Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-08-25 City Council Minutes (3) MINUTES OFREGULAR MEETING BANGOR CITYCOUNCIL—AUGUST 25, 2025 Meeting called to order at 7:00 PM Chaired by Council Chair Pelletier Councilors Absent:None Meeting adjourned at 7:56 PM PUBLIC COMMENT Leslie Brigham stated there were 9 recovery ho`rtes in one particular area. She felt there should be a cap on the number in an area and that Fifth Street was not the place where these homes belong. Edyth Dyer,Steven Farren and Rick T�iolette spoke regarding Mr. Farren's inability to get a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. Copies of their state►nents are attached Jacob Leonard wanted to make sure Bangor was following the law on disposition of tax-acquired property. He cautioned the Council regarding excluding elected officials from voting. Hilari Sinzmons reminded voters that there was an election coming up. Adam Baker thanked Councilor Leonard and Councilor Beck for their work with the unhoused Justin Cartier thanked Tracy Willette for tlze men's over 40 softball league arcd trying to keep Bangor healthy. CONSENT AGENDA ASSIGNED TO ITEM NO. COUNCILOR *Explanatory Note:All items listed in the Consent Agenda are considered routine and are proposed for adoption by the City Council by one motion without discussion or deliberation. Any member of the public may request that the Council remove an item from the Consent Agenda for discussion. An item will only be removed if a City Councilor requests its removal to New Business. MINUTES OF: Bangor City Council Meeting of August 11, 2025 and Finance Committee Meeting of August 18, 2025 Action: Approved 25-253 ORDER Authorizing the Ciry Manager to Apply for the Federal FISH Aviation Administration's Airport Terminal Prograrn Grant in an Amount not to Exceed�22 Mi[[ion Action: Passed 25-254 ORDER Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract with BECK Sargent Corporation to Perfor`n Maintenance to the Bangor Inlernationa!Airport Storm Water System in t{ze Amount of$382,700.00 Action: Passed Page ! MINUTES OFREGULAR MEETING BANGOR CITYCOUNCIL—AUGUST 25, 2025 CONSENT AGENDA ASSIGNED TO ITEMNO. COUNCILOR 25-255 RESOL VE Ratifying Staff Action of Applying for a Grant Opportunity HAWES with the Maine Department of Transportation Under Their Discretionary Transit Funds Competitive Grant Program for FY2026 in the Amount of$468,682 Action: Passed REFERRALS TO COMMITTEE AND FIRST READING ASSIGNED TO ITEMNO. CDUNCILOR 25-256 ORD�NANCE Amending Chapter 228,Article i;Safe Zones MALLAR Action: Motion made and seconded for First Reading Passed 25-257 ORDINANCE Amending the Land Development Code,Section 165-I05 LEONARD Rural Residence and Agricu[ture District to Allow, as Conditional Uses,Private Schools, Training Facilities and Recreational Uses on Major Arterials Only Action: Motion made and seconded for First Reading Passed UNFINISHED B USINESS ASSIGNED TO ITEMNO. COUNCILOR None. NEW BUSINESS ASSIGNED TO ITEMNO. COUNCILOR 25-258 ORDER Censuring City Councilor Joseph Leonard For FOURNIER Inappropriate Public Remarks Concerning A City Personnel Matter Action: Motion made and seconded for Passage Motion made and seconcled on the question of whether or not this procedure is proper under the Code of Ethics to require a hearing. [�ote: 6—3 Councilors voting Yes: Deane, Fish, Fournier, Hawes, Tremble, Pelletier Councilors f�oting No: Beck,Leonard, Mallar Passed Bria�z Wright, Hilari Simmons, Scott Pardy, and Wendy Dana spoke against the motion. Page 2 MINUTES OFREGULAR MEETING BANGOR CITYCOUNCIL—AUGUST 25, 2025 NEW BUSINESS ASSIGNED TO ITEMNO. COUNCILOR Gretchen Schaefer and Justin Cartier spoke in favor of the Order. Motion made and seconded to PostpoKe until September 8, 2025,to hold a public hearing Vote:3—6 Councilors i�oting Yes:Beck,Leonard,Mallar Councilors i�oting No:Deane, Fish,Fournier,Hawes, Tremble, Pelletier Motion Failed Councilor Leonard stated he made a sincere apology and if he could go back he would not be as bombastic and go through the right channels but did apologize for the things he said He felt if he had had a hearing to go over what had been said it would come out in a different light. He feels his right to freedorn of speech and due process has been violated Councilor Leonard left the rneeting. T�ote on motion for Passage: 6—2 Councilors Voting Yes:Deane, Fish, Fournier,Hawes, Trerr�ble, Pelletier Councilors Voting No:Beck,Mallar Passed ` 1 ' ATTEST: Lis J. Good n,M C, Ciry Clerk Page 3 � �=` �Gc.��, � �,�,y�,� �'�s--���s STATEMENT OF EDYTHE DYER Good evening. My name is Edythe Dyer, wife of Steve Farren. Since last November we have been dealing with the Historic Preservation Commission attempting to get a certificate of appropriateness for replacing our slate roof with a slate facsimile. An engineer recommended be replaced. Our insurance company demanded that we replace the roof nat later than this past June. Otherwise, our insurance was not going to be renewed. We were denied a certificate of appropriateness following our November appearance before the HPC. We appealed to the Board of Appeals. Starting with our Board of Appeals hearing, Cauncilor Wayne Mallar has taken an unusual, almost fanatic, interest in our roof. While I question the propriety of a sitting councilor appearing as an advocate before a board that he has had a hand in appointing, more significantly, Mr. Mallar appeared before the Board of Appeals and lied. He lied about two different matters. First, in advacating against anyone being allowed to replace slate with asphalt, he said, and I quote, "I believe historic preservation does not consider the cost of doing something. If it's much greater, that's not a consideration to use." That is absolutely incorrect. Preservation Brief 16, prepared by the Department of the Interior and used to guide HPC decisions, states on page 8 that substitute materials may be reasonable to consider"where in kind replacement is prohibitively expensive." Second, Councilor Mallar also lied when he claimed that the Historic Preservation Commission has never permitted slate to be replaced by a substitute material. There have been several such instances, including, but not necessarily limited to: 136 Broadway, 140-142 Hammond Street, 401 Pushaw Road, 17 Pond Street, 208 French Street and the Waterworks. If Mr. Mallar is going to present information to a municipal board, at the very least, he ought not to lie about it. Much more distressing is Mr. Mallar's conduct at the most recent HPC meeting on August 14. When it came our turn on the agenda, our representative asked for a brief recess in order to meet with Anne Krieg and John Hamor. While my husband, our representative and Ms. Krieg and Mr. Hamor met in the hallway, Councilor Mallar, completely unsolicited, approached the members of the HPC who had remained in their places. He stated he wanted ,� . �� the HPC to know that the case was procedurally incorrect and shouldn't be heard in this venue. He argued the case needed to be in Superior Caurt. He had a thick stack of papers with official City of Bangor letterhead. It was evident he intended to distribute those documents. Councilor Mallar stated that the City Council disagreed with this case at the HPC level and wanted HPC members to reconsider hearing our case and that we should be denied the opportunity to be heard. He made it very clear he was there on behalf of the City Council and was there as a representative of the City. I am unaware of the City Council ever having taken a position on our attempt to get a certificate of appropriateness. We were certainly never notified of our roof being a Council agenda item. I verbally requested that Councilor Mallar return to his seat and stated he was acting inappropriately for approaching HPC members during a recess while the video and microphones were not recording. He denied the inappropriate nature of his behavior and had to be told by Chairperson Chernevsky to return to the public seating area. While Councilor Mallar, as a private citizen, during public comment time, may be able to address a board conducting a hearing, as a councilor and as a former member of the HPC, he knows very well that it is utterly inappropriate and highly unethical to attempt to influence a decision by approaching the HPC in an ex parte manner during a recess. As a councilor, I'm sure he also knows that he does not act or speak for the entire Council or the City of Bangor unless he has been specifically requested and designated to do sa. Because of Councilor Mallar's inappropriate and unethicaf behavior, I respectfully request the Council take such action as is necessary to prevent that behavior fram recurring. Thank you. � /`�i�c.�j/r �,, C�►'"''m �,v� � -0`15''�-�I.� S` ; �. STATEMENT OF STEVE FARREN Good evening. My name is Steve Farren and I own property at 198 Broadway. Since November I have been attempting to obtain a certificate of appropriateness for replacing my slate roof with a slate facsimile. I was denied a certificate of appropriateness at the November meeting af the Historic Preservation Commissian and subsequently appealed to the Baard of Appeals. After losing at the Board of Appeals and while I was preparing to take an appeal the the Penobscot County Superior Court, I was notified by the City that he should submit another application for a certificate of appropriateness and that that application would be considered de novo. While we still don't entirely understand the rationale for this reconsideration, we certainly wanted to attempt to resolve the issue at the local level and, therefore, submitted another application. During our experience with the histaric preservation process, we've encountered several issues that warrant the attention of the City Council. While we believe mast members of the HPC have tried to act in an exemplary manner. There have also been lapses, including serious ethical lapses. At the meeting in November, after I completed my presentation, the chair called for public comment. There was none. Typically that would then result in ensuing discussion and deliberation by the HPC. Instead, however, I was informed that there would next be a presentation by Elliot Huguenard of Blackstone Restoration, a company that does slate roof repair and replacement. Mr. Huguenard, spent his time extolling the virtues of slate roofing and essentially argued that slate roofs last forever. First, according to another bulletin published by the Department of the Interior, Preservation Bulletin 29, slate roofs, even when constructed with the best sfate, have lifetimes of between 60 and 125 years, making virtually every slate roof in Bangor well past the end of its useful life. Second, Mr. Huguenard opined on the condition my roof without ever having personally abserving it. Much more troubling is the fact that Historic Preservation Commissioner Matthew Weitkamp is a part owner of Blackstone Restoration. After ignoring a blatant conflict of interest, while seeing a small photograpii of my roof and without examining the roof himself, Mr. Weitkamp substituted his judgment for those of my professionals and concluded that my roaf could get by with minor repairs. Given Mr. Weitkamp's canflict of interest, he should have recused himself and taken no part in discussions, deliberations or voting. I suspect that Mr. Weitkamp's canflict is the reason I was told to resubmit my application. For some reason, majority rule does not apply to the HPC. Rather, four affirmative vates are needed for the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness. At subsequent meetings another cammission member recused himself due to his being a landlord of Blackstone Restoration. As a result, each time the commission was in a position to vote of my application, I was left with the requirement of getting a unanimous vote from the four members who remained. One of the reasons a unanimous vote was required was because commission member Rebecca Krupke failed to attend. I have been to faur meetings between November 2024 and August 2025. Rebecca Krupke has attended not one of those meetings. In fact, since Octaber of 2024, Ms. Krupke has failed to attend six out of ten HPC meetings. 1 understand that service of various municipal boards and commissions is voluntary and unpaid. However, particularly when a greater than majority vote is required, it is critically important that all members regularly attend. Otherwise, this Council needs a way to replace members who refuse or otherwise fail to fuffill their obligations. Finally, circling back to my wife's report on Councilor Mallar's unethical behavior, at the last HPC meeting we had been assured that we would at least have the benefit of a full commission. Once again, Rebecca Krupke failed to attend. That left us in August with the same four members who, in July, voted 3-1 in favor of granting a certificate of appropriateness. The one negative vote came from Anne Marie Quin, who voted no based on evidence that was nowhere in the record. Ms. Quin voted no because she said slate shingles were not carefully removed from my roaf in order that we might determine whether some or all of them could be reused. There was no testimony whatsoever by anyone as to how the slate was removed from my roof. Therefore, Ms. Quin either obtained that information from her own, independent investigation, which is inappropriate, or from a third person who communicated with her outside of an HPC meeting, which is also inappropriate. Commission members who serve in quasi judicial capacities are not free to do their own, independent investigations, nor are then permitted to obtain their information from ex parte communications. In July we were given the option of asking for a continuance in order that we might get a full commission at the regular August meeting. We accepted the continuance but, . � _ " as I have indicated, in August we had the same cast of characters we had in July. No Ms. Krupke. That is why we recessed to talk with John Hamor and Anne Krieg. Following the recess we asked for another continuance in the hape of getting a full commission at a later date(October because our representative is unavailable in September). While we expected no issue with a vote for another ca�tinuance, Anne Marie Quin opposed the mation before ultimately abstaining. Her rationale was, and I quote, "I have been told that we need a court order to start this thing de navo. And so uh I guess I need to find out how did we get here? How did we get here from going right up to the court and about to be asking for a fine to starting de navo?" We immediately asked Mrs. Quin where she got this legal advice. It apparently did nat come from John Hamar, who has been advising the commissian. It did nat come fram Anne Krieg or any other member of the City staff. And we have been assured it did not come from the City Solicitor ar Assistant Solicitor. Mrs. Quin declined to say from where she abtained her legal advice or who told her a court order was required for the HPC to consider the application that I was told by the City to submit again. We suspect that's where Mr. Mallar comes back in. However, no one was willing to direct Ms. Quin to provide an answer. Apparently, a member of the HPC can cite evidence or legal arguments without providing the source thereof. That is blatantly illegal and Mrs. Quin will be asked to recuse herself at our next meeting. These are issues that this Council cannot allow ta persist. Thank you. ' _ `", .�/ � �-�J-� G� S ' 1'`' r �' �h���i� § 148-9. Evaluation standards. The standards and requirements contained in this section shall be used in review of applications for certificates of appropriateness, minor alterations or revisions, and staff a p p rova ls. *** B. Standards for renovations, atterations and repairs of existing buildings, structures and appurtenances thereof. *** {2)Within historic districts, historic sites and historic landmarks,the Commission shall use the standards listed below in the evaluation of an application for a certificate of appropriateness for all renovations, alterations and repairs of existing buildings, structures and appurtenances thereof: *** (c) Deteriorated architectural features should be repaired rather than replaced,whenever possible. In the event that replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design,texture and finish.�if possible. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on physical or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural features from other buildings. (il The Secretar�of the Interior's Standards For Rehabilitation recognize that flexibility may sometimes be needed when it comes to new and re�ptacement materials as part of a historic rehabititation nroject Substitute materials that closeLy match the visual and nhysical�ronPrties of historic materials can be successfull�r used on man�rehabilitation projects. �ii)The term s�rbstit��te materia(s is�sed to describe buildin� materials that have the potential to match the a�r�earance, E2hysical �ro r i �,and related attributes of historic materials well enough to make them alternatives for�se in c�rrent oreservation aractice when historic materials require re�lacement. While the use of matchin� materials is alway��referred,�he Standards �urposely allow for the ��se of substitute materials when the use of oCiginal materials is not reasonabl�y qossible, s�ch as in consideration of economic an� technical feasibilitv. (iii) Use of s�bstitute materials previousl.y a�aroved by the Commission shall be deemed to satisfv the req�irements of this . : � � chapter.To that end, the Code Enforcement Officer or the Planning Office shall maintain a list of products previousl�r aaaroved by the Commission, shall make that list easilv available to the public and shall post that list on the City's website. (iv� Historic or original materials may not be required when their use will cost the�ro er owner one and a half(1.5) or more times the cost of substitute materials. (vl The Commission may not substitute its sub�ective opinion as to whether replacement is necessary for the recommendation of a professional contractor or a design professional. � � T § 148-9. Evaluation standards. E. 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; and (b) ; {s}The conditions or circumstances which constitute the hardship were not cause or created by the prop�rty owner after an amendment to § 148- 5 of this chapter by which the property because subject to this chapter. (2) For purposes of Subsection E(1), "reasonable economic return" shall not be construed to mean a maximum return, and "any reasonable use" shall not be construed to mean the highest and best use. t3) For qurposes of Subsection E(1), if the use of materials required to complv with this chapter will cost one and a half (1.5) or more times the cost of substitute materials, that will be deemed to constitute an undue hardshia and prima facie �roof that the propertv cannot vield a reasonable economic return. • � � � 1 STATEMENT OF RICIC VIOLETTE Good evening. My name is Rick Violette. I am a general contractor and a sharehalder in a company that owns a property in an historic district. I have been consulting with and advising Steve Farren with respect to his roaf and his attempt ta obtain a certificate of appropriateness from the Historic Preservation Commission. If money were no object, all of us who own historic properties would spend as much as was required to maintain our properties exactly as they were when they were bui►t. That includes slate roofs and single pane windows that bleed heat. Unfortunately, Mr. Mallar is 100% wrong and money is, indeed, a proper consideratian for the Histaric Preservation Commission. Ms. Dyer cited the guidance from the � Department of the Interior. Slate roofs are expensive, ridiculously so. In an attempt to demonstrate that to the HPC, we sought two different estimates to replace slate with slate for roofs at 28, 10 and 18 West Broadway, homes and carriage houses. The owners of these houses have already spent tens of thousands of dollars having relatively small repairs done. However, despite our best efforts, slate roofs do not last forever and the Department of the Interior recognizes that. For 28 West Broadway, the higher estimate was for$667,144 and the lower estimate was for$460,313. Imagine if you were told you had to spend at least a half a million dallars to replace your roof. The assessed value of 28 West Broadway is$660,OOQ. Therefore, the cast of replacing slate roofs is between 69% and 101% of the assessed value of the property. For 10 West Broadway the higher estimate was for$876,830. The lower estimate was for$442,137, but did not include the carriage house. The assessed value af the property is$609,300, sa the cost af replacing the slate roofs, based on the one complete estimate we obtained is 143% of the assessed value. For 18 West Broadway the higher estimate was for$1,225,015. The lower estimate, for the house alone, was$739,883. The assessed value of the property is $582,600. Thus,the cost of replacing the slate roofs, based on the one complete estimate we obtained is . more than 200% of the assessed value. Even the lower number, for just the house, is 126% of the assessed value. i a ,w '� ` As was painted out by a licensed architect at one af the HPC meetings, a roof does not add value ta a house in the way a new kitchen or new bathroam might. Buyers expect a house that has a roof that will keep the weather out. It seems pointless to go through the process Steve Farren has been through every time sameone has a slate roof that needs to be replaced. Despite Mr. Mallar's protestations to the contrary, the HPC has, on several occasions allowed slate roofs to be replaced with substitute materials, something that is contemplated by the guidance given by � the Department of the Interior. Whether to allow substitute materials isn't a decision that should depend solely on the whims of the persons on the Historic Preservation Commission at the time. Earlier this summer we sent notices to every owner af an historic property in the City of Bangor. We met several times and we appointed a subcommittee to propase some fairly common sense amendments to the historic preservation ordinance. � The first amendment recognized the guidance from the Secretary of the Interior as ta when substitute materials are permissible. It also required the City to maintain a list of substitute materials that have been previously appraved and deemed to satisfy the ordinance. It states that owners will not be required to use original materials when the cost of doing sa will cost more 1.5 times or more the cast of substitute materials. And finally, it says the Historic Preservation Commission may not substitute its subjective opinion as to whether replacement is necessary for the recommendation of a professional contractor or design professional. To � deny replacement would require a counterbalancing expert analysis, not simply the subjective opinion of a lay board. The second proposed amendment clarifies the hardship requirement of the ' ordinance and states that if original materials will cast 1.5 times or mare of the cast of substitute materials then that is prima facie proof that there is a hardship on which a certificate of appropriateness may be granted. We sincerely hope this Council will consider and pass these amendments which we believe strike a reasonable balance between historic preservation and economic reality. Thank you.