WILMINGTON- Local residents packed the cafeteria at Twin Valley High School for Monday evening’s pre-Town Meeting. But few were there to discuss budgets or other spending measures. Most came to the meeting to sound off on Article 2, an Australian ballot question asking for the removal of the Bank Park pergola. Under the wording of the ballot question, a “yes” vote on the question is a vote to dismantle and remove the pergola, and marking the “no” box is a vote in favor of keeping the pergola.

Skip Morrow, one of the organizers of the effort to remove the pergola, started off the evening’s debate with a three-minute summary of their case against the park structure. Morrow said that, according to their documentation, there were “flaws in the process leading up to the completion of the pergola,” and that some believed the design didn’t conform to the town’s “historic district goals and criteria.” Design Review Board Chair Nicki Steel later pointed out that, at the time the matter was decided, the town was still operating under the 1984 design control district regulations.

Morrow also said those in public opposition to the design were “dismissed by the designer, The Deerfield Valley News, and Wilmington’s administration. Those who dared question the pergola’s appropriateness in the center of our historic district were verbally attacked, marginalized, and intimidated for simply trying to find out how widespread the public dissatisfaction with the pergola was.”

John Greene spoke in favor of keeping the pergola. He said that, although he didn’t like the structure when it first went up, “It has really grown on me. We don’t have a village square, and these little parks are an asset to the town.”

Greene, who has served on several local boards and committees, said every committee in the town has meetings that are warned and open to the public. He said a vote to remove the pergola would be “demoralizing for all the committees in town trying to bring more things to the town that tourists and people here can use and enjoy.”

Beautification committee member Lenny Chapman illustrated Greene’s point, his voice cracking as he described the work that he has put into the park project. “I’ve been in Wilmington 38 years,” he said. “Now that I’m semiretired, I thought I’d give something back to the town. I joined the beautification committee and spent my time and some of my own money on this park. Now the beautification police, as I like to call them, want to tear this down. In my 38 years here, I’ve never heard of something as wasteful as that. Why would anyone want to serve on a subcommittee to make this a better town?”

Wilmington resident Andy Schindel asked town manager Bob Rusten what kind of liability insurance or bond he would require from those who would remove the pergola. Rusten said that, if Article 2 is passed, he would create a committee “to walk through the issues related to removing and putting the pergola somewhere else” and to address the cost of the project. “The goal would be to come up with a plan that would be most cost efficient, but would protect the town.”

Schindel also asked opponents of the pergola what kind of liability insurance they were prepared to provide, who would pay for any necessary engineering, and who would pay for any damage that occurred as a result of the removal of the pergola. “We would equal or surpass the liability insurance that would be in place during the construction,” he said, “and we would equal or surpass the engineering that was required to put it up.” Morrow didn’t reveal where the money would come from.

Ken Lady asked if anyone had asked the architect, Joseph Cincotta, to pay for the cost of removing the pergola or replacing the tree trunks with posts. “We never asked him to pay because we approved the change,” said beautification committee chair Lee Schindel. “After the DRB approved the round posts, Joseph told us we could stay within budget if we used the tree trunks. The milled posts would blow the budget.” Schindel said the beautification committee reached a consensus on all of their votes.

“I’m concerned about what happens to the town of Wilmington if we destroy the park,” said Alice Greenspan. “We’ll look ridiculous. We’ve gained all this positive publicity, and then to take (the pergola) away, people are going to say ‘What’s the matter with these people?’”

But Franklin Reeve brought the discussion back to more technical issues, noting that some believe the pergola doesn’t conform to design control regulations, and that there was what he called “a hiccup of impropriety” in the process. He referred to a decision by the town’s zoning administrator that allowed the substitution of tree trunks for milled round posts as had been approved in the original design, without an additional hearing. “That’s like backdating a check,” Reeve said.

Marv Neuman said the pergola issue was the “tip of the iceberg,” and listed a number of past decisions by the town that he said had a detrimental effect on people. “For the past 10 or 15 years there has been an attitude by various government bodies in town that makes it difficult for people to do things,” he said. “There was a sign for a B&B that was a couple inches too big, the bank building didn’t get painted for 15 years, there was the brewery expansion that didn’t happen, and Skip Morrow had to sue over a gallery at his home.”

Doug Swanson said he likes the pergola, and that many of the visitors he has talked to also like the pergola. “It seems like the only thing that has changed from the beginning is the posts,” he said. “If that’s the case, why is the (Australian ballot article) to remove the whole thing and not just the posts?”

Morrow answered that no compromise was ever offered by proponents of the pergola. “No attempt was ever made from proponents for that kind of compromise.”