To the Editor,
As a resident of the proposed Historic District, I write to express my opposition to the bylaw proposal as currently written. While I value our village’s unique historical character and initially approached this initiative with an open mind, my engagement with the Historic Commission’s process – and a careful review of the data – has led me to conclude that the bylaw is overly broad, lacks evidentiary support, and is driven more by subjective aesthetics and political concerns than by objective need.
My home, built in 1853 by local carpenter Augustus Handy, is a piece of Marion’s history that I cherish. I have attended public meetings held by the commission, where concerns about “insensitive” renovations and the emergence of “McMansions” were repeatedly raised. However, despite frequent claims, the commission provided no concrete examples or data to support the idea that development is actively harming the village’s historical integrity.
Motivated by this lack of data, I conducted my own review of the 207 properties within the proposed district. I focused on the past decade, examining renovations, demolitions, and new construction. Here’s what I found:
Renovations and Additions: About 17% of properties have seen some form of investment, from new siding to additions. These projects were largely respectful of original designs and materials. Rather than detracting from the area, they have enhanced the look and integrity of the neighborhood.
Demolitions and Rebuilds: Seven homes—roughly 3%—have been torn down and rebuilt in the last 10 years. In nearly all cases, the original structures were beyond reasonable repair. Their replacements were designed by local architects and built with high-quality materials. None resemble the oversized, poorly constructed homes implied by the term “McMansion.”
The word “insensitive,” often used by the commission, is inherently subjective. Based on my observations, the new homes are thoughtfully designed and compatible with the community’s character. Some developments, like new condominiums, serve a clear public good by providing age-appropriate housing options for longtime residents.
I’ve shared my findings with commission members, and while our conversations have been respectful, our disagreement centers on size and scale. But these are planning and zoning concerns—not matters of historic preservation. If the goal is to prevent out-of-scale development, we should pursue targeted zoning reforms like adjusting building coverage ratios or setbacks—not a sweeping historic bylaw that adds another layer of subjective oversight.
This bylaw seems like a solution in search of a problem. Marion is not undergoing a teardown crisis. What I see is a town benefiting from thoughtful renewal. Homeowners are preserving and improving their properties. Local tradespeople are thriving. Our tax base is growing, helping to fund schools and infrastructure. This isn’t a threat to be stopped; it’s a sign of a healthy, evolving community.
We must ask: what kind of change are we resisting? Marion has always been a blend of architectural styles shaped over centuries. Preserving its character doesn’t mean freezing it in time. It means guiding change with intelligence and fairness—best accomplished through effective zoning, not rigid historic regulation.
On May 12, I urge my fellow residents to vote no on the proposed historic bylaw. Let’s reject unnecessary oversight and embrace a vision of Marion that respects our past while welcoming well-designed investment in our future.
Sincerely,
Johanna Vergoni
The views expressed in the “Letters to the Editor” column are not necessarily those of The Wanderer, its staff or advertisers. The Wanderer will gladly accept any and all correspondence relating to timely and pertinent issues in the great Marion, Mattapoisett and Rochester area, provided they include the author’s name, address and phone number for verification. We cannot publish anonymous, unsigned or unconfirmed submissions. The Wanderer reserves the right to edit, condense and otherwise alter submissions for purposes of clarity and/or spacing considerations. The Wanderer may choose to not run letters that thank businesses, and The Wanderer has the right to edit letters to omit business names. The Wanderer also reserves the right to deny publication of any submitted correspondence. All letters must be typed and submitted directly to: news@wanderer.com.