Bangor HPC approves Union Plaza windows, debates proposed 'Bangor' sign

[0:01] Speaker A (unidentified): I don't know. Oh, we are ready to go. Okay. Good evening. [0:10] Edmund (Chair): Welcome to the March 13th, 2025 meeting of the historic preservation commission. My name is Edmund, and I am chair of the commission for this year. I will have my commission members introduce themselves. Peter, we'll start with you at this time. Peter Cable or associate member. And Matthew, I came an associate member. Remember when Rebecca, correct? He also vice chair commission. If something horrible happens to me this evening, he will take the gavel. It won't happen. They won't. But just in case from the city tonight, we have and Brian and our guest speaker at the back, who will be introduced in the time when she's spoken speaking. So, I have a brief introduction to the Historic Preservation Commission. Those of you who have been here before have heard this before. I will try to not belabor any points, but if you have questions, we'll take them as they arise. So, the Historic Preservation Commission has two roles. First, we serve as the Bangor Center Revitalization Area Design and Review Committee, designated under Section 71 of the City Ordinances, which covers review issues in the downtown and waterfront areas of Bangor. And secondly the commission has several responsibilities under the historic preservation section of city ordinances which is section 148 including issues issuing certificates of appropriateness for construction of or changes to buildings within the city's designated historic districts depending on the location of the property we may be reviewing proposal under both design review and historic preservation criteria if all regular members are in attendance and Nate I know you're in attendance on Zoom. Sorry we did not introduce you this is also Nate King so she members will get to participate in the meeting, but don't vote on motion. All motions must have a rule of 5 votes not going to take too much into the some of the other nitty gritty will deal with that as that arises order of the meeting we will call applicants in the order that they appear on the agenda when I call your project, I will ask you to present your application from the podium once you have made your presentation I will first ask for the report in his absence. We will read his comments at the record, or I will, and then we'll address his questions and concerns as they are risen in the in the report that we have. Thirdly, we'll take quite our 2nd, we'll take questions from permission members and then there are any questions or comments from the audience. When questions are completed, the commission will have a discussion of the proposal and the standards of review under which the proposal is being considered as with our last meeting. We'll follow the new protocol and do everything step-by-step through each standard review, and we'll have separate motions for each of those items. Three final comments for applicants before the HVC. It looks like your project will not be approved. You may choose to withdraw your application, amend it, and then resubmit your application for a future meeting, saving your application fee. If you disagree with the decision of the Commission regarding your project, you of course have the right to appeal the decision to the Board of Appeals, And all products need to be started within 6 months and completed within a year. Otherwise, a new application to the commission will need to be made and approved prior to starting your project. You can also ask for an extension via the minor revision process. Before we begin, are there any additions to the agenda for consideration? I know we have the piece that you would already set, but anything from the commission. Okay. In the interest of expediency, we'll start with the addition to our agenda. So I need a motion from the committee to adopt the findings and decision. Yes. For 218 Ohio Street. Thank you. For 218 Ohio Street. I move to adopt the findings and decision for 218 Ohio Street. Second. Oh, yeah, I have 1 of the regular members. Thank you though. [4:09] Speaker D (unidentified): Oh, I already did not. [4:13] Edmund (Chair): Emery, can you repeat it for the record? Please? Yes, I second. No, you have to make that. You have to start. [4:21] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay, well, we accept. except the adoption of the Vanguard Children's Home, 218 Ohio Street, Vanguard. Okay. [4:33] Edmund (Chair): I second. We'll call for a roll call vote. Nathan, Nathaniel, I'll start with you. Yes. Ann Marie. Yes. Rebecca. Yes. Liam. Yes. And I also vote yes. [4:47] Speaker D (unidentified): Motion passes successfully. Mr. Green. [4:51] Edmund (Chair): You kindly approach the podium and present your report. Thank you. So I will introduce this for you. Okay. So this is a design review application. This is for 16 Union Plaza, Map Lot 042.066, the Bangor Center Revitalization Area. The applicant is slash owner is Mark. The approval has been requested for design review to add 2 windows, replace 4 windows, and add 4 fire escape platforms. The property again is located at Map Lot 042-266 in the Bangor Center Revitalization Area. [5:25] Speaker E (unidentified): The floor is yours. Okay. Well, you cover it pretty much. It's the 3rd floor and I'm replacing the windows that are there with new windows and I need to add 2 to bring it up to code in the 2 rooms that don't have windows in there. And I need to put fire escape platforms on 2 on either end of the building. So I can answer any questions you might have about any of that. [5:51] Edmund (Chair): You would like me to put Mike's questions first. Yeah, nice question. So I know there were a couple emails going back and forth. He had sent some initial questions. I believe you responded to them, and then I believe there's follow up. So yeah, with me as I work out sadly, we'll start with the initial email. So you would say in your application, and this is Mike's words, that 2 windows are being added and 4 being replaced. Okay, the window schedule for Matthew's brother shows a quantity of 8 windows and that are 42 by 58 inches and one that is 78 by 60 inches for a total of 9. So, the building window show 3 sides of the building, but do not clearly show which one is your favorite place. The front windows on Union Street feature on and windows above and below a fixed panel. Are these being replaced with double hung windows as shown in the schedule? [6:39] Speaker E (unidentified): Those windows, the sheets that I submitted were just the specs of the windows. They weren't how many. We're replacing four in the front, four in the back, and putting one new one on either side. [6:52] Edmund (Chair): If it helps, I have your initial response to that. So there are currently two windows on the Union Street side, which is the front, and two identical windows in the back. Those are being replaced. [7:01] Speaker E (unidentified): No, four on either end. There's four on either end. The pictures are just exactly like the one in your package. This is exactly what it's going to look like. Everybody should have those pictures. And the platforms will match the picture of those stairs. That's why I included that, just to show that they're just going to match the stairs and look better. But that's exactly what they're going to be. The pictures are exactly what they're going to look like. So four and four and then one four and four on either end and one on either side, okay? And I think [7:33] Edmund (Chair): you also submitted us as far as the attachment directly to the brick surface. Say that again? You are attaching your fire escape platforms directly to the directly to the brick surface. Yep. [7:46] Speaker E (unidentified): We're going to use suspension chains as opposed to under beams because it just looks better. You do you want to see anything? They'll just look like they're sitting there. That [8:00] Edmund (Chair): wasn't anything specific for Mike. I didn't have anything else for Mike on yet. No, can I ask for clarification? Of course, on the response this here? [8:09] Speaker E (unidentified): This is actually the 3rd floor. That's the 3rd floor. Yes, that's the 3rd floor. So there won't be any more awnings on those windows because you can't get out the window onto the fire escape with the awning there. So, that's exactly what it's going to look like from either end. That's what's going to look for up to the front or the back or either side. Gotcha. Okay. It won't be. What's that? It won't be grass. Yeah, it won't be grass. Put that in there. That's why they didn't know what to do. [8:37] Speaker F (unidentified): Story right? I didn't realize that looked like that when I emailed it. Gotcha, thank you. We are [8:44] Edmund (Chair): open questions for him. So are the windows on the second floor two over one pane as well? Say that [8:50] Speaker E (unidentified): again? Are the windows on the second floor? Yeah, they're the same as the ones on the third floor. Yeah, they'll be replaced. That's another project next year. I gotta get the building sprinkled and go from there. But they're the same as the window. All the windows are gonna look exactly the same [9:03] Edmund (Chair): as they do. They're just gonna be new. Okay, it's just not clear from the picture that they're two over one. But I don't know what you mean when you say two names. So if you look at your picture, oh [9:11] Speaker E (unidentified): yeah, they're exactly the same except they're double hung instead of those are really old. They're just crap windows, so they're just going to be replaced with modern style more efficient windows with the same appearance. But they have the same because they look the same. [9:27] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah, so Matthew's asking, like, you know how it has, like, the two little windows up top and then the one big one on the bottom? Oh, that's what I don't know. Yeah, it's in, I there, the windows that [9:37] Speaker E (unidentified): I said the guy gave you the specs of the windows were exactly the windows that we're putting in. [9:41] Edmund (Chair): I don't know. Yeah, what I'm asking is what the, yeah, that's what she drew, that's what she drew [9:46] Speaker E (unidentified): in her picture, the lady that, the lady at Viking Lumber who have driven insane did this, so those [9:53] Edmund (Chair): are the windows. So what I'm asking is what is here now, are they two panes over one pane? I can't see [9:59] Speaker E (unidentified): from, I don't know, I can't, I don't, I don't remember off the top of my head. Let me look, see if I can tell you that it looks like one over one. No, those are 1970 windows. There's, there's three little squares and the bottom swings out and the top swings out, so they don't look like anything like those windows. I'm sorry, I miss under, I didn't realize what you were going for, [10:19] Edmund (Chair): so you plan in the future to have matching windows to these two over ones? Yeah, next, well the next [10:24] Speaker E (unidentified): project, you can only have a mixed-use building, which is a building on the first floor, so you can only have one apartment with one unit unless the building is sprinkled. So I'm going to get this four bedroom apartment role and I get some income from that and then go show the bank that I have the income from that and then get the building sprinkled and then we can have eight apartments in that building. But the way the code is, I can't do that without, has to be a step-by-step process, you know, because the bank account is small and [10:54] Speaker H (unidentified): And basically, all the changes that are before us today are to meet fire code. That's right. So the windows will allow egress onto the platform for the escape, and the side window is the same. Exactly. And just so, when I hear fire escape, I think a structure with a ladder. [11:14] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, they let you do those platform, they call it purchase, as long as the arm from the guy explained, as long as the arm, the ladder if you can reach it from the top of the truck they can do it that way. Thankfully a lot more money to do it the other way. [11:31] Edmund (Chair): So Mark, I have another question for you. So on the, you're replacing these four windows here [11:36] Speaker E (unidentified): Are you preserving the granite? Yes. Yeah, the perch is going to go probably a foot or two below that and climb out onto the okay. But you're not removing? We're not going to remove any of that. It's going to go, we're going to put a two by ten under there into the brick wall and then attach everything to that and then hang it with suspension chains from the top to hold [11:59] Edmund (Chair): the weight. Does that make sense? Yes. And are there on the rear of the building the pictures aren't very, yeah, the real thing looks horrible. Well, it's just from far away as you can, yeah, well [12:10] Speaker E (unidentified): there's nothing you can't tell but all those are broken there's covered in plastic. Is there, are the granite, are those there? I don't know if they're there like the front. I assume they are. And if they are, we're going to, we're not, we're not going to remove anything. Anyway, we're just going to put the 2 by 10 people over the window or cut them. No, we're not going to do anything to them. Okay. [12:35] Edmund (Chair): Any additional questions from the commission if [Speaker A (unidentified): there's] no additional questions in the commission, the public is welcome to ask questions that you serve before you move forward. [12:49] Speaker I (unidentified): I just want to have you make the motion on the completeness and that is design review those 3 items under section 3, but change the date to March 13th. Yes. [13:04] Edmund (Chair): So, when the procedural background. So, if we believe this application to be complete, we'll need motions on that separate ones for each 1. No, you can combine. So, if the commission believes that the procedural background has been met for the application, I would entertain a motion for that in the affirmative please. So we can fail or 60. [13:25] Speaker H (unidentified): I'll make a motion that the procedural background for the property at 16 Union Plaza is complete. [13:35] Edmund (Chair): I second. Okay, we, so this isn't specifically designed for you so we don't actually need the three affirmatives to vote. This is just a majority, correct? I think it actually is the same as certificate of appropriateness. So four affirmative to pass? Yeah. Okay. Nathaniel, in the interest of your remote, we will start with you, sir. Yes, and Marie. Yes, Rebecca. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. You saw the tail end of it with the last 1. So the application is complete. We're now okay for public comment. Would anyone like to ask any questions? If there is no public questions, we will officially close the public hearing and now you may have discussion commissioners amongst the amongst yourselves. You don't have to remain standing for this. Okay. [14:40] Speaker E (unidentified): We're going to talk about you, but not fair enough. I'll sit over there if you need anything. I think all our questions are concerned about the application. [14:50] Edmund (Chair): No, I think he's replacing or quality windows with something slightly higher quality, and as long as we're not cutting into the grant. Yes, that's there. That's one of the mining characteristics of that building. Is there anything you want to add on? No, if there's nothing you wish to discuss, I will entertain motions proceeding down through part 4. All right, so we have before us that the project meets the evaluation standards of 71 11 regarding the bank or center revitalization area. So, the 1st, motion should be about whether we find that based on exhibits 2 through 4 and 12 of the application satisfies at 71 dash 11, a, requiring the materials techniques and designs were practical, conform to and harmonize with the architecture of the building. [15:44] Speaker H (unidentified): On you, we need a separate motion and vote on all 7. Yes. Oh, yes. Okay. I make a motion that we approve. Approve the property at 16 Union Plaza as meeting statute 71-11a. [16:03] Edmund (Chair): Do we hear a second? My second. Thank you, Nathaniel. We will now vote. Nathaniel, you first please. Yes. Ann Marie, yes. Rebecca, yes. I will also vote yes. Motion passes successfully. I make [16:18] Speaker H (unidentified): a motion that we approve a design review for 16 Union Plaza that it meets 71-11b. [16:23] Edmund (Chair): I second, Nathaniel. We will start with you. Yes. Anne-Marie, yes. Rebecca, yes. Liam, yes. [16:33] Speaker H (unidentified): Eloso, yes. Motion passes and make a motion that we approve a design review for the property 16 Union Plaza that it meets the requirements of 71-11c. Second, you should in your motion [16:46] Speaker I (unidentified): and note the exhibits because that's important, the evidence 2-4, the 234 and 12. I [16:55] Speaker H (unidentified): accept the friendly amendment to my motion. Okay, second. Thank you, Nathaniel. Yes. [Speaker J (unidentified): Ann Marie, yes.] Rebecca, yes. Leah, yes, and I also yes. Motion passes successfully. I make a motion that we accept the property at 16 Union Plaza as meeting the requirements of section 71 dash 11 E, based on exhibits 2 through 4 and 12. [17:27] Speaker G (unidentified): My 2nd, Nathaniel, yes. [17:33] Edmund (Chair): Yes, Rebecca. Yes. Yes. Yes. [17:38] Speaker H (unidentified): Successfully, I think I did them out of order. I'm going to go back up, make a motion that we approve. Prove the proposal about 16 in Plaza that it meets our requirements for items 71 dash 11 C, based on exhibits 2 through 4 and 12. [17:57] Edmund (Chair): 2nd, thank you Nathaniel. Yes. Yes, Rebecca. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. [18:06] Speaker H (unidentified): Successfully I'm going to make a motion for 16 union Plaza that it meets our requirements for 71 dash 11 F. based on Exhibits 2 through 4 and 12. I second. Thank you. Nathaniel? Yes. [18:18] Edmund (Chair): Marie? Yes. Sorry, I don't understand. Go back up. Yes. I will also vote yes. [18:28] Speaker H (unidentified): Thank you. Most importantly, I make a motion for 16 Union Plaza that it meets the requirements of 71-11 based on Exhibits 2 through 4 and 12. [18:39] Edmund (Chair): 12 second Nathaniel. Yes, and Marie. Yes, Rebecca. Yes, Liam. Yes, I will also go. Yes, motion passes successfully. [18:49] Speaker H (unidentified): I will make a motion that the property at 16 in Plaza satisfies the requirements of 71 dash 11 h based on exhibits 2 through 4 and 12. [18:58] Edmund (Chair): I second Nathaniel yes and Marie yes Rebecca yes Liam yes and I will also vote yes motion passes successfully so we have now been through the different criteria and you all have voted that the proposal meets the required criteria for our design review so the next piece as far as I'm doing this correctly is the decision as far as that we move to the side to issue the design, to approve the design review? [19:33] Speaker H (unidentified): I make a motion of design review approval for the property at 16 Union Plaza. [19:39] Edmund (Chair): All right. Do I have a second? I second. Nathaniel? Yes. Anne-Marie? Yes. Rebecca? Yes. Liam? Yes. And I will also vote yes. Motion passes successfully. Any further motions that we need in this space? Okay, that's good. Did I interpret that correctly? Good. We got now that works for the way I really just as a reminder, as you did state earlier, if you do need an extension on that, you will need to work through the minor revision process with the city or you'll have to reapply. Okay. Thank you very much. All right, so the other items on our agenda, we will start with our other business, which is a proposed Bangor lights project request for commission commentary. We will be having a conversation about the proposed installation of a large internally with lettering spelling out Bangor at the intersection of state and Harlow street. The proposed location is within the great fire of 1911 stroke district and is here from the city to present on this. I'm sure that there'll be lots of commentary so let's let her get through her presentation without interruption please and we'll proceed as formally as we can. [20:58] Ann Krieg: Ann? Thank you. For the record, I'm Ann Krieg. I'm the Director of Community and Economic Development here at the City. I'm here to get comments from the Historic Preservation Commission on a proposed project that was started a while ago, started like 2019, 2020, by the previous downtown, who's not Betsy Lundy, who's now the downtown being a partnership director, but at the time she was working for the city and was working on a project to have public art in the intersection of State Harlow below Exchange on the grass area there to have the letters of Bangor spelled out lighted. We had shelled the project because covet hit and our priorities at a staff level shifted dramatically, and so we shelved it, and then due to staffing needs and capacity we shelved it for a little while longer, and recently you know we kind of brought it back up because we did have a donor for a small portion of the project from High Tide Capital, you know, contact us and said hey you know what happened with this project. And so we said yeah let's you know bring this back and see if the city still wants to do this. And so we brought it back to the Business and Economic Development Committee, initially, and they have received a lot of comments with concerns, and most of the concerns seem to stem on historic preservation, so I said well you know let me take this to the Historic Preservation Commission. You do not review any regulations, you don't review this formally, but I wanted to you know give you the chance to be you know to weigh in with any comments or questions concerns that you may have. The culture commission has recommended it, public art is under their purview, they have made that recommendation, so I'm I'm here really to listen to you with your concerns, and they'll all be forwarded to council. What I'll do is I'll probably bring this back to Business and Economic Development Committee just to let them know these are the comments that we received, this is what you know the Cultural Commission said, this is what the Historic Preservation Commission said, and all of the written comments that we've received from folks, some of those have been sent to you as well, so you should have a [23:33] Edmund (Chair): decent packet For the Commission we are not making a motion or voting on this is your opportunity to provide commentary and from your perspective as members of the Historical Preservation Commission and with that I Can use this form they should like Peter would you like to start but certainly so I have a few questions [23:58] Speaker F (unidentified): First off, you said this is brought up before, who is who has proposed this? [24:04] Ann Krieg: Who are the people proposing this project? Well, initially, like I said, it was proposed in our department by department staff. And again, we do a whole bunch of circumstances with staffing and Covid. We just had shelved the project. So it was an internal proposal. It was an internal proposal, but it was something that was worked on with Dash Davidson of High Tide Capital, who's done some start preservation projects in that area, and it's just something that he was supporting. [24:38] Speaker F (unidentified): So in your memorandum of 2.6, you state that since it is public art, it is not subject to the commission's formal review. Correct. So my question is, who determines that it's art? The cultural commission. Is that the answer? Who decided that this was art and not a sign, is the question I have. [25:04] Ann Krieg: Well, I mean, in other cities that have done this, you know, St. Paul, you know, and I talked to St. Paul, and I know we also, a few years ago, I talked to other cities that have this they also treat it as you know a public art piece because it's just it's the It's sort of the It's not a traditional welcome to Bangor sign it's just using the letters as art, but I have the question because [25:35] Speaker F (unidentified): Clearly this is the pivotal point as to whether this commission has a purview in this historic district of approving this permanent structure or not and so my issue would be who has decided that this is art what was the process and what is the criteria to determine that then it is no longer under the purview of our Commission we [25:59] Ann Krieg: internally had determined that it was public art because of the use of you know the whole purpose of it isn't just that a welcome to Bangor signed like a lot of people are calling it, 's really the letters of Bangor as the art form itself and the lights on it. [26:19] Speaker F (unidentified): So what was the process done to determine it was art? What is the criteria used? It is important from my perspective because if we look to the future, we have a situation in which a permanent structure is being proposed in the historic district, which by the statute we have the purview to approve or disprove in our process. And so as we look to the future for this and any other application, if there is a way for someone to designate a structure as art that would then no longer have to come under our purview, it's important to know what is the process and the criteria for doing that. [27:00] Ann Krieg: Well, the definition of a sign in the code is to convey a message of, you know, of a business or a service. So, and this does neither. [27:12] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah, I would just like to read the definition of public art in the code as well. And it says that it's installed to be visible from a public space and which does not contain characteristics of advertising or identify or draw attention to a particular business product or service. And also reading over construction of new buildings and structures and historic districts, and the standards in general that you all use to evaluate certificates of appropriateness. They generally refer to buildings or structures. So that's [27:45] Edmund (Chair): Do you repeat that, Anya? Which part? The advertising part. Do you mind reading that part? Public art. Art that is installed to be visible from a public space which does not contain characteristics of advertising or identifying or draw attention to a particular business, product, or service. So the criteria to answer your question, Peter, is I understand the response from the code. The criteria is because this was not advertising a business or service. It does not count as a sign. However, that said, the first word was art. [28:24] Speaker F (unidentified): And so my question is, that has to be defined as art before the stipulations that follow it are applied. And so the question is, how is that term art defined? I think the pivotal actually [28:41] Speaker I (unidentified): a little statement in there is that it's about advertising a business or service [28:45] Speaker F (unidentified): I disagree because it states art, it says art is this, and then it's that is as [28:51] Speaker G (unidentified): long as it doesn't do these things. Can I ask who actually, so you know the hopeful sign there is a specific artist behind that whole mission for the hopeful song. Who's the artist that will be installing this particular or who came up with the idea of the structure? Who's the artist behind it? It was it was done at a staff level and it's [29:15] Ann Krieg: sort of like what we've seen in many other cities around the country and in Toronto. I mean, there's a whole bunch of cities that have done this art piece in their downtown. Sort of it really it really stemmed from the love in Philadelphia, that as an art piece, that word, and then a lot of cities thereafter started. [29:37] Speaker G (unidentified): That's a, yeah, that's an actual artist who created the love. Correct. [29:42] Edmund (Chair): And do those cities have an independent Historic Preservation Commission? [29:46] Speaker G (unidentified): Right, I don't know. [29:47] Speaker I (unidentified): I believe Philadelphia does. [29:49] Ann Krieg: Yeah, and St. Paul does, yeah. [29:51] Speaker G (unidentified): It's an actual artist who created the love. [29:52] Speaker F (unidentified): I have a follow-up about the issue, I'm sorry. you know i follow up about the issue of sign what i just heard was that it's not a sign unless it's advertising etc so does that mean that the bangor limit scientists say bangor are not signs because they don't follow those other definitions i mean this to me is to be constructed by a sign company that's what the company does that does this is a permanent structure that is affixed to a foundation piece and as such it is definitely a sign whether it's also art or not may be another question at least in my view of this. And I go back to my original question, what is the definition of art? Because if we have an individual or city or other people come to us again with another proposal and say, well, this is art, it doesn't have to go through you, we need to have some way of determining that and some authority that will back up the criteria for that definition. I would opt that architecture, which I see in art books, is also art. Yet, these architectural structures that we pass judgment on are not being considered art. And the question will be, well, why not? If this can be considered art, certainly the creative process of architecture and design could also be considered art and possibly with a little more credential to it. And so this is a very important process from my perspective in the sense of our purpose for being the historic commission is then to determine appropriateness. And if we have an exception that's provided, how can we know what the exception is on any individual case unless there's but definition and criteria that is applied rigorously. We are asked to provide our rigorous and somewhat lengthy process here for each aspect of what our code is telling us we have to do as we just did with this past thing. This is a seminal issue. And to me, it needs to have a clear definition and criteria that's accepted. So that's comment and discussion from that perspective. Next. [32:32] Speaker D (unidentified): If absolutely anything can be called art, what's the merit in something achieving that label? [32:40] Ann Krieg: Well, I mean, in terms of the building and architecture argument, I mean, that is clearly outlined. That is in your purview by the Secretary of the Interior standards that you use to review them. Them, the list of things that have to come before you, that is clear. So I don't think you can equate those two. [33:03] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, I'm just asking, I'm just citing the fact that if you can call that art, then you can call anything art. Absolutely anything. That is so far away from any concept of art I have ever heard of or understood. It doesn't even come close. And the other problem with it is once that's called art and it gets installed in the historic district, that becomes part of the historic district. And then it's an awful job to get rid of it if somebody decides to. I mean, we saw that with architecture on Broadway. And the argument was it had to be kept because it had been put there. I mean, so it's very dangerous to put something like that in there, in my opinion, and call it art before you define what art is and what is or isn't fitting the definition. So needless to say, I am absolutely and positively against putting that green neon sign in that precious historic district that almost defines the city we live in. I mean, our city was almost wiped out by the great fire, and that's where the great fire took place. It is the worst possible place to put that sign. It's sacred ground as far as I'm concerned. And so, but if that can be called art, I would say anything can be called art. And is that good, to have an object that you can't even really, you know, give a definition for in terms of whether it's art or not. [34:52] Speaker F (unidentified): A quick question. You mentioned providing us with input that came to, I guess you had provided us with this forwarded from Dash Davidson that was to the councilors. This is the only piece of communication like this that I have received. Were there others that came to the city council, letters, emails or otherwise sent one to city council? Right? Yes, I did. Yeah. But I guess my point is, you supplied this 1 to us. Yeah. Are there not others? Oh, okay. I'm sorry. [35:35] Speaker I (unidentified): There's 1 that was in favor, but are there any that are not in favor that we have not received? Yeah. Or did you comments that were sent directly to the commission? Yes. Yes, we weren't in receipt of comments that were sent to the council, but we did receive ones that were sent to you and we forwarded them to you in the last packet. No, I appreciate that. But my, comment is, this was forwarded to us by you. [35:57] Speaker F (unidentified): For inclusion, and this is something that was sent to the city councilors. So you pass that we didn't, we didn't see stuff that was sent to the city council. He didn't provide that for us. Right? Well, we sent the ones that you had received directly. Yeah, right. I'm just making a comment. This was specifically sent to the counselors and you forwarded it to because I was copying on it. And I appreciate that. So my question is, I would presume then that there may be others. If this is important for us to see if there were others, we didn't receive them. [36:29] Speaker D (unidentified): So we couldn't afford them, so okay, yeah, all right, so I understand that there are over a hundred [36:36] Ann Krieg: over a hundred letters that were written to the council. Yeah, I mean, if the city doesn't want to do this, it's okay, we're just, you know, it was one of those projects that, you know, was worked on a long time ago, and you know, the person who, Dash Davidson, who contacted us and said, hey, will you bring this back to see if we can do this, because they want to see it, that, you know, and they're, and I mean, they have done significant projects on Exchange and Hammond right in the area of this project, so they had asked us to bring it back. [37:11] Edmund (Chair): So, yeah, and I appreciate the work that they've done that doesn't in franchise us to know it shouldn't understand that 's somebody that wants to see it. [37:23] Speaker D (unidentified): By the way, I understand that of the over 100 letters the council has received, not one of them has been in favor of this project. That's fine. Yeah, not one, Rebecca. [37:35] Speaker G (unidentified): Okay, so a couple things, so the sign being art, I think that's a valid point, and I was pretty, a little bit heated that we didn't have it before us to vote for, because it is in a historical. And like I had asked Edmond the last meeting, do we only vote on structures, you know, or are there other things that we're supposed to as a council, as a committee, vote on, and I think that Peter made a very valid point. Who's deciding? And I think that's where we're lost in the fray a little bit, is that things were decided. That might not be solid in terms of, but signs don't come to either. Either they do, if they're being attached, they do, yeah, right, and the things like that. My issue with that is, how does this look to businesses who have come to us that want signs on their structures that are neon, and we say no, you can't do that, but we as a city, we're gonna do it, you know? So to me, as a business owner, a past business owner, comes off super icky to think that the city is going to be like, you can't do it, but we're gonna. So I'm not a fan of it in terms of that, because businesses put a lot of effort in so to think that 's like advertising but we're not advertising as a city with our names strapped across the lawn so that bothers me on that level and then of course the art element we do i think in the future we do have to have a little bit of, like, care about what, who gets to call something art and then presented as such to whichever committee they want to, such as like, you know, the other cities, Robert Indiana is a very famous artist. And that's the love thing, makes total sense because he's an established artist. There's always no arguing with whether or not he's an artist, you know, and the hopeful sign, there's no arguing that he had a mission, and it was clear, and it was brought before us, and we saw, you know, like his artist statement. So like those things are very important if you're going to call this art, where's the statement, you know, where's the process that got them to this point of calling it, where's the artist? Exactly voted on the umbrella Sky Project, we sure did, because it's art, it's not just a random I want to do it, and I'm just going to put it this way so that we can get it into this area to vote on it. I just think it really bothered me that we wouldn't have a vote just because of where it's located too. [40:14] Edmund (Chair): And building on both of your points, I think that to treat this thing as public art rather than either as a sign or as a new construction, which it's very clearly closer to, is disenfranchising the commission and taking away our consent on this issue. [40:34] Speaker G (unidentified): And putting hatred on something that we don't want hatred on. I love public art, I love public, I'm already, I am an artist, so of course I want to defend art and having it in my city. I very much supported murals, I love them, yeah, I [40:49] Speaker F (unidentified): Have another question that's a practical one. Has this proposal been brought to the, I don't know who would be, Department of Transportation or otherwise? And the reason I asked that question is that this is the diagram we have of where this is to be. This intersection here of State Street coming down the hill and coming into Harlow Street is a difficult intersection. And we have Park Street coming down right here, which has traffic that comes under directly in here. To me, putting this here with a flashing light is an obstructive process between the sight line here turning right onto Harlow and what's coming down Park Street. [41:32] Speaker G (unidentified): Not to mention Google routes people to go down the one way. [41:36] Speaker F (unidentified): So my question is, and that's not obviously the purview of the historic commission, but in looking at this as a concerned citizen and someone that's going to be driving down here, is this something, you know, does it being called art keep it from being looked at by the appropriate folks for traffic, et cetera, in terms of whether this is in some way hazardous? [42:00] Ann Krieg: Well, we have an engineering division that will take a look at it, yeah. Have they? But it wouldn't be subject to Maine DOT's review. Have they? It's not in their purview. Okay. [42:13] Speaker F (unidentified): But it would be under the purview of the bank or engineering group? Sure. In terms of whether it had a traffic and public safety issue? Yeah. [42:20] Ann Krieg: Has it been brought before them? Well, we reviewed the location with them because we were concerned with, you know, glare and so that is why we located it where it was is to reduce that so [42:35] Edmund (Chair): By building on Peter's point, this is one of the places I wanted to go is Bangor has a high incident rate of pedestrian accidents. One of our citizens last month was killed as a pedestrian in town, which is horrible. And this in watching that economic development commission's meeting is to generate foot traffic and have people take photographs with the sign. This seems like a particularly dangerous area to do so to have foot traffic. There's no parking so if this, if the city is married to the idea of Putting a sign that says bankrupt, which I dislike like immensely, maybe put it in an area that already has more foot traffic, like over by the amphitheater, and not a historic district, because you know if it's to generate social media likes, like one of our commission, our members of the council said were invaluable, which I think is another discussion completely, you have a much larger amount of foot traffic over there and the roads are blocked off so it's not a pedestrian hazard. [43:45] Ann Krieg: Okay, we're for other locations considered no again. This was this was something that staff had worked on with high tech capital for that particular location, but that doesn't mean that we, you know, could look at other locations or not do it at all. [44:03] Edmund (Chair): I mean, you know, we're, we're here to get comments. That's what we're here for. We do have a question or comment from Nate. So please go ahead. [44:11] Speaker J (unidentified): Hi, thanks. So looking at this being a historic district, was there any consideration given to any of the indirect effects that putting a public art piece would have on the surrounding built environment? So I'm asking that just for everyone's kind of clarification, like under section 106 when you are having something constructed or you're doing any sort of review, you have to look at indirect effects as well as direct effects, and that includes the landscape, and in an area such as a historic district where you have a built environment, this is surrounded by historic structures, we already have an art piece there, you can see in the background the queen bee or whatever it is, was there some consideration given to that because this, to me, looks like it would be a pretty indirect effect on the landscape within the historic district. And then also, is there going to be any ground disturbance related to installing this sign? Do you need to do any, is there going to be any small trenches for power running to it? Do you have to cut into the ground surface for, you know, leveling it out to fix the cement bottom or whatever it is? [45:26] Ann Krieg: Do you know? Yeah, when we worked with engineering, that again, one of the other reasons why that location on that island was chosen was the convenience to power, so and in terms of the effect on other buildings, it's across the street because on that side there it's just there's parking lot. And another mural up on the hill there. So, you know, the effect would be the building across the street. That's in the district. [46:03] Speaker J (unidentified): Well, it's more not the direct effect to the buildings within the district, but the view shed and view scape. From the other buildings in town, I don't know if that's coming across since I'm coming on over. Zoom but like just think if you're in any of the surrounding buildings you look out the window you're going to see the sign it's a change to the landscape from what you're seeing that's kind of where I'm I'm coming with this I think someone made that suggestion about it being in a different location that was outside the historic district the amphitheater I think it was I mean moving it to a different location if this is something where somebody just says absolutely hey we've got to have this Sign in case somebody forgets we're in Bangor you know I think that might be good moving it somewhere where there's more foot traffic maybe less incidents of injury and all that but as far as placing this you know as a as a public art piece within a historic district I just don't think it's the best idea that's my two cents yeah I think Nathaniel's making a really [47:11] Edmund (Chair): Important point that this if you're standing on Exchange Street this sign is going to be in the direct view line of City Hall and is detracting from it. There's also no other marquee style signs. Well, no, they're not allowed. Exactly, so this is aberrant and does not is not suitable to any of the other existing structures or [47:35] Speaker F (unidentified): Art that's downtown. And that goes back to my original point which is that this sign would not be accepted for all the reasons that we review things in this door Commission in this area except that it's called art and again where's the criteria that says it has that exception and a privet has the privilege of that [47:59] Speaker G (unidentified): Exception out of curiosity not to be devil's advocate but if Dash wanted to put Bangor on top of one of his structures he owns is that different or [48:14] Ann Krieg: Maybe yeah I mean it would be treated as art I mean because it's not it's not advertising a business that's in the building or service that's being provided in the building directly in the products in the building [48:30] Speaker F (unidentified): It amazes me that it is just those few items, that if it isn't those things, it's art. Yeah. [48:43] Edmund (Chair): So playing the devil's advocate, what if I owned a building downtown and I wanted to paint something vulgar on the side of it, and I consider that art, is that allowable? That would transform downtown Bangor. [48:55] Speaker G (unidentified): And it's a structure you own. [48:56] Edmund (Chair): and structure i own exactly or if i have a vacant lot could i erect something vulgar it seems like we can if i call it art and that's a huge problem and i think that 's why i mean [49:10] Speaker I (unidentified): I'm glad it's coming up now. I don't disagree with you, but I just want to point out it would have to be approved by somebody, and I doubt something like that would be approved by council. [49:19] Speaker F (unidentified): Well, however, it could be if we have no criteria for calling something art, other than it's not a couple of things, then what leg would any of the regulatory bodies have to stand on if that's an acceptable definition of art, being art exempts it from everything. [49:43] Speaker L (unidentified): The [49:46] Speaker D (unidentified): other thing I heard was, I think it was at the last meeting, somebody asked why the Historic Preservation Commission wasn't going to be asked to decide on this, or to make a recommendation. And the answer that I heard was, well, we didn't have any right to make decisions about things that are going on the ground. The only things that are buildings that are, and that I utterly reject, because a historic preservation district is a historic district. It doesn't matter whether it's on the ground, in the grass, in the tree, it is an historic district. You cannot exclude the ground. [50:31] Speaker G (unidentified): I think the only way it got around it [50:33] Edmund (Chair): is because it's called public art. Correct. And I think that's an effort to disenfranchise the commission. [50:41] Ann Krieg: Yeah, I'm not sure when public art was either in or out of the, you know, the regulation that of what's in your purview, but I've always seen it as that public art wasn't in your [50:59] Speaker F (unidentified): Is there a statute that states that? [51:02] Speaker G (unidentified): I mean, I think that the biggest muddle, though, I think we see something that could potentially get really bad, right? Because that's fine that the committee wants to do public art, the cultural commission or whatever. If they want to do that, 's cool. However, if anyone can come and say, this is public art, all of a sudden all of our say, and I'm so glad that you guys came to us and asked us questions. Holy cow, because like otherwise we get completely alienated away from something that we should definitely be having a say in. [51:33] Edmund (Chair): And I think that the Cultural Commission should have a say for public art. But if it's in a historic district or on historic structure, we should be married together. We have to both vote on this. There's no question in my mind whatsoever. Have you in the process of determining this was public art? Did you seek an opinion from the city's legal department? Originally I'm not sure. Yeah, that's probably something we should do. [52:04] Speaker F (unidentified): We had heard testimony or comments from other people at our last meeting, and many of you, I think, are maybe here today. Thank you for coming. One of the things that was brought up was the concern of spending money of this sort when we have so many financially disadvantaged people and struggling in our community. This is a construction that has significant cost and there will be maintenance as well of some sort. I guess my question is, has there been a look to see what other things this money could be used for? It would be much more appropriate in helping to support our community and our folks in the community that are struggling financially. [52:53] Ann Krieg: Again, I'll relay that comment to, you know, this was a project that we started and we're just here to get comments. Our comments are personal, Ann. I've told them. Yeah, no, I know. I'm not taking it personal. [53:04] Edmund (Chair): You know, we have some very like large structural problems downtown we have, you know, potholes that make it difficult to drive. We have streets that don't have sidewalks with pedestrian problems. We have historic buildings that are falling to shambles that you know this money can be put into a fund to help those building owners who have buildings that are falling apart they can't take care of. I just think that the payback on those things will be a lot higher than some social media likes for a sign. I would hate for another pedestrian to get it just be horrible. Additional commentary from the commission. [53:53] Speaker H (unidentified): It's been very quiet. Yes, there are 2 designs in the proposal, and is there your is there? [54:04] Ann Krieg: No, we you know these were the 2 options that originally were looked at, and you know there's no staff recommendation on either one. We were going to be working with the city council on which one they had preferred if they wanted to pursue this or not. [54:22] Speaker H (unidentified): And is there a distinction between them in terms of the brightness? [54:28] Ann Krieg: The one that is not that's backlit is definitely less coming off of that than the one that's the marquee lighting. It yeah can [54:43] Edmund (Chair): I back up just a second and Peter brought up a point, and that's one that I've been meaning to make, is that this sign will have cost over time in terms of electricity to operate it and maintenance. Has a study been done on what the future cost of maintaining and electrifying the sign will be? Because that will be significant with its location. I imagine this will be vandalized, and then in the case it is vandalized and horribly damaged, will the commission need to vote to remove it, or is it historic? Then because it has been in the district, yeah, this could turn [55:23] Ann Krieg: into a real eyesore. Well again, public art wouldn't have to come back to you to be removed [55:29] Edmund (Chair): because it's a public art piece. Yeah, but I'm rejecting the idea that this is in fact public art. Right, unequivocally. Nathaniel, anything else from you? [55:49] Speaker J (unidentified): Yeah, I'm just wondering about this is the National Register District, and I'm just wondering about adding, you know, public art to a National Register District. While y'all have been talking, I've been trying to scroll through the CFR on National Register or, you know, title 36, just trying to figure out if there's anything in there about it. But, you know, I get the city's intent behind it, and I mean it's not the worst intent. I just, the location, I just think is a poor choice, you know, adding something like this to a historic district, you know, not giving any consideration to the, you know, indirect effects to the built environment. It just, it just seems like a, just a poor choice of location for me, that's all. Okay. [56:45] Speaker F (unidentified): Go ahead, Peter. I don't have further question, I guess, other than in terms of our process and protocol here. You've asked for comment, we've asked a lot of questions, maybe inferred a lot of comment by our questions certainly, but do we need to, or can we provide a specific statement of our opinion and input? If we are not going to be allowed to vote on this, what is the format for us to provide our comments directly now that we've had a lot of our questions answered? [57:23] Ann Krieg: We were gonna forward everything that we've heard today to City Council. So I mean, there's seems to be general agreement that you're not in favor of this. [57:32] Speaker F (unidentified): So I don't know if we want to, if we need to explicitly say that or vote as a group in terms of a positive response or a negative response. [57:44] Speaker G (unidentified): I think it's writing, I mean I've seen you writing, everything down, so she's definitely, and I mean my biggest thing is it's a slap in the face to businesses because we won't let them put neon signs up. [57:56] Edmund (Chair): So that's a big one for me. It's a slap in the face to the HPC as well. Yeah, absolutely. And I guess just so it's officially on the record, I wholly reject this sign being placed in a historic district. And I hope that you copy us on your notes to the city council, because I'd like to read them. [58:18] Speaker D (unidentified): Can we move without this being on the agenda? [58:22] Edmund (Chair): We're not specifically tasked with voting to approve or not. If you wish to have a statement from the commission as far as like unless it's an official body that wasn't something that was requested of us. If someone wishes to draft 1, I would be happy to, I guess, have that on a future project for the next meeting to approve. I will volunteer that or an assist ask for assistance from everyone else. [58:51] Speaker I (unidentified): One other comment. I mean, I don't know that it's necessary, but yeah, if you really want to go on something, we can draft a statement for you and you can go at the next meeting. [59:01] Speaker F (unidentified): Okay, I mean, your questions and comments are part of the record for this meeting part of it. I appreciate that. So, 1 comment, I just want to back up and Nate has been saying as well, taking away the discussion of the ability or authority of this commission. Nate has been speaking to the actual issues that we discuss when we look at something to be brought into or built or changed in the historic district and I would I wanted to highlight those because I really think those are extremely important the in terms of those specific things his comment about the indirects and understanding what he's saying is that there's a significant impact of the indirect effects of this being out of character with that location in historic district. And that's 1 of the underlying things that we look at, and we look at anything new structures otherwise as to how they are appropriate with and integrate with what is already there in historic structures that are there. And so these are the sorts of things that I appreciate Nate bringing up. We have process questions, but those are the actual content issues that we, as a commission, if we had the authority to vote on this, which I still think we should, because I that's my opinion. But if we had that's those are the things that we would be discussing, and those things that, if we had the authority, would be bringing us to a probable vote. [1:00:39] Edmund (Chair): Vote that may not be in the affirmative. Yes, it could be in the elements. It's very careful. Lolly phrase. [1:00:48] Speaker F (unidentified): I'm trying to be good moving forward. I would like to vote. I mean, how do we even change that? [1:00:54] Speaker G (unidentified): Like, I think that we should have to say anything that's in the historical district. I think we did a change made to your code. [1:01:00] Edmund (Chair): I would offer this just for the commission under our evaluation standards, the first section, a, is in general a building or structure classified as an historic landmark, or a building or structure located in historic district, or any part thereof, or any pertinence related to such structures, including but not limited to walls, fences, light fixtures, house steps, paving, and signs, shall not be altered, constructed, moved, or demolished, and no certificate of appropriation should be issued for such an action for such actions. Let's do a preserver enhance its historical and architectural character. Our role, and I believe our code is primarily focused on preservation, whereas, if I may, since Liam and I both previously came from the cultural commission, the culture commission's role is not so much focused on preservation. So art in that respect is not, we're not getting into the definition of art right now, Emory. But art falls under their purview because they're not about preserving it. We are charged with keeping stuff intact so that it is there for future generations. [1:02:10] Speaker F (unidentified): And keeping new things from detracting from then preserving that area. [1:02:15] Edmund (Chair): Not disagreeing with it, giving the verbiage that is in our code. [1:02:18] Speaker D (unidentified): Including the vacancy of a particular area. Yes, [1:02:25] Speaker F (unidentified): maybe we should there. We have plenty of people here that I think might want to speak. [1:02:30] Edmund (Chair): I think they might. So if you, if the commission has finished their commentary for public comments, I guess we will open the floor. Please don't stampede all at once. I will attempt to be fair by all means. Place your first podium, state your name, and the residence required on there. [1:02:53] Anna Maria Baeza: No. My name is Anna Maria Baeza. I'm a resident of Bangor, and I would like to speak in opposition to the proposed Bangor sign. Bangor is a gem of a small city. Moving from New York, I was instantly taken by the beauty of the buildings, paired with a walkability of the city filled with gorgeous historical homes right in the middle of a forested land. This sign, besides being uninspired and mundane, has nothing to do with the culture or the history of Bangor and would create a distraction for drivers in this very confusing and busy corner of downtown. I think the money could be better spent in maintaining our infrastructure and preserving our downtown into the future. If an art project is something the council would like to look at, why not partner with the Zillman Art Museum, which is basically across the street from where this proposal thing is proposed, and find a real artist to create an installation to add to the beauty of our city somewhere? Alternatively, that particular spot might be a wonderful place for a pollinator garden to create a living extension of the b mural on the wall that one sees behind it and preserve the little tree that's already there. [1:04:16] Edmund (Chair): Thank you. Thank you and again, first body position in my [1:04:27] Speaker A (unidentified): name is Frank Sellout. They're really planning on saying something similar to what she did, but you brought up a good point. Historical buildings are art. So I remember being younger, like the only art I was really interested in was architecture. So I think that in this case, art in the historical district, you guys are in charge of making sure the buildings still retain their artistic value, that you are the only commission that should be in charge of art in that district. So I mean, if you want to call art by committee art then you guys should be in charge of that 's just my thought it like that was a good point you brought up about the architects i lived in philadelphia for a while everyone knows the love sign that's they go out of their way to look at it but this i think is just going to it's it belongs either in front of the casino or the airport it's not really anything useful it's i think takes away from what downtown bangor actually is about [1:05:34] Edmund (Chair): Out. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone [1:05:42] Speaker F (unidentified): else? Mr. Speaker, I [1:05:50] Speaker O (unidentified): also are opposed against this song in the historic district. It's, it's exactly what it is. It's a historic district. Anytime you add a structure that's concreted in with electric, I mean, you got it, you got a structure. You can call it whatever you want, but it's all about wording. Okay, I definitely agree with what you said. This people, it's, it's going to be an eyesore. It's going to need electrical power and the cost of electricity is going to go up. I'm sure it'll be minimal. Anyway, you got a cost, people. could deface the thing to destroy it some of the letters could go out if they're lit so now you get different word spellings if you're coming down the street you're not gonna see Bangor you're gonna see the end of so it's just it's just going to be a nice one beautiful downtown historic district and I believe you guys should whatever you got to do make sure your vote is weighted against all the other things because of the historic district we have to preserve the historic district the other issue I have I talked about it before is traffic I mean downtown everybody's jockeying left and right and then when you make the turn i mean you're jockeying left or right you're going you know when you want to loop around so if something is there and you see it could just distract it and all it takes is a couple seconds all of a sudden the plow into something that's coming down the hill that wants to get in the left lane you want to get in the right lane so it 's a traffic nightmare down there it's an absolute traffic nightmare and I drive down here quite often, and you really have to go slow and be very careful. So it's just going to be 1 of those visual obstructions that could take your eyes off the road for 1 or 2 seconds. Now, you've got an accident and, like I said, the restaurant was killed. I mean, it could be more, I mean, I just think it's 1 of those things that if it's ever approved and installed that it's going to become such an issue. that is going to have to be removed through vandalism, cost, and what have you. But historic preservation is the way to go, and I hope people listen, and I know there's not too many people that are for it, so there's more against it, so that shouldn't weigh into it. Thank you very much. Thank you. [1:08:24] Speaker P (unidentified): I'm a resident of Bangor. I agree with all the other statements that were made that it's a dangerous intersection and 68% of the people in the Bangor Daily News survey didn't agree with the letters being placed there. One thing I have a concern about is I have watched a lot of the cultural commission meetings and I haven't watched like way back but it seems like they often approve pretty much every artwork as long as there's some kind of you know grant money for the artwork and I think it's starting to get a little bit out of control in the downtown area with the I know now they're going to put panels on the bathrooms wooden panels with artwork around the bathrooms and I just think that you all the Historical Preservation Commission should have more of a say when it comes to this artwork since it seems to be expanding. And I mean, I got most artistic in my high school class, nothing but, I know there's a lot of hidden meaning a lot of times in art, and I actually see some hidden means and some of the arts that's hanging up downtown that's kind of, you know, very negative. And so I think that the cultural commission needs to take that more into consideration, and maybe you all definitely should have more of a say in that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. My [1:09:56] Wayne Mallar: name is Wayne Mallar and I'm a resident of the City of Bangor and I want to be very emphatic that I am here representing myself and no one else. I may speak for my wife sometimes but she doesn't always allow me to. So I'm here to state that having sat on the board in the past, I find it difficult to understand why you're not allowed to make a decision on this sign. I'm very much opposed to it. I think it has nothing to do with the downtown. If you talk about advertising, basically that's what they're doing is advertising downtown. And, you know, I'm just confused as to why we spend so much time, not time that is spent by people outside the city, but so much staff time on something like this when we have so many more serious issues to take care of. So I'll be brief because there are plenty of other people that want to say, but I support the group or the Historic Preservation Commission and think you're doing a great job and hope they will listen to you and your recommendations. [1:11:08] Joe Pickering: Thank you. Thank you. I'm getting older. My name is Joe Pickering and 1st, I want to commend our staff for earning their pay today tonight. And secondly, I probably had more to say, which is to your benefit, but you've already said it. But I think that I'm totally opposed to the idea of a sign and a bright sign, etc. I think we know that Bangor is Bangor, and it really is unnecessary. It's also unnecessary historically, because if it's near the place where all of that terrible fire happened isn't that really disrespectful? I mean what you know it's really disrespectful you know what you ought to have what we ought to consider having is some sort of a marker or something you know that it commemorates that whether it's throughout or whatever but something like that and you know, this is kind of funny, but I'll just take a minute. Pickering Square. No, I didn't build it. It's actually, the man was a George Washington Pickering, and he was a mayor, a very prominent mayor of Bangor, a very prominent citizen, and they named Pickering Square after him. Oh, guess what? Who would know that? You know, couldn't you have a marker or something? Now, the other thing is this. I was honestly saddened. I was sad, not saddened, but I was sad to watch you folks struggle about six months ago on the Broadway property. And in terms of you had to follow the strict rules and regulations, etc. And I understand that except could you please start questioning? Can't you? Could you please start questioning and asking the city to could you just give us a little more breathing space? You know, you know the term vitality revitalization. That's an interesting word. Does that mean that anything could be put into more dense areas of Bangor, including the historic districts? Well, it says in the planning committee, in the 24-25 planning goals, there's the word of well-being. Well, we also should consider well-being, because from my perspective, what I've seen in Bangor is we've got 35 square miles, But there's such a concentration of building in more dense areas, including the historic district. But anyway, I don't like this idea. I think that this staff put a lot of time into it. They ought to be commended, and I and I hope I and I hope it doesn't go anywhere. I hope it is killed the other thing is in terms of spending money where it should be I totally agree with you with that and the other thing is I just want to leave with this I want to commend the city of Bangor for being the only city in the entire state to write a letter in support of a waiver to bring a waiver, what's called a waiver for mental illness. And what that does is, if it had passed, and last session it was defeated, quite frankly, in my opinion, by Governor Mills at the last moment, And what happened, what it does is it would bring federal dollars into places like the state hospitals. Right now, since 1965, the state only pays funding for psychiatric services through state dollars. Absolutely idiotic, so I want to leave that. And also, for example, Acadia doesn't get any federal dollars through the IMD exclusion law, and it's really a disgrace. And there's other and even more important, like community services through progressive treatment teams could also be realized. But I'd like to just say thank you, Bangor, for doing that, and I hope they're going to do it this session, too, because Senator Baldacci and Richard Bennett has done it. But anyway, thank you. God bless you all. And start thinking about loosening up. And I think you're being tightened up. That's not good. That's not healthy. For Bangor, you guys, as are any of us, you know, [1:17:43] Sonya Maller: My name is Sonya Maller and I'm a resident of this city of Angola. Having sat on this commission before, I know you're in a quandary. I am totally against the sign downtown. I've gone through the rules that you people have to abide by. I've thought and sat about these rules and I can see I wouldn't want to be in your position because this is totally an improper place to put this sign in the historic district. The sign is expensive. Everyone would want to put neon signs as you've stated on the tops of their buildings, which is not allowed in the historic district. Couldn't they pick another location in the city of Angkor other than the historic district? I think the staff could use their time more productively and getting new businesses into the downtown. There are a lot of empty buildings at this point in time. We need new businesses downtown as we need businesses in every part of the city in order to bring income into the city. I commend you and I thank you for all you the work you are doing, and I don't think the vote should be taken away from you. [1:19:32] Edmund (Chair): Thank you thank you okay [1:19:40] Speaker H (unidentified): My [1:19:49] Burke Masters: name is Burke Masters I live in Bangor owner of the building downtown and just want to thank Mr Pickering for his comments tonight. I think the board tonight has demonstrated its interest in its ability to ask questions, to deal with the questions of jurisdiction and definition, which are so important to this sort of decision making. Thank you. Comments about damage and vandalizing is something that's very close to my heart. If any of you have been down in the back of Penobscot Plaza, under the Penobscot Bridge, you can see the vandalism that's been both to the building and to the structures around. We recently have installed new siding around the whole building. Everybody wanted that for the purpose of making it more fuel efficient. And the one comment that led off our board of directors meeting was, is this going to be a new canvas for those wanting to do what they probably would call public art? I don't know if the bank or downtown development group has had an opportunity to review this proposal, but I would recommend that it be done. It is that board that most of us pay property taxes in lieu of the downtown development. And we would like to see them involved and maybe help with some of the definitions and discussions that need to be done. I have questions about the location. I have questions about the budget and whether the money for this is in the budget now and where in the budget. It. And also, the question of what is the rationale for allowing this sort of, I will call it a sign, or this sort of public art when it's not allowed by businesses. And I assume that was for appropriateness of some sort so thank you for your discussion tonight I appreciated all of what you were doing and hope that you will have an opportunity to make a comment and pass that along to particularly the city council thank you thank you thank you hi [1:23:35] Edmund (Chair): There I'm Karen Marshes I live in Bangor I just want to say thank you for being here you've given me hope that Bangor can survive on the right footing thank you for each one of you especially anyway I just want to say that there are a lot of young people here that would like to talk but can't because they're home with young families we see you see we're all preserving ourselves very nicely so we can come but there are lots of others I'm sure you'll get some more comments and feedback thank you Thank you Hillary [1:24:26] Speaker U (unidentified): Simmons resident of Bangor I have a couple things I was at the last meeting also when people talked about it being art in an art mural I don't really believe that this is an art mural so I appreciate all of your questions and comments I feel that this is why something like this should have come to you to begin with, and it shouldn't have been done the way it was done by the city. I will say from a previous conversation I think in Craig said that this started in 2,018 2,019 an idea. We are now in 2,025 at that point if it didn't move forward at that point. Why didn't we put it to bed there instead of wasting the city's time, money going over something as far as this? And again, we could be spending the time of the staff and the economic development group to bring in businesses to downtown Bangor. That is probably one of the biggest focuses should be is bringing economic development to the city of Bangor. And we seem to be lacking that, not just the ability to pull them in, but the ability to have staff go and get them. We're more focused on other things like a Bangor sign or walkable communities or things along those natures. And I'm not opposed to walkable communities and that, but I feel like we need to start focusing on economic development. But I do appreciate the historical preservation for all that you do, and I appreciate all of your questions that you asked, and I think it put a better light to some of the citizens of Bangor that maybe had questions and maybe were on the fence, and now I would hope that they would be with you in line and oppose this project. Thank you. [1:26:31] Edmund (Chair): By my count, I have two people in the room who have not spoken. [1:26:35] Speaker I (unidentified): We also have a few people on Zoom. [1:26:37] Edmund (Chair): A few people on Zoom. Well, would either of you like to speak? We'll go to Zoom. Is there anyone present on Zoom who would like to offer public comment for the record? You [1:26:55] Speaker F (unidentified): can raise your hand. Thank you, Roxanne. [1:26:59] Edmund (Chair): We [1:27:06] Speaker L (unidentified): can hear you now. You can hear me now? Yes. Okay, great. I don't know how to put the video on or whatever, but you can hear me okay, right? Yes. All right. Okay, so anyway, I wrote a letter previously, so I think you know what my concerns are. We own a home from 1892 down on Court Street. We've been downtown since 1987, and we love downtown. We were pioneers here from Boston, and we made a good life for our three children, just what we came here for. I'm an artist. I had Maine Jewelry and Art for 12 years, the beautiful store with Maine artisans, the first one in the state to just have main artists and I love art but this sign I don't know and I think honestly I have to I want to thank you for your time and effort but this is just a waste a waste of time to even have all these meetings and everything for a neon sign which just does not fit in the city at all or maybe up by the casino or the hotels somewhere. But what I would like to see, and I'm going to throw out, is that I've traveled quite a bit and I've gone to places and they have the museum in the streets and they have these placards. And I go around reading them. It's so interesting. We have the Bon Ton, what that took on. We have the Pickering Square. Where we have, you know, all these different historic places. And I'm going to offer my services to volunteer again. I was kind of knocked down by somebody a few years ago because they said it cost a lot of money. Well, I'm willing to help out with whatever fundraising, or if somebody knows how we can get something like that down the line, like that square, maybe even like that power box where you want to put that neon sign. Would that, could be covered with something about history, or maybe there could be something to make it look a little nicer, but and something about the fire really fits in that spot. I would like to keep the beautiful buildings and art. I also was very attracted to the architecture when we came to Bangor, and we really loved that fountain in the center of the city there in the square. We used to sit there with our children, and I don't know why they ever moved that. I know it was to make bigger space in the center there or something, but I just think making the city look nice is needs to be an effort, and I don't think a neon sign will make it look nice at all. And I do believe, I was talking with one of the selectmen from Lincoln, because they had that loon, if you remember that big loon they put up, and there was a lot of opposition and so forth, but they put the loon up, and they've had, according to them, they've had all kinds of problems of people climbing up and jumping off and damage and so forth. And I just see the this light as just being a mess, quite honestly. And remember, I was just down the street on Harlow Street, 100 Harlow. So I'm very familiar with what goes on in that neighborhood. And that's all. I'll get off for now. So I'll allow if there's anybody else to speak or whatever. But I am definitely against this sign. And if you need any volunteer help on making some kind of historical thing, and I am an artist, you know. I work for free pretty much, especially when it comes to Bangor. So thank you for allowing me to speak tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Would any of the other two [1:31:24] Edmund (Chair): people on Zoom like to speak, any of the remaining unspoken people in the room [1:31:47] Kay Surplus: My name is Kay Surplus and I live on [street]. I'm a neighbor and I echo her thoughts on against the sign and for many of the reasons stated here. A lot of people put in some wonderful questions and some arguments and I think there's a lot to think about. And I like the idea that we're taking the time to really think the issue through and what the long-range implications could be for Bangor because I also when we moved to Bangor one of the things we liked it was a very livable city and had lots of beautiful spots and lots of beautiful parks and so I really think this sign unless I'm missing something and there's some beautiful writing or script or whatever how they're going to make it I just opposed to it and I also have concerns. I think Anna Maria mentioned the traffic concerns and some other people as well. And if part of the. Thinking is to make people come downtown and make the city more dense downtown. I have some real concerns about that policy position because as the city gets more congested. There's more safety concerns and also dear I say that once it gets congested there might then become a policy proposal to raise the congestion tax as I think they did in New York City so once you get everybody down there and it gets very busy then all of a sudden oh let's tax people who are going downtown anyway that's just thought that crossed my mind so again thank you for listening and thank you for all the time you're taking to examine this issue because I think it's very important for Vanguard thank you thank you last [1:33:50] Edmund (Chair): Call for comments from Zoom or from the room okay and okay [1:34:06] Ann Krieg: So recently I testified on two just for the purposes of pieces [1:34:17] Edmund (Chair): The next item on our agenda is staff testimony on LD 146 and LD 435, which is historic tax credit. Is this what you're speaking to? Yeah, confirm. We knew that, but they don't necessarily have the agenda. [1:34:29] Ann Krieg: Yeah, I was gonna go over. Yeah, what they are. So the first was LD 146 and I'll just read the summary. So people know what it was about this bill changes the maximum tax credit allowed for certified historic structure rehabilitation projects. For the first two years in which a credit may be claimed it changes the maximum from five million in each of the first two years to ten million total across the first two years combined. Makes no changes to the five million maximum tax credit allowed in subsequent years. This change applies to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2025. So I had testified, I'd gone to the hearing schedule that the state puts out is really tight. You know, you learn about it like a few days in advance of the hearing in many cases. So we had to act quickly. We went to the business and economic development committee because they met like literally the day before the hearing. On these and to ask their permission if we could present on behalf of the city that the city is in favor of this so we did we did do that and so we were able to give a positive testimony on that so I just wanted to make the commission aware on that one and then there's another one and it basically allows more flexibility. Yeah, in terms of being able to front load some. Yeah, I mean some of these projects, I mean, you know, definitely go over $5 million. And we all have seen construction costs go up. Just in this area alone and as well as in other cities in Maine that have that have these historic building so it's very easy to get over $5 million in a year. So, yeah, so this gives them that flexibility. [1:36:39] Edmund (Chair): I think that's a really important thing to help the owners of these buildings in any way we can, because there is a burden. Yeah,, I definitely appreciate you and the staff taking the time to go down and testify in favor of this it's a zoomed in. [1:36:56] Ann Krieg: No, it's great. You don't have to go to Augusta anymore. You can zoom in your testimony. But Augusta's great. [1:37:02] Speaker F (unidentified): Anne, I have a question. One of the things that we struggle with every applicant that comes in here is the issue of trying to integrate the needs for historic preservation and our rules and regulations regarding that for the homeowners that are needing to do either some sort of you know fixing of you know something that somebody backed their car into or any other issues is the cost issue of trying to do that and you know I can say that we struggle with you know well geez we really think that this may not quite meet you know the letter of our intent for historic preservation but there's no way that this person can afford the $6 million it's going to take to replace the slate on their roof, or whatever that issue is now. I highly applaud this effort and really glad that we were you were there to weigh in on this. What strikes me in this, however, is that this legislation really doesn't affect the majority of the people that come before us in this commission. Well, go to the next one because it says this is a program in support of state rehabilitation tax credits for income producing historic structures. That's correct, meaning that commercial, it's commercial only, correct? And I would say that we probably have as many or more privately owned residences. To get to the next one, okay, so that this doesn't, they aren't the same, okay, yeah, then please. [1:38:43] Ann Krieg: Please, let go ahead. Yeah, no, that's okay. This next one is what I'm really excited about, that we have been, we have been pushing. I've been on a couple of statewide committees working on this 1, and that is L. D., you think I have it memorized by now? LD 435. So part A of the bill makes changes to modernize the existing small project provisions of the historic property rehabilitation tax credit, including increasing the eligible percentage of the project from 25 to 30 and increasing the expenditure cap from $250,000 to $1 million. This part also increases the percentage of credit available for affordable housing creation to 35% for significant projects and 45% for small projects. And then what's, what's most notable about this is a lot of changes in this, but really what's notable about this is that it can be also used for private homes that are in historic district. So, and again, it allows, you know, that, you know, 25% of the qualified exterior rehabilitation expenditures for qualifying taxpayer, and that percentage of credit may be claimed that can be increased to 30% if housing is created as part of weatherization and rehabilitation efforts. So it does give a little bit more relief to homeowners that right now they don't have any tax credit for. We were hoping to push for a little bit more on the percentages on this. So hopefully in subsequent years we'll be able to increase that percentage. Because again, you know, I've seen it for the years that I've worked with different cert commissions. I mean, it's a, it's a huge burden. And, you know, we want to be able to give some kind of incentive that commercial projects, you know, receive so. So, again, this was done. [1:41:05] Speaker F (unidentified): The testimony was in support of it. So, I'm sorry the one you're speaking about now is 146 or 435. 435. Maybe this has the wrong one. I don't know. I may have the wrong face sheet on this, but the one I have is 435 is the one that talks about income-producing structures. Under Part A. Maybe I have this on the wrong spot. I guess the issue is the, is the actual verbiage here. This is a program, is a section a 127 MRSA. What was that paragraph 511 subparagraph 1? I don't know if that's 145 46 or 435, but anyway, the assurance is that what you're just discussing is actually for private homeowners as well, not commercial properties. Yeah, has this passed? And also for [1:42:17] Ann Krieg: the creation new housing, because right, like if somebody is re, you know, doing a preservation project on a building that has multi-family in it, also applies to them, right, which is big [1:42:31] Speaker F (unidentified): And gives a little extra for those that have the, what is the designation? Affordable dwelling units. Correct. That's the comment. Okay. Well, that's wonderful. Thank you. And this was passed? [1:42:50] Ann Krieg: Well, it's gone into work session. They were supposed to have a work session the other day, and they needed to table it because their other work sessions were taking too long. So hopefully it'll get, keep us updated on progress. [1:43:07] Edmund (Chair): Yeah, I will. Yeah, I think it's just really important for the whole university town. [1:43:13] Ann Krieg: Yeah, all right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you for your time. [1:43:20] Edmund (Chair): We are now up to the meeting minutes portion of the agenda. Someone [1:43:28] Speaker F (unidentified): who was present a motion to accept the minutes from our past meeting as they're written. I have no adjustments myself. Are there any? I second it. Okay, thank [1:43:44] Speaker O (unidentified): you school. I have one more [1:43:46] Speaker I (unidentified): thing, of course. I just want to talk about the findings a little, because I know Liam, you're kind of new to the process, so the reason that we structured it this way primarily came out of what we do with the planning board, which kind of morphed after we did have an appeal of a decision. And so in order to make sure that, you know, the planning board is very clear that they're, that they're following all the standards and that they have evidence when they make their findings. We started drafting these findings and decisions. And so, because you all are also a regulatory board, you make decisions. We thought it would be best for you to also go through the same process. So we are very specific about the language that we do put in the findings. And we go through, and we put in, you know, the exhibits that we feel show that it meets those standards. Of course, if you disagree and you want to change a finding, that's completely your purview. This is just a draft for you to go through and approve. But I just want to say that the language is important when you are going through those findings. So it's important a that you list the exhibits and I would want legal's opinion on whether you can just list the statute number rather than reading the wording. Because the planning board, when they go through, they do read all of it and they, you know, their motion is very specific. It says we move that the board finds that based on these exhibits, blah,, blah. The project meets these standards. So I just want to reiterate that. And then also, when you are going through the procedural background, if you can just say, you know, it seemed complete on this date, they paid all the fees and it is certificate of appropriateness or design review. Just to be very clear what you're making your motion on that would be great. [1:45:45] Speaker F (unidentified): So are there any questions about that? No questions, but a comment just to sort of build on what Mr. Pickering had to say, which is that I think it's important for us as a group to not have more and more strict protocols for how what we do restrict our discussion and the breadth of our discussion. You know, that might go beyond just the specifics that are that are written down. [1:46:16] Speaker I (unidentified): Well, a yes, you should definitely have discussion, and you should discuss whether it meets those standards. Certainly. and what you did tonight is exactly what the process is. You have that discussion up front and if a board if a commission member disagrees, you know that project meets these standards. You know, you should have that discussion up front, and that's why you vote on those standards, in case somebody feels it doesn't meet that. But you are limited to these standards. You can't make a decision because you feel it doesn't meet something that's outside of these standards. [1:46:51] Speaker F (unidentified): I wasn't suggesting that. All I was suggesting, and I'm not at all objecting to the structure you're providing. I think it's excellent. But just in the sense of the tendency, when you get more regimented for things, is to close your mind process a little bit more. and i want to make sure that we don't do that in our discussions sometimes those discussions may come up with ideas for doing something new that is the an initiative or something that we might want to back or try to do our in terms of going to city council and saying hey we don't like the way this is written yeah we should rewrite this apropos what we've been discussing [1:47:28] Speaker I (unidentified): Tonight, right, so yeah, the findings are just the formal part of it, but that discussion that you have at the beginning is the most important part where you determine all that. So, and thank you for [1:47:40] Speaker G (unidentified): doing this, a lot of effort, I appreciate it. This came because of an appeal, is that correct? [1:47:43] Edmund (Chair): Okay, yeah, I appreciate anya you're giving us feedback on our process, because this is only the second meeting really that we've had to do this, so we're still, we're still trying to figure it out properly, so that's really helpful. Yeah, it is in quest for clarity, yes, so that our decisions are upfront, clearly understood, and able to be shared by based on that process. Yeah, so that it doesn't seem arbitrary. Right? [1:48:06] Speaker D (unidentified): So, back to the minutes, I just wanted to ask if we could please have a report on. Things that we brought up, for example, properties that we have cited as being problematic. Then we sometimes we don't hear back, and could we please request that, do you mean properties that are reported to go to enforcement, properties that are for example like the church where this people is falling off the church and there are actual pieces coming down, it's just lucky that there's been nobody under those pieces at the moment, but it could be really very dangerous [1:48:50] Speaker I (unidentified): If you have specific properties, I'm happy to write those down. Come back to you later. I can say on the church, we did talk to code enforcement about, you know, unfortunately, they are limited and that is somebody can't afford to make the change. That's, that's all they can do. But we did actually reach out to the church with some grant opportunities that they might be eligible for. There are some church specific grants, so hopefully that will help them make those changes. I think they are interested in making the changes, but they just have financial. [1:49:22] Edmund (Chair): Was the steeple grant under main preservation one of them? I think so. Yeah, unfortunately the other needs matching funds, so I hope they can come up with it. But I think that'd be a huge help to them back to the minutes. I have a re-motion, I guess. [1:49:46] Speaker F (unidentified): Motion that we accept the minutes from our last meeting. [1:49:50] Edmund (Chair): I second it. Nathaniel? Yes. [1:49:57] Speaker H (unidentified): Yes. Yes. I think I abstain. So one of you. [1:50:02] Edmund (Chair): Yes. And I will also vote yes. The meetings are approved. before I use my 1, and only special power as the chair of this commission, I do want to thank everyone physically present and on zoom for your respectful conversation, even where there were definitely some very strong opinions and some passions involved. [1:50:23] Speaker I (unidentified): And with that note, meeting adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. You all to vote on this findings. We just need you to sign. Oh, you need to sign them. Yeah. Oh. Oh, do we, do we sign if we were the ones voting last meeting or? Yeah, if you voted on it.