The pergola at the Bank Park in Wilmington.
Mike Eldred
Most of the crowd was there to hear a presentation by petitioners asking the board to “relocate the pergola presently erected on the bank park lot, to a location outside the Wilmington Historic Design District.”
Calling the meeting a “special celebration of our democracy,” Wilmington resident Marv Neuman handed the petition to board members, noting there were approximately 300 signatures on the petition. “They are a cross section of our community,” he said.
Petitioner Skip Morrow said that the petitioners believe that the pergola is “inappropriately sited and out of scale with its surroundings,” and suggested that it did not comply with the town’s design control regulations.
“Defenders of the pergola are quick to say ‘where were you when we held our public meetings?’” Morrow said. “Our answer is that enforcement of Wilmington’s Historic District Regulations is the legal responsibility entrusted to the Wilmington town government. Lack of public attendance at meetings does not release our town officials from adherence to legal statutes.”
Laraine Morrow also read a letter from Lilias Hart in which she stated her belief that the pergola was in conflict with the design control regulations. The design did receive a local zoning permit, granted under the town’s design control and zoning regulations. Town attorney Bob Fisher noted that there was a change regarding the design of the pergola made after the permit was issued. He said the town’s zoning administrator had the statutory authority to decide whether the change was significant enough to require another hearing or whether no hearing was necessary. In this case, he said, zoning administrator Alice Herrick determined that the change was minor and needed no additional hearing. The development review board’s decision, along with the design control regulations, can be found at www.wilmingtonvermont.us.
Wilmington resident Dave Buckley offered his services in removing the pergola, at no cost to the town. “I am prepared and equipped to oversee the entire relocation by the valley’s finest craftsmen at no cost to the town,” he said. “The removal could be done respectfully, in the early morning hours, with little or no disruption to the center of town.”
Neuman poked fun at claims made by architect Joseph Cincotta that the pergola was an integral part of the park design, and that the weight of the pergola was necessary to stabilize the riverside foundation wall of the old bank building. “Should you believe that the weight of the pergola is, in fact, keeping the entire park from falling into the river,” Neuman said,” I submit the following calculations (showing) that you would need to add .18 feet of stone to the (top of the foundation wall) to replicate the load of the pergola.”
Skip Morrow said the town’s design control regulations had been “tested to the breaking point” by the pergola, and acknowledged that the DRB may believe the regulations are open to interpretation. In that case, he said, “We submit that the decision for the fate of the pergola should be given to the people through an Australian ballot.”
But town attorney Bob Fisher said a petitioned issue such as removing the pergola had to meet a two-part test to be considered for townwide vote. “First, it must not be useless, frivolous, or for an unlawful purpose,” Fisher said. “Second, it must set forth a clear right that is within the purview of Town Meeting to grant.” Fisher said the petition met the first test but, under the law, it wasn’t “within the province of Town Meeting to vote” on the removal of the pergola. “Any vote would be advisory only,” he said.
Rusten noted that, to his displeasure, Fisher had determined that, according to state statutes, a structure such as the pergola is under the town manager’s discretion. “That was lovely information for me to hear,” Rusten joked.
Board member Susan Haughwout told the petitioners that an Australian ballot on a public question wasn’t allowed in Wilmington, because the town hasn’t voted on a measure approving ballot questions. “If these kinds of things are important to you, you should think about it for the future,” she said.
Regarding a possible legal challenge to the zoning permit for the park, Fisher said that state statutes don’t give the selectboard the authority to intervene in the DRB process and overrule or appeal their decision. “The time for anyone else to appeal has passed,” he said. “It is a final ruling at this point.”
Board member Meg Streeter said she thought the pergola issue was settled at Town Meeting. “My personal feeling is the town had an opportunity to vote on this on March 3, 2009,” she said. “While I appreciate opposing views, I feel we already voted on it. I don’t feel it’s an effective part of democracy to ignore the people who voted to go ahead and finish the park knowing the pergola was already there.”
But Wilmington resident Jason Crawford disagreed, saying that the vote was to plant trees, grass, and finish the stonework. “The vote was not to take the pergola down. We all wanted to see it finished. It was ugly without the grass and stonework.”
But another Wilmington resident pointed out that during the Town Meeting discussion, the issue of removing the pergola was debated when petitioner Kelly Kahler had introduced a motion to withhold funding until the pergola was removed. “That’s the discussion I was thinking of,” agreed Streeter.
Jim Burke said he wasn’t on the board when the pergola was approved, but he promised that the board would be “more transparent” in the future. “As a new set of board members, you have my promise this will be looked at totally different from here on out,” he said. “Whatever comes after this point, as your selectboard we should be cognizant that something like this does not just float across the table to affect every one of you here tonight. I’ll do my best to do whatever we can to help each and every one of you get through this and move on.”
Finally, Wilmington resident Betsey Reagan brought up an issue that few others have been willing to talk about publicly. Specifically, she referred to what some have suggested is an appearance of impropriety, that Cincotta, the park’s designer, is also the chair of the planning commission, and is married to Julie Lineberger, who was on the selectboard at the time the park design was approved. Although Lineberger recused herself from all discussions and decisions regarding the park, and even left the room while other board members were discussing and voting on park issues, Reagan suggested it would have been difficult for other board members to have opposed the design. “I just think you can’t say ‘hey, that sucks’ when somebody’s wife is on the board, and the person who designed it is on the planning commission. It seems like there’s a conflict of interest, and I think that’s what we’re all angry about,” she said, to murmurs of agreement.
But the murmurs of agreement turned to “nos” when Streeter asked, “Really? That’s what it’s all about? Not the pergola?” Streeter said she didn’t want to stray into personal attacks, but she noted that there was no legal conflict in the matter.
Responding to a question from Steve Butler regarding rumors that the town failed to get a state permit for the park, Rusten said that the state department of labor and industry office in Springfield had originally determined that no permit was necessary. After receiving a complaint regarding compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act from a Wilmington resident, however, the central office in Barre re-examined the issue and, earlier this month, decided a permit was necessary for the park.
Rusten said that any rumors that the town or park design was in violation of ADA guidelines were incorrect because, he said, no inspection had occurred or violation issued. He said the town had submitted the application, would wait for state approval and inspection, and, in the event that any violation is identified, the selectboard will decide how to move forward.
Fire Prevention Programs Chief Bob Howe, who issued the revised permit decision, confirmed that the Springfield office had originally determined no permit was necessary. He said the change was prompted by the complaint from a resident. “We looked into it a second time and the research said we should be taking a better look at it,” Howe said. “This type of thing isn’t a common project.”
Board members agreed to hold further discussion and make a decision on the matter at an upcoming meeting.
News for some in Wilmington -- art sometimes provokes strong reactions. That does not make it bad. It means that one can't argue about taste, and that is exactly what some have chosen to do. Fighting to undo an artistic creation is destructive and anti-art. Sadly, that is what does not surprise me about this Vermont story. It is not as if the pergola is something offensive and unfit for public display. In fact, it both serves a purpose, and satisfies design challenges that the designer apparently cannot sufficiently explain to those ignorant of the very subject. Isn't it intended to be surrounded by plants and growth? How about giving it some time. Was this installed just for one season like the painted bears -- to later be sold to someone else? I did not think so.