At the Tiverton Town Council meeting, three residents and preservation professionals condemned the recent demolition of the Lafayette House on Main Road and said a town employee altered an application to obscure the building’s historic status.

The comments matter because speakers said the loss damages Tiverton’s tangible heritage and that current review processes lack enforcement tools; they urged the council to adopt stronger rules such as historic-district zoning or design guidelines to protect other historic properties.

Amy McNamee, who identified herself as a resident at 4094 Main Road, said the demolition destroyed “a piece of history that you can’t fix.” McNamee said she was especially disturbed by what she described as an “attempted cover up” and by an alteration made to an application by “a member of this town who is employed by this town” to hide that the building was historic.

Fred Stachura, who said he is a preservation professional and teaches historic preservation law and lives at 4089 Main Road, told councilors he visited the building-inspection office the day after the demolition and said he was given inaccurate information by staff about whether the house was protected. Stachura said the Lafayette House is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, is listed on the Rhode Island Register of Historic Places and appears in the town inventory of historic places. He said he was told the preservation group had been given an opportunity to intervene but that the town’s staff response left him concerned.

Stachura asked the council what consequences the town would impose on the employee he alleged altered the record and urged the town to create regulatory tools beyond honorary registry listing, such as historic-district zoning and design guidelines, which he said would provide ‘teeth’ to protect resources.

Philip Zachary, a resident who said he moved to Tiverton for its historic character, called the incident “a bad look” for the town’s planning staff and for the council’s process. Zachary urged better communication from elected officials and public servants and said the town deserved “the best leadership” to prevent similar losses.

Councilors did not announce a formal enforcement action or an immediate follow-up response on the public-record allegations during the public-comment period. The council proceeded with scheduled agenda business after the public comments concluded.

The public speakers called for the council to examine procedures for demolition permits, staff handling of historic-property information, and whether regulatory changes such as establishment of historic-district zoning are required.

No formal motion, vote or enforcement action concerning the Lafayette House demolition was recorded on the meeting transcript during public comment.