To the editor: 

There have been many untrue statements about the proposed demolition of two historic buildings at 113/119 Water Street, and the feasibility of their repair:

“Since the buildings have been deemed unsafe to occupy, they must be demolished.” Not true. The buildings must be brought up to code in order to reoccupy them.

“Nobody is interested in buying and restoring these buildings.” Not true. These buildings have never been publicly offered for sale.

“The owner wanted to restore these buildings when purchased, but after an engineer’s report, decided to demolish them.” Not true. The engineer’s report is dated September 2021, three months before the owner purchased them in December of 2021.

“The engineer’s report proves that restoring these buildings is not financially feasible.” Not true. The owner won’t allow independent contractors and engineers to inspect the buildings, so no objective cost estimates exist.

“The building at 119 Water must be lifted off the ground and a new foundation built.” Not true. Any contractor or historic homeowner knows buildings can be braced while repairing sills, stonework, and framing, one wall at a time.

“Photos of the basement of 119 Water, with old beams and newer steel columns, shows the building is in poor condition.” Not true. This is common in historic buildings and does not require demolition.

“These buildings are not historic or contributing anything to the community.” Not true. These buildings are listed in the National Registry as contributing to the streetscape of Water Street and Warren’s historic fabric.

“The proposed new building was specifically designed to fit in to the historic character of Water Street.” Not true. This is a commonly-designed new apartment building with mansard roof and few architectural details.

“The Town has been put in a very difficult and unfavorable position due to the state law.” Not true. The Town neglected to enforce code violations for decades, due to politically-connected owners, enabling the buildings to continue to deteriorate, and the state law requires the preservation of historic resources.

“Adding three ‘affordable’ units would benefit the town’s affordable housing quota.” Not true! Adding nine unaffordable units at the same time would therefore not affect the quota.

What is true? In Warren’s historic district, a developer must meet one of these three conditions to allow demolition of an historic building: 

“Retention of such building constitutes a hazard to public safety.” Since the tenants have been moved out and the buildings secured, there is no public safety hazard;

“Preservation of such building would cause undue or unreasonable financial hardship to the owner.” Since the owner bought these buildings knowing their condition, and won’t allow access for independent contractors to determine repair costs, there has been no financial hardship shown.

“Preservation of such building would not be in the best interests of the community.” Seven hundred residents have signed a petition, plus the town historic commission, state historic commission, historic preservation consultants/organizations, and Warren’s Comprehensive Plan all say preserving these buildings is absolutely in the best interests of the community.

Therefore, not one of these conditions have been met.

Developers often ask for more, so scaling back is a common tactic, not a noble one.

Please attend the public hearing on Thursday, Dec. 15 at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Hall to express your concerns about the impacts on Warren’s historic district.

Sarah Weed 
23 Bridge St.