The Rochester Joint School Committee met on the evening of Thursday, May 10, at the ORRHS Library to discuss the results of the annual evaluation process for Superintendent Doug White.  School Committee members rated White’s performances on a scale of one to four, where one indicated that he was not meeting the expected standard and four represents an exemplary score.

Six categories were broken down into several subsections, including the quality of his relationship with the School Committee, educational leadership skills, and personal management.  Sharon Hartley, Chairperson of the Massachusetts School Superintendent’s Union #55 School Committee, began running down each line item on a PowerPoint display, encouraging members to speak up to illustrate their reasons for why they scored White the way they did.

Part way through the evaluations, several School Committee members stated that they did not feel that putting members on the spot to explain their positions was an appropriate way of discussing the results of the evaluations.

“This is either kudos or a one-way mediation to address a situation,” one member said.  “The final score is really what’s important, with the comments to support it,” said another.  “We don’t need to know who gave what scores and why.”

“If you look at my contract, the evaluation is part of the agreement,” White said, citing that this scoring system is just one way of evaluating his performance, abdicating that there could be more balanced, detailed, and thorough ways of measuring his success.

“I know it’s tough,” he said.  “I appreciate each and every one of you. I’ve had relationships with all of you across the year and I hope that can continue.  What we want to do is be able to give a quality education of for our kids, so please, give me the tools to help accomplish that,” White said.

Overall, Superintendent White scored an 90%. He got support for being an excellent educational leader.  His scores cited his strength in engaging with principals, teachers, and staff, setting, and reporting professional goals, and demonstrating a high priority on the renewal of curriculum and instructional programs, though some felt that he was not active enough in the process of curriculum renewal.

White was also praised for his leadership and support in areas of student transportation, food, and health, but was criticized for having little knowledge of the progress and issues in those same areas.

“I’m so thankful to have a committee that feels confident to talk about these issues and work through the problem spots,” Hartley said.

By Eric Tripoli 

The Marion Zoning Board of Appeal’s final decision on developer Bay Watch Realty’s affordable housing project has been delayed until May 31 – with the deadline to file it moved back to June 8.

The ZBA was expected to vote on the 40B project – situated west of Route 105 with a proposed 60 rentals and 36 single-family homes – at its special meeting on Thursday, May 10. However, the ZBA postponed the decision for another month to allow for one final review with Town Counsel Jon Whitten, the town’s engineering consultant and the developer.

“We’ll get together and make sure all the ducks are in a row,” said ZBA Chairman Robert Wedge.

A few major changes were brought to the attention of the board, however. As it stands presently, the developer has designated 100 percent of the 60 rentals as affordable – with all but six of the single-family homes to be sold at market value. Two of the six homes would be affordable, two would be sold at 120 percent of the town’s median income, and two of the lots would be available for purchase by the town for $125,000 apiece.

However, according to Bay Watch attorney Ted Regnante, MassHousing has not yet authorized the proposed breakdown of affordable units for the single-family homes. Typically state guidelines require that 25 percent of units are affordable for a 40B project, and MassHousing has yet to determine if Bay Watch’s bifurcated project is acceptable.

Moreover, Bay Watch Realty was not given tax credits this spring – and if it does not receive them in the fall – the developer could not go forward with the project as planned and would instead would have to put 75 percent of all units (both rental and single-family homes) at market rate and 25 percent as affordable.  The ZBA approved a language change that would allow 25 percent affordability for both parts of the project in the case the first scenario does not pan out with MassHousing.

Atty. Regnante also explained that the developer would enter into a covenant with the town to ensure that money is available to finish the project’s roads, even in the worst-case scenario.

“If god forbid the developer goes south, you’ll have the money to finish the roads,” Atty. Whitten said. “Typically a covenant is not released until the majority of work is done.”

Atty. Whitten also relayed other minor changes and requirements for inclusion in the draft decision – including a requirement that the 75-foot long wooden bridge into the development complies with Mass DOT standards with the certification of an engineer.

Additionally, it was agreed that the developer would request a waiver for the sewer connection fee for the two rental buildings, which equates to $20,000.

The board agreed to meet again for a final decision on May 31.

In other business that night, the ZBA voted on two Special Permit cases, which had been taken under advisement on April 19.

The ZBA quickly approved a Special Permit request for applicant Julia Kalkanis to construct an addition at a non-conforming single-family home at 17 Maple Avenue.

However, the board reviewed and ultimately denied a Special Permit request from applicant Robert McNamara to raze and reconstruct a home at 19 Shawondasse Road.

Board member Tom Cooper described the case as “smoke and mirrors” and said the applicant is proposing to rebuild a 16-by-20 “shack” into a three-story, 34.6-foot high structure that far surpasses its footprint.

“It’s hard to make out where the existing shed is [on the map], that’s how absurd it is,” Cooper said.

“It’s exacerbating nonconformities to a tremendous extent,” agreed Betsy Dunn.

Building Commissioner Scott Shippey commented that the applicant’s assertion that there is a deck adjoining the home, which would render the footprint as larger, is wrong. “There is no deck, just a concrete patio – and the patio is not part of the structure,” he said, but he added that the property does have a sewer and water connection.

In its final decision, the board voted against the Special Permit because it substantially increases nonconformities and is detrimental to the neighborhood.

By Laura Fedak Pedulli

The town of Mattapoisett is planning to start the second phase of tree spraying for winter moths this Friday, May 11, at 5:00 am in the village and surrounding areas.

The Conservation Commission had their meeting on Wednesday night, rather than Tuesday, due to scheduling rearrangements because of the upcoming Annual Town Meeting.  They approved requests for amended orders for the Gauvins, to change the house footprint, adjust grading and the septic system.

They also approved a request for an amended order for property at 26 Ocean Drive; the Williams family also wants to change the footprint of the structure, adjust the driveway, and add landscaping.  Dave Davignon of Schneider and  Associates also represented the DeRosa family, for a request for amended orders for property on Goodspeed Island.

“The proposed home will actually be narrower than the existing structure, and the grading and septic system will remain largely the same,” Davignon said.

The Commission also spoke with Sue Nelson from CLE Engineering, on behalf of the Town of Mattapoisett, regarding a Notice of Intent for dredging and maintenance of Eel Pond.

“This is a proposal to maintain the entrance of the East Channel, in order to open it up to improve the flushing characteristics in the pond as well as the two smaller salt ponds to the east,” she said.

The hearing was continued to the next meeting, however, as discussion of the possible negative effects of the removal of large amounts of sand, which would help improve drainage, but could exacerbate beach erosion problems.  There were also questions as to where to put the sand that may be removed as part of the project.

The next meeting of the Mattapoisett Conservation Commission will be on Wednesday, May 23, 2012, at 6:30 pm at the Town Hall.

By Eric Tripoli