HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-10 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR
MEETING OF December 10, 2015
MINUTES
Commission Members Present: Sonia Mallar, Chair
Reese Perkins
Marie Grady
Elizabeth Rettenmaier
George Burgoyne
Andrew Soucier (associate)
Consultant to the Commission: Mike Pullen
City Staff Present: Peter Witham
David Gould
Paul Nicklas
Chair Mallar called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Chair Mallar noted she would like to
move Item No. 2 to the end of the Agenda so the other applicants would not have to wait through what
may prove to be a long hearing. No Commissioners objected.
Item No. 1: Approval of HPC meeting minutes from October 8, 2015, and October 16,
2015.
Member Rettenmaier moved to accept the Minutes of 10/8 and 10/16 as drafted. Member Burgoyne
seconded and the Commission voted unanimously to approve both sets of Minutes.
Project Review
Item No. 3: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review
approval for façade changes and repair at 80 Central St., McCrew
Holdings LLC
Chair Mallar noted the Planning Office indicates the Applicant has requested this item be continued.
Member Burgoyne moved to continue this item to the next regular meeting of the Commission.
Member Perkins seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to continue this item to
the next regular meeting.
Item No. 4: Consider a request for Design Review approval for window changes at 99
Franklin St., Bangor Savings Bank
Jason Donavan, Facilities Manager for Bangor Savings Bank, indicated that they want to replace a
single window with a bank of three windows on the alley side of the building as shown in their
application.
Chair Mallar asked Consultant Pullen if he had any comments.
Mr. Pullen noted that the proposed window is what is called a “contemporary” style. The window sash
is about a quarter of the way up from the bottom of the window. There is a detailed section in the
application materials which shows a typical double hung window and he was asking that the applicant
clarify the intent of the application.
2
Mr. Donavan noted that at the back of the application a sheet was included to show the window in
cross section (that being a typical double hung) but the intent was to use a ¼ height sash or
contemporary design on all three windows.
Member Rettenmaier moved that the application be approved. Chair Mallar read the roll and all
Commissioners voted that the application met the Design Review standards.
Item No. 5: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review
approval for window repair and new siding at 115 Main St., 115 Main St.
Associates, LLC
Brian Ames, owner of 115 Main Street, explained the details of his application. He was requesting to
add metal siding on the fourth floor and windows. The windows would be two over two with wood
frame and wood sash.
Wayne Mallar asked why the applicant would change the window type from the prior metal exterior
trim.
Mr. Ames noted that they had problems getting the previous Pella Windows serviced. They have
opted to go with a more expensive window from Anderson which closely resembles the earlier window
by Pella.
Mr. Mallar noted that the windows appear to be vinyl clad.
Mr. Ames reviewed the application annotation and noted it should state the exterior finish is fiberglass
not vinyl.
Chair Mallar asked Mr. Pullen for comments.
Mr. Pullen noted the key elements are that the pattern of the window be the same, two over two.
Secondly that the glazing be ¾“putty glaze and dividers on the inside and outside.
The exterior finish should be similar in the sandstone finish of Fibrex.
Chair Mallar asked if any Commissioners were ready to make a motion.
Member Rettenmaier moved to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review with
the condition that the windows have a fiberglass (Fibrex) exterior of Sandstone color.
Member Burgoyne seconded and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the Certificate of
Appropriateness and Design Review with the condition that the exterior finish be of Fibrex not vinyl.
Item No. 6: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review
approval for vent changes at 72-74 Harlow St., Bonaventures, LLC
John Bonadio indicated he was requesting Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review
approval to add a snorkel pipe to the intake of the heating system so that it will not be clogged by
snow.
Member Perkins noted that the consultant Mr. Pullen had noted the PVC pipe should be painted to
match the brick façade.
Mr. Bonadio noted he had heard paint may not stick to PVC piping well.
3
Mr. Perkin noted if the exterior is roughed up via sanding it will adhere better. It was also noted that
any attaching points should be set in the mortar not directly into the bricks.
Member Perkins made a motion to grant Certificate of Appropriateness and Design Review approval
with the conditions that the PVC pipe be painted to match the brick and that any attaching members
be fastened into the mortar and not the bricks.
Member Rettenmaier seconded and the Commission voted unanimously to approve the application of
Bonaventures, LLC, with the conditions noted above.
Item No. 7: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness approval for canopy
changes at 5 High St., Together Place Housing, Inc.
Keith Ewing of Plymouth Engineering representing Together Place Housing Inc. indicated that it was
their request to replace the prior canopy structure and recreate the trim detail in the new design. Mr.
Ewing noted the structure’s canopy has deteriorated and become a hazard. The canopy was removed
from the building and its deteriorated state caused it not to be salvageable.
Mr. Ewing noted that due to the cost the applicant is proposing to replace the canopy with a much
smaller version which retains some of the trim details of the original. He noted the previous canopy
structure extended approximately 54 inches from the building and the design proposed is
approximately 18 inches.
Mr. Pullen noted that the drawings provided by the applicant detail the work to be done in SK-1 and
SK-2. Unfortunately the deferred maintenance has caused significant structural damage to the
supporting structures. The proposed design and its pitched roof will be highly visible, not like the
historic canopy.
Chair Mallar noted that there is specific guidance from the Secretary of the Interior on Standards for
Rehabilitation Entrances and Porches (green paperback book).
Member Perkins moved that the application does not meet the standards for approval for Certificate of
Appropriateness. Citing to modify the building’s entrance to the degree shown in the application would
have an adverse effect on the building’s architectural qualities for the following reasons; Loss of the
entire portico and associated chamfered trim flanking the front door, loss of the graceful arches on the
portico’s front and sides, change in depth of canopy from the building face, changes in overhang of
cornice trim on front and sides, and addition of a new sloped metal roof, which in the original was not
visible.
Member Rettenmaier seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to not grant a
Certificate of Appropriateness to Together Place Housing, Inc., to replace the entry canopy at 5 High
Street.
Item No. 8: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness approval for granite
cleaning and repair, and replacement of gutter downspouts at 166 Union
St., Bangor YMCA
Chuck McMahan, Chief Financial Officer of the Bangor YMCA, indicated they were requesting to do
two items; one was to clean the stone (granite) entry way, and two, to replace two deteriorated down
spouts.
Mr. McMahan noted since the review by the Historic Consultant Mr. Pullen they will amend their
application to use “D2 Biological Solution” in lieu of a sand blasting agent. The solution appears to be
4
a very effective option. Mr. McMahan noted they would not be sealing the granite, but insuring that
sealing in the joints be maintained.
The existing down spouts appear to be lead clad copper. The replacement will be a copper tubing of
similar diameter (four and one-half inches).
Mr. Pullen noted he thought the cleaning solution was a very good choice consistent with the
Secretary of the Interior’s guidance of using the gentlest means possible.
Member Perkins made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness noting the change in
cleaning agent to D2 Biological solution and use of 4-1/2 inch copper down spouts. No sealer would
be applied to the granite but any joints would be maintained with appropriate materials.
Member Rettenmaier seconded the motion and the Commission voted unanimously to grant a
Certificate of Appropriateness as noted in the motion.
Item No. 9: To consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness and Design
Review approval to add three air conditioner condensing units, black
fence, and conduit at the rear of 28 Broad St.
Roy Hubbard, owner of 28 Broad Street, indicated he was the owner of the building and was adding
three units on the first floor. Those units will be served by exterior air conditioning units with an
outdoor condenser. A four inch hole will be cut into the building at the location of a former, now
bricked up window. Mr. Hubbard noted the condensing units would be behind fencing similar to that
which encloses the transformer.
Member Rettenmaier made a motion to approve the application as submitted. Member Burgoyne
seconded the motion and the Board unanimously approved the Certificate of Appropriateness and
Design Review for 28 Broad Street.
Chair Mallar noted that on review, fencing within a Historic District requires a Certificate of
Appropriateness and would advise the applicant to seek approval for the existing and future fencing
proposed.
Item No. 2: Consider a request for Certificate of Appropriateness approval for demolition of
a building at 635 State St.
Chair Mallar opened the public hearing.
Attorney Gene Sullivan indicated he represented Shaw House who was requesting a Certificate of
Appropriateness to demolish the Engineer’s House at the Waterworks compound.
Attorney Sullivan noted the City standard at hand was §148 13 B (1) (b) “The property owner can
demonstrate that it is incapable of earning an economic return on its value in its present location as
appraised by a qualified real estate appraiser.” He indicated he could demonstrate that the standard
has been met. He noted two specific expenditures on the building’s maintenance $70,000 to create a
new foundation and $9,000 for roofing.
He introduced Daniel Wellington, a certified Code Enforcement Officer and Registered Environmental
Health Specialist.
Mr. Wellington reviewed the history of the Engineer’s building since the mid 1970’s when it was
owned by the City. In the 70’s the building was used as welfare housing until it was deemed unfit for
housing around 1977. Through the years that the City controlled the property Mr. Wellington
5
estimated 25 to 30 different redevelopment opportunities were explored but few options were
available for the reuse of the Engineer’s House. Mr. Wellington noted no monies were spent on the
building by the City for several decades. The problem of water entering the building caused the City to
remove all interior plaster and finishes. Mr. Wellington noted when the buildings were sold to Shaw
house the foundation was replaced to make it stable and relocate it to provide additional maneuvering
area on the site. He noted in his opinion the building was unstable and unsecure with no prospects of
reuse.
Chair Mallar noted that the Staff Memorandum to the Planning Board in 2003 noted office reuse.
Matt Carter, Architect, indicated he was employed by WBRC and the project manager for the Shaw
House project. He noted the reuse as housing offered a historic tax credit to create the units. The
Historic Preservation Commission allowed great flexibility for the project to be successful. The unique
chimney was allowed to be demolished, the wood windows were allowed to be replaced, the areas
where the tidal water flowed under the buildings was allowed to be filled in, and the original slate roof
was allowed to be replaced with an alternate shingle. All these compromises were done with the
understanding that the Engineer’s House would be maintained and reused.
Wayne Mallar stated it was ironic that the City’s former Code enforcement Officer, who was charged
to see that maintenance on historic structures was undertaken, would state to the Commission that
the City undertook no maintenance on the Waterworks property while they owned it. He further stated
the Shaw House used federal monies to construct the project and historic tax credits, but have not
acted to maintain the Engineer’s House as they said they would.
The Commission’s consultant, Mike Pullen noted that he had prepared a list of items and comments
and the Commission has seen them. He noted that Mr. Wellington related a good history of the project
prior to the time of the Shaw House project there were similar comments about all the buildings being
unsafe and a blight and that the future of the Waterworks complex was quite dim. He noted that had
the Bearor study included tax credits it may have had a different conclusion. But through historic Tax
Credits the project did work. Mr. Pullen noted correspondence from Carol Whitney, Executive Director
Shaw House, Inc. in 2010 who indicated the City may be able to provide Stimulus money to aid the
Engineer’s House rehabilitation. So only five years ago there was still hope for the building, but Mr.
Pullen the building indicated it will only be able to withstand neglect for so long. While the City had
responsibility to maintain it, that was passed on to the current applicant. He noted that architectural
historian, Deborah Thompson, described this structure designed by Wilfred E. Mansur in 1892 and it
was a building of advanced design for the period and a key architectural Resource for the City.
Chair Mallar noted in 2009 as now the questions she asked of the applicant have remained
unanswered.
Sally Tardiff, Executive Director of the Shaw House, noted that none of the personnel during the
redevelopment are with Shaw House any longer. They have a very limited budget to provide shelter
and programs for homeless youth.
Attorney Sullivan stated for the record that it seemed like there was a predetermination before the
proceedings of how they were going to be determined.
Member Burgoyne noted that the issue of the Engineer’s House building is not just Shaw House’s
issue but one which the City has a hand in. Collectively the community needs to solve the problem of
reuse of the structure.
Mr. Pullen noted there was money available to CLG Communities every year for various preservation
related expenses.
6
Attorney Sullivan noted that he had contacted Paul Becker, a structural Engineer, who could review
the structural integrity of the building. Mr. Becker’s costs are $140.00/hour and estimated 16 to 20
hours of work. Mr. Sullivan asked if the Commission would like that kind of analysis done.
Chair Mallar indicated in terms of maintenance some of the costs were very low in securing the
building, making it weather tight, covering the broken windows and similar steps.
Matt Carter noted the previous effort nearly came to a stop at least five times, but in the end it was by
a team of entities, Maine State Housing Authority and the City of Bangor Historic Tax Credits, which
prevailed and got the project done.
Attorney Sullivan indicated to do such an analysis they would request to be tabled. The Commission
discussed CLG grant funding and who could apply. Solicitor Nicklas indicated that it would be best if
the Commission acted on the application before them prior to seeking alternate funding avenues for
the applicant.
Chair Mallar asked Attorney Sullivan if the Commission were to table the application would they like it
to reappear in March or April of 2016.
Mr. Wellington was uncertain of when such grant funding would become available or whether the
applicant could apply.
Member Perkins noted that the application to demolish does have within it a time frame to seek other
buyers or opportunities to avert demolition.
Attorney Sullivan indicated that that was the applicant’s preference in lieu of tabling.
Solicitor Nicklas out lined three potential options for the Commission:
1. Approve the Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition and have the process play
out as outlined in Section 13 B (1) (b)
2. Table the application at the request of the applicant
3. Pursue grant funding options
Member Perkins made a motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness as submitted. Member
Grady seconded.
th
Solicitor Nicklas noted his review of the record was that the Commission must act by December 16
or the application is automatically granted.
Attorney Sullivan indicated he felt the applicant could meet the conditions in §148-13 F.:
Exceptional circumstances.
(1) The Commission may issue a certificate of appropriateness where the standards otherwise
set forth in this section are not met but where the Commission determines that failure to
issue the certificate would result in undue hardship to the owner of the property. Before the
Commission may issue a certificate under this subsection, the records must show the
following:
(a) The property cannot yield a reasonable economic return or the owner cannot make any
reasonable use of the property;
7
(b) The plight of the owner is due to exceptional or unique circumstances and not to the
general applicability of this chapter; and
(c) The conditions or circumstances which constitute the hardship were not caused or created
by the property owner after an amendment to § 148-5 of this chapter by which the property
became subject to this chapter.
The Chair called for a vote on the motion to approve to demolish as submitted, and the Board voted 1
in favor and 4 opposed. Those opposing gave their reasons as follows:
Chair Mallar indicated that the Applicant had made a commitment to maintain the buildings in
2003 with the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness to rehabilitate and reuse the
Waterworks property which they have not followed. The Engineer’s House is a significant
historic structure and every effort should be made to preserve it. Lastly, Chair Mallar noted that
once a historic structure is lost it cannot be brought back.
Member Grady indicated that the Commission, the City, and others have put a great deal of
effort into saving this historic resource and that it seems inappropriate to rush to judgement at
this point with other options available.
Member Rettenmaier noted that the provisions for Exceptional Circumstances have not been
detailed and therefore not met. Especially the standard which cites that the hardship was not
caused or created by the applicant. Very little or no effort has been demonstrated by Shaw
House, the applicant, to maintain and preserve the Engineer’s House building.
Member Burgoyne noted it is especially hard for nonprofits to find scare resources to maintain
historic structures and every effort by the City should be made available to them. He indicated
a number of options and ideas had been brought up at this meeting and he was not ready to
support demolition at this time.
Chair Mallar noted that Andrew Soucier and Marie Grady will be leaving the Commission, thanked
them for their service, and wished them well. Ms. Mallar also noted she did not seek reappointment
and will not be with the Commission next year.
Commissioner Grady made a motion to adjourn the meeting, which Commissioner Rettenmaier
seconded. The motion was unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 9:09 P.M.