Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-14 Historic Preservation Commission Minutes HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BANGOR MEETING OF JANUARY 14, 2021 -7:00 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MEETING MINUTES Commission Members Present: Matthew Carter, Chair Edmond Chernesky Rebecca Krupke Anne Marie Quin Karen Rand Liam Riordan Mike Pullen, Consultant City Staff Present: Melissa Bickford, Development Asst. Anne Krieg, City Planner Joshua Saucier, Asst. City Solicitor Chair Carter started the meeting at 7:01 P.M. Election of Officers Historic Preservation Commission Chair and Vice Chair for 2021 to be elected. Commissioner Riordan nominated current Chair Carter to retain position as Chair, as the eldest serving member on the Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Krupke. Roll call vote: Krupke, yes; Riordan, yes; Rand, yes; Chernesky, yes; Carter, yes. Chair Carter nominated Commissioner Krupke to serve as Vice Chair for the Historic Preservation Commission. Seconded by Commissioner Chernesky. Roll call vote: Rand, yes; Riordan, yes; Chernesky, yes; Carter, yes; Krupke, yes. New Business: Certificate of Appropriateness -136 Broadway -Map-Lot 048-143 - Broadway Historic District -Removal of existing deteriorated slate roofing and replacement with asphalt architectural shingles at property located at 136 Broadway. Applicant, Roof Systems of Maine o/b/o owner, Ken Jarvis. Lee Corro of Roof Systems of Maine presented the applicationon behalf of property owner, Ken Jarvis. Wants to change from slate to architectural asphaltshingles. Two existing areas have shingles now. Corro didn’t realize that this property was in the Broadway Historic District, and that they would have to go through the Historic Preservation Commission. Corro indicated that a precedent was already set to use the asphalt shingles when portions of the roof was done by a previous company. Work has been stopped, the Historic Preservation Commission application was prepared and presented. The front will be repaired, but the back is in bad shape. Corro indicates that the slate is rotten, “punky,” and unrepairable. Photos presented further explain the deterioration. Corro is proposing architectural asphalt shingles to match existing slate to as close as possible, and reroof in the manner. Corro advised that there are houses across the street which have been changed over from slate to shingles. Commissioner Riordan hopes that the roof could maintain the historic quality of the slate throughout. Corro indicates that a slate replacement has not been presented to the owner, and that you cannot see the roof in the back of the house from Broadway. Chair Carter advised that at some time, someone put asphalt shingles on this roof, and that they have been there for a while. Corro again indicated that they will be putting in an architectural shingle with a lifetime warranty. Commissioner Rand inquired about the shape and scale of the architectural asphalt shingle, and it appears incongruous with the existing slate. Corro stated that the proposed architectural asphalt shingle has proven to be a better way to go with longevity. Consultant Pullen was asked for his review and comments. The Commission reviewed the Google street photo and that the back ell of the property would be replaced. Pullen further explained that the home is an 1838-era home, Greek Revival style, referred to as the Bourne- Strickland House, and according to Deborah Thompson, as stated in her architectural history of Bangor, “…it presents a continuum of styles had an equal in only a few museum houses in Maine…” There is additionally a barn structure beyond where the new roof is being proposed. Pullen has an opportunity, working next door, to look at the roof and the ell slate is more weathered, and may not have been of the same slate quality as the slate used on the Main House. The slate on the Main House is in much better shape. Slate is common in the Broadway Houses, where slate roofs are made of stone, long service life when they’re properly maintained. Some slate roofs are approaching 200 years old, and serve buildings well. Asphalt shingles rarely last 30 years – they may have a lifetime warranty, but the lifetime is reduced. Slate roof on the ell does show damage, clearly showing in the photos supplied by the applicant. Possibly the deterioration of slate has been due to ice removal efforts over time, which can cause substantial slate damage. Commissioner Riordan feels that the issue of replacement hasnot been fully considered by the property owner, and feels that there is a difficult trade off. High initial expense of slate, but dazzling long lifetime. Commissioner Riordan wants to be sure that the owner has thought this through before thedecision was made. Corro again advised that he had not talked to the owner about this yet, and can propose some alternate proposals to him. Chair Carter suggested another possibility of artificial slate shingles that assemble the same way, but they’re not made of stone. Corro indicated that they had previously done that on the Maine Savings building on Broadway, and that the manufacturers advise 60-75 years for that product. Vice Chair Krupke’s concern had to do with the two porches with asphalt shingles that had been applied without the Commission’s knowledge, and feels that in another 5-10 years, we could lose this house completely and it’s important to keep the integrity to keep what’s there with a suitable substitute. Corro again indicated that the location comes into play between the front and back of the property. Visually you can see the front, and the back you cannot. If it’s not visible, you’re still able to have a great product on there. Chair Carter indicated while the materials can look good, in this case, it would be beneficial for the client to consider other possibilities before trying to do asphalt shingled roof. No one has spoke to the owner, and cost isn’t something that the Commission reviews – only appropriateness. Concern is that client doesn’t know what slate shingles would cost and what the other alternatives are. Corro stated that it’s not just the cost of the materials, it’s also the labor to install it. It would be a substantial increase for repairs and replacement. He felt that the asphalt shingles would work as there are two existing roofs with asphalt shingles already. Planning Officer Krieg asked the Commission and Consultant about other options. Consultant Pullen stated that slate has a sheen to it. Carlisle shingles that look like slate have sheen as well, and a similar color and roughened edge you’d see on a roof. Chair Carter sees three potential possibilities – 1) put it back the way it was with the slate roof, 2) put it back with artificial slate material or 3) use asphalt shingle materials that have the slate look, a good example is the Bangor Waterworks building. Chair Carter advised that client could not afford slate, and the Waterworks was an expensive building to renovate. This material was suggested because from a distance, it looked a lot like slate. Corro inquired about the product which was used at the Bangor Waterworks building. Chair Carter advised that he would provide specs to Corro tomorrow. Commissioner Rand echoes the sentiments of keeping true to the historical components but wouldn’t be opposed if an alternative was located which was closer than what has been proposed. Commissioner Quin agrees. Commissioner Chernesky asks that the slate is not repairable – Corro confirms. Commissioner Riordan advised Corro that if he wanted to withdraw his application now, he could present it again without an additional fee and that a vote wouldn’t be needed at this juncture. Corro asked for further clarification. Chair Carter indicated that Corro could have the Commission vote, make a decision and he would be out the fee and would need to resubmit with a new fee, or Corro would read the way the wind is going, withdraw the application, save the fee and resubmit. Corro doesn’t want to wait another 4 weeks to go through the same process, and asked if there was a way to do something on the side. Chair Carter advised that a meeting could be convened quicker if needed. Asst. City Solicitor provided that standards have to be applied to materials provided, and the Commission cannot decide without materials th Thursday of the month might be a present. Planning Officer Krieg indicated that the 4 suitable time for an additional meeting, and if Corro could provide the information as soon as possible, we can see what’s available. Planning Officer Krieg recommending that the applicant consider withdrawing the application, and if the Commission accepts, Corro can get us the next application with materials to Staff for review. Corro will consider that. Commissioner Riordan advised that the Commission is not looking for conflict, but hopeful that Corro can help the owner see how extraordinary the property is, and that there is a better solution. Corro will explain to the owner, and again inquired about the material that was used on the Waterworks building. Chair Carter advised that he would look into that tomorrow, and send Corro information, and added that it might be worthwhile knowing what artificial slate would cost, also. Commissioner Riordan motions to withdraw application, for consideration in the near future. Commissioner Quin seconds motion. Roll call vote: Krupke, yes; Rand, yes; Chernesky, yes; Riordan, yes; Quin, yes; Carter, yes. Other Business: Meeting Minutes –Commissioner Riordan motioned to approve October 8, 2020 meeting minutes, seconded by Commissioner Quin. Roll call vote: Krupke, yes; Rand, yes; Riordan, yes; Chernesky, yes; Quin, yes; Carter, yes. Adjournment -1949 hrs. Respectfully submitted, Melissa L. Bickford Development Assistant Planning Department