans.”

The developers of Brandt Point Village are seeking to amend plans through the Planning Board on May 19 at 7:00 pm at Center School. The commission voted to send a letter to the Planning Board asking them to review ConCom’s mandate for completion of the 3500-square foot wetlands remediation during that hearing.

But vocal opponent to the proposed changes at this site, Paul Osenkowski, felt not enough was being done by the commission to protect this vulnerable area. He asked, “Why can’t we stop it now! They haven’t followed the rules for five years and now we’re supposed to change the rules in the middle of the game?” Rick Coty of Gary Lane said, “The area is a mess.”

Earlier in the evening, a certificate of compliance was issued for 7 Nantucket Drive at this development, with Bob Rogers noting that new homeowners shouldn’t be penalized because the developer has failed to complete wetland remediation.

To the chagrin of Osenkowski and residents of Gary Lane, members of the commission – including Mike King, Bob Rogers and Chairman Newton – all asserted that the best way to make things right at this location were efforts to work with the developer, not to penalize him. King said that the present owner “had inherited a problem he is trying to fix.”

On a lighter note in the agenda, Evan Roznoy, a local Boy Scout, came before the commission with his plan to build handicap ramps at the restrooms located on Ned’s Point. This will be his Eagle Scout project. After explaining to Roznoy why it was necessary for his project to receive ConCom approval, Chairman Newton thanked Roznoy as they voted in the affirmative. Those in attendance echoed their approval via applause.

Mark Julien of 30 Ocean Drive received a negative two approval for replacing an existing gravel driveway with asphalt to install a half-court basketball play area.

Richard Charon, representing Blue Wave LLC, came before the commission with an update on the proposed Crystal Spring commercial solar field. After further research, some minor changes were made to the site plan and he reaffirmed that flooding in the area was caused by poor drainage along the roadway.

Alan Decker of the Buzzards Bay Coalition came before ConCom for them to sign documents pursuant to land that will come under protective purview. With land grant funds in the amount of $300,000 available for only a few more weeks, the commission moved forward as required. The 27-acre site that the town voted to accept during last Fall’s town meeting will now be conveyed into protection.

ConCom members Marylou Kelliher and Mike King volunteered to be part of the Soil Conservation Board. The Board of Selectmen will need to approve their assignment.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission is scheduled for May 28 at 6:30 pm in town hall.

By Marilou Newell