Marion historic district rejected at Town Meeting

MARION — Following months of contentious discussions, voters opposed the creation of a Marion historic district at Town Meeting on Monday, May 12.

Requiring a two-thirds majority, the district bylaw was rejected with 154 voters in favor of the proposal and 150 voters dissenting.

The proposal asked property owners in the district to abide by specific guidelines for exterior construction, additions and demolitions in order to maintain historic architectural harmony with the surrounding buildings. Exterior renovations would have to be approved by a committee of professionals who work in architecture, engineering and related fields.

The district would have encompassed all of Cottage Street, Hiller Street, Main Street, Pie Alley, School Street, South Street, Water Street, #1-9 Allen Street, #137-183 Front Street, #1-2 Island Wharf Road, #2-10 Lewis Street, #61-78 Pleasant Street and #8-16 Spring Street, excluding two commercial business properties that were deemed to have insignificant historic value.

Chair of the Marion Historic District Study Committee William Tifft said that the district would universally benefit all Marion residents by preserving the historic nature of the town.

He discussed the fragile nature of maintaining historic buildings, stating that Marion is “the most intact historic village on the South Coast” and “once you lose something, you can’t get it back.”

“We still have time to prevent its gradual demise, as this [has] happened in so many other towns,” said Tifft.

Resident Andrew Bonney gave a presentation detailing his opposition to the proposed district.

“This is imposing new regulations and new bureaucracy on people’s individual properties, literally infringing on their private property rights,” he said.

Bonney described a resident interest survey from the committee as a “biased push poll” that did not provide context for opposing views of the district.

He also pointed out that only 18% of district property owners voted yes to the creation of the district in the poll.

“Let’s ask the Historic Study Committee to abandon their efforts to impose their tastes on everybody else under the penalty of the law,” said Bonney.

Meeting attendees who favored the district discussed the importance of maintaining the historic appearance of the town.

Resident Hardwick Simmons moved to Marion for the first time in 1948 and said the village has “stayed remarkably the same.”

“We’ve got something very precious here in Marion, Massachusetts, and I don’t think it’s something you want to let go,” he said.

Frank McNamee, a member of the Sippican Historical Society Board of Directors, expressed his support for the district as an owner of three historic buildings in Marion.

“This historic district will help all businesses in Marion and help save Marion’s most important structures from the wrecking ball and over development. If you love Marion like I do, please vote yes,” he said.

Voters who live in the proposed district voiced their opposition to the construction and renovation restrictions.

Resident Johanna Vergoni called the district “a solution in search of a problem,” stating that she found no evidence of insensitive construction in the area.

“The commission has provided no hard data to show that these issues are widespread or growing,” she said.

Additionally, Vergoni questioned if the committee was trying to preserve history or resist change.

Resident Christina Bonney feared that if the proposal were approved, the size of the district would continue to expand and infringe upon property owner rights.

“I urge everyone present tonight to please vote as if it is your property rights being threatened by this bylaw, because if they aren’t already, they may be soon,” she said.