BDN reporters help make the Bangor region a better place by holding officials accountable and shining a light. Your donation can help raise $60,000 this spring to support our reporting. Make a donation now.
Owners of historic homes in Bangor may soon have more options when it’s time to update their properties.
Bangor leaders are considering changing city rules that outline what modifications historic home owners can make to their properties. The proposed edits are intended to allow more flexibility when residents need to alter their properties but the materials to do so are prohibitively expensive or unavailable, Anja Collette, Bangor’s planning officer, said.
The city’s historic preservation ordinance, which was created in the 1970s and last amended in 2019, applies to more than 400 properties across the city’s nine historic neighborhoods and sites. Owners of those homes need approval from the Bangor Historic Preservation Commission before making any alterations that could change a building’s appearance.
The commission is scheduled to review the proposed changes later this week, and city councilors may approve the updates later this month. Residents can offer comments on the proposed changes at the future meetings.
The proposed changes to Bangor’s city rules come after a group of people pushed for updates following a nearly year-long dispute between the Historic Preservation Commission and Bangor resident Steven Farren, who replaced his slate roof with asphalt shingles after being told by the commission not to. Farren’s dispute with city officials highlighted how arduous, restrictive and costly it can be to maintain a historic property in accordance with the city’s rules.
Farren was ultimately allowed to keep the asphalt roof on his home, which he had installed last year to replace his leaking slate roof even though the commission initially denied his request to do so. Farren argued a new slate roof would be too expensive and he would need to wait months or years due to the lack of contractors who perform such work.
If the tweaks are approved in the coming weeks, property owners can get permission from city staff and the Historic Preservation Commission chairperson to install modern equipment like heat pumps or solar panels on their historic homes, as long as they aren’t visible from the street, are blocked by plants or otherwise “installed in a neat, presentable manner.”
This would save applicants from needing permission from the full commission, the process of which can be lengthy.
The rules still say exterior elements on property in a historic district “should be repaired rather than replaced,” when possible. But if something is unsalvageable, the new materials should match the original in “color, design, texture, other visual qualities and, where economically and technically feasible, materials,” according to the proposed edits.
That’s looser than the previous code, which required something to be replaced with the exact same material, which was the crux of Farren’s debate with the city.
The changes also added examples of records a property owner can present as evidence that following the city’s rules would be an “undue hardship.” This evidence can include documents such as assessment and tax records for the property and cost estimates for the proposed work.
In Farren’s case, he argued putting a new slate roof on his home would be cost prohibitive, since he received estimates stating an entirely new slate roof would likely cost more than $200,000, whereas the asphalt alternative cost $60,000.
The changes would also allow an applicant to receive approval from a majority of the commission members present at a given meeting. Previously, four of the commission’s seven members needed to approve a request. One seat on the body is vacant, according to the city’s website.
“This can present an issue if only four members are in attendance, or even three sometimes,” Collette said. “This can result in delays in decisions if not enough members are in attendance.”
This requirement stalled Farren’s application process, as the commission lacked the necessary number of members at meetings for several weeks.
The edits would also allow a historic building to be demolished if it has been damaged beyond repair by a fire or natural disaster.