WILTON – Selectpersons discussed potential next steps for the remaining Forster Mill building on Depot Street last night, opening the discussion up to the public for ideas.
Roughly half of the building has been demolished now- a project that has been underway for several years since the mill came into ownership of the town. The crumbling building has brought concern from town officials and local residents, both due to the structurally unsafe conditions as well as the amount of asbestos and other hazardous material throughout. Phase one of demolition officially began this spring and was completed on May 18. This included proper disposal of the asbestos and clean up of the site.
Selectpersons will now have to navigate action throughout phase two of the project, taking into consideration the passing of Wilson Stream through the site. Town Manager Rhonda Irish explained that if the remaining structure represents less than 50 percent of the total value of the original building than redevelopment is not an option. Assessors are now in the process of determining the value of the remaining building.
If the second half of the building is valued at 50 percent or more of the total, than redevelopment is possible as long as the plans follow the guidelines of the Department of Environmental Protection Agency. Currently, a portion of the building stretches over Wilson Stream. If the building is demolished, that portion cannot be rebuilt and any future structure would be required a distance of 75 feet from the stream. If the building can be redeveloped as is, the intersection with Wilson Stream can remain.
Irish said a handful of people have expressed interest in the historic site, with ideas including senior housing, a brewery, a town park or a business complex. Selectpersons voted unanimously to send out a request for proposals for the site, with a decision deadline of late August. The board will require a detailed plan of proposals, including funding sources and a project timeline, and the outcome will all hinge on the assessed value of the building.
“The last thing we want is for that building to just sit there. We don’t want to go backwards,” Irish said.
In addition to the call for RFPs, Irish and other town officials will continue to pursue additional grant funding to potentially demolish the remaining portion of the mill. Irish said more funding from DEP and Androscoggin Valley Council Of Governments will be available this fall, though she does not know the amount yet. Depending on RFPs received, and the value of the site, that funding will be pursued further in the fall if necessary.
According to Irish, the project has cost a total of $546,000 so far, roughly half of which has been obtained through grant money. The town has used roughly $48,000 from the Undesignated Funds Account and has taken out $200,000 in interest free loans, she said.
“It was intentional of the board to not take out additional loans. We were aware of grants that would be available in the future, and knew that doing it in phases would relieve the burden for tax payers,” Chairperson Tiffany Maiuri said.
putting anything in place before finishing the demolition job would hinder that because theres only one way to get to the remaining buildings plus theres still a tunnel under the parking lot behind the fence thats there and its still accessible too . lets not get ahead of ourselves until all the buildings are gone and then bring it to the townspeople to see what they want to do with the site .the selectmen are not authorized to make decisions on what to do with this site without the taxpayers permission .finish the job first !
Too bad the article didn,t explain what RFP,s are???
“Selectpersons voted unanimously to send out a request for proposals…”
RFPs are requests for proposals.
A pet peeve of mine is when articles don’t define acronyms. It is very frustrating, like everyone is supposed to know. I Googled it and sure enough, I guess within government agencies RFP is a common term.
There seems to be no rhyme or reason as to which things get abbreviated, or defined, when they do get abbreviated.
The definition is in the article but it is not capitalized or pointed out.
“if the remaining structure represents less than 50 percent of the total value of the original building than redevelopment is not an option.”
I assume that this is due to some funding rule, but it is not explained in the article. The 75 foot reconstruction setback might mitigate any demo plans. It may be nice to keep some of this historic site. Looking forward to the RFP’s.
How on earth did the part of the building over the stream survive the flood of ’87?
The burden for taxpayers…taking into consideration the passing of Wilson Stream through the site…could this historic site be redeveloped as an asset directly for Wilton…with more funding from these grants. Wilton has spent over a decade an half a million to right this wrong. We deserve to own this historic and environmentally sensitive area.
As a citizen of Franklin County who grew up in Wilton, I am definitely intrigued with the idea of the remaining portion of the building staying. It would be awesome if it could be developed tastefully into something. I think this could be great for the area as long as it doesn’t become another low income housing.
I also agree, 1st thing 1st, you have to do what is right for the environment and even a park would be better than what we’ve been looking at over the past 20.
Either way it’s progress….