Bangor HPC approves window, gutter, and ramp projects; reviews code changes

[1:55] Nathaniel King: Good evening, welcome to the April 16th special meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. My name is Nathaniel King, I'm the chair of the commission. Members will now introduce themselves starting with Peter Sachs. Reminder Mike's on. Peter Keibler, Katie Ko, and to my right, your left, we have our esteemed consultant Mike Pullen. Thank you, and Anya from the city's office. Also with us we have Matthew Otero, planning analyst, and Grace from the legal. [2:34] Peter Keebler: I think I'll call something different up here. What, my name's not up here? Yeah, me, it's not. [2:41] Speaker C (unidentified): It's just some of yours. The flag is shifted around the place. [2:48] Nathaniel King: So the next, so the Historic Preservation Commission has two roles. First, we serve as the Bangor Center Revitalization Area Design Review Committee, designated under section 71 of the city ordinances, which covers review issues in the downtown and waterfront areas of Bangor. Second, the commission has several responsibilities under historic, under the Historic Preservation section of the city ordinances, section 148, including issuing certificates of appropriateness for construction of or changes to. Buildings within the city's designated historic districts. Depending on location, we may need to review a proposal under both design review and historic preservation criteria. If all regular members are in attendance, our associate members participate in the meeting but do not vote on motions. In the event that any regular members are absent, associate members will vote such as such that there are a total of five votes for any motion. Historic preservation application must receive four affirmative. Votes for a certificate of appropriateness to be issued. A design review application must receive three affirmative votes for approval. So order of the meeting, I will call the 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. Please ensure that your microphone is on. There will be a little green light let you know it's on, and once you've made your presentation, I will first ask for the consultants report, Second for questions from Commission members, and third for any questions or comments from the audience or anyone that is online. When questions are completed, the Commission will have a discussion of the proposal and standards of review under which the proposal is being considered. When discussion is complete, the Commission will take action on the proposal to approve, deny, or otherwise handle it. When a proposal is being evaluated under both design review and historic preservation criteria, the commission will make separate motions related to each type of review. Each motion must pass for a certificate of appropriateness or approval of a design review. I will then ask for commission member votes and some final points for applicants before the HPC. If it looks like, if it looks as if your project will not be approved, you may choose to withdraw your application amend your application and then resubmit your application for a future meeting saving the application fee if you disagree with the decision of the commission regarding your project you have the right to appeal the decision to the board of appeals all projects need to be started within six 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 before we begin are there any additions to the agenda for consideration hearing that there are none okay so new business first thing i have is a certificate of appropriateness 198 broadway map lot 047-012 broadway historic district applicant owner mr stephen mr okay mr stephen Okay. An approval is requested for a certificate of appropriateness at property located at 198 Broadway for the replacement of existing single-pane windows with high-efficiency windows containing period-correct features. The property is located at MAPLOT 047-012, the Broadway Historic District. [6:23] Peter Keebler: Okay. Chair, I need to ask a question. with communication from staff regarding this application it was brought up there was a potential concern on Mr. Farron's part about myself having prejudicial bias regarding this application I don't know what the basis of that was but or is but I want to bring it up because if there is such a concern I need to discuss it I was planning on asking Mr. Farron [6:52] Nathaniel King: if he was going to discuss that when he came up to the podium but thank you for bringing it up sure please approach the podium make sure the mic is on let's get it on [7:02] Speaker E (unidentified): So our concern was based on a previous application where Mr. Keibler had to recuse himself for a conflict of interest, and that is all that it's, we weren't sure, we asked Anya, are we going to be able to have a full panel of people sure to conduct this? Okay. Thank you. So is Blackstone Restoration doing the windows or anything? No. Okay. Restoration has nothing to do with this, nor did they have really anything to do with our last project. Okay. That we all. Sure. [7:43] Nathaniel King: Well, we have two new members that we're not, that we're not in that. Right. [7:48] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah. Can we just give us some quick context on the thing? Were you, were you, did you have like a financial interest in a previous project? [7:55] Nathaniel King: I can fill you in, I can fill, I can fill us in on this. So we had the applicant come before us with wanting to replace a slate roof, and after some back and forth there was concerns about one, that there was some impropriety because on the day that they presented, a we also had a presentation from a company that was owned by one of the associate members, and then we learned that another associate member provides or rent some space, rents some space, yeah, some shop space, so and then following that there Was some other, we'll call them issues, that were perceived, some perceived bias related to how things sort of went down. I don't know how much I can really get in the detail of it being a past meeting, and I don't want to violate any rules, but if we want to consider that, if they believe that we have a member with a bias, we want to consider that. I believe we follow the same way that we would do for recusal if somebody may have [9:07] David Szewczyk: A conflict of interest. If I may, are you making an allegation of a financial conflict of interest, just to be clear, or potential financial or special conflict of interest, or a allegation of prejudicial bias? I just want to be — [9:25] Speaker E (unidentified): It was basically based on the fact that from our previous one that he was recused for, just because of his relationship to Blackstone Restoration. That was the basis for the recusal. [9:43] David Szewczyk: Right. Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to be clear before I started advising the board and be thought to be clear. [9:51] Speaker H (unidentified): We're not requesting that tonight. The reason was because Mr. White Camp had made a presentation following his application, and then Mr. Keebler's association with Mr. White Camp, we just thought that muddied the waters significantly. Understood, but we have no reason to believe tonight that has anything to do with this, so then if there were not to be a motion regarding [10:18] Nathaniel King: Any sort of conflict of interest, we're not making any requests, okay, so the board can still [10:25] David Szewczyk: vote on whether or not there's a conflict of interest given the facts. I think it would probably be prudent to do so just because of the previous allegations, I guess, of a financial conflict of interest. I can kind of quickly go into the definitions of financial and special [10:46] Nathaniel King: interests and what you should consider before you vote. I mean, given that the company that he leases space to is not involved in this project in any shape, fashion, or form, does that still require us to consider that? If the company doesn't have any involvement [11:07] David Szewczyk: If there's no involvement whatsoever and Member Keebler affirms that, then I think that we don't need to vote on it. But given the prior concerns, I just wanted to kind of make sure that everybody was on the same page. [11:25] Peter Keebler: If I may, yeah, just for clarification, the previous issue I brought up as a potential conflict of interest because of my, the general fact that I rent workshop space to a company that does restoration work here in Bangor. I did not feel myself that there was a conflict of interest, but there was decided by the commission that I did, and so I stepped away for that particular reason. From my perspective, I can make a comment right now as regards to this situation is that I will have the same issue with almost anything brought forward to this commission if my relationship in renting workshop space to Blackstone Restoration as a potential competitor to any of the contractors doing work for things that are brought to this commission to be approved, that would be the only issue that might be here. I would argue, however, that relationship that I have with Blackstone Restoration does not meet the level of conflict of interest as it's been described to us by legal counsel. From the perspective that from a standpoint of financial gain, I receive no special financial gain by renting this property to Blackstone Restoration versus anyone else I would rent it to. In that sense, if I did not rent it to Blackstone Restoration and rented it to someone else, that would be no loss to me in terms of any financial issue. And so in the sense of yes, I have a rental property. It happens to be rented by Blackstone Restoration. I have no financial interest in their company. I have nothing that I do that in any way enters into any decisions on the part of that company as to what they do. They're simply a tenant of mine, okay. And for that reason, given that I don't get any special financial dispensation or renting to them versus anyone else, I don't concede, I don't see this how this would be a conflict of interest for the general issue that I rent to a company that will be competing with other companies for the work that is being done on applications here, okay. Thank you Mr. Kilo. Okay and you confirm excuse me chair [13:58] David Szewczyk: I just think that since it's come up, you should vote on whether or not there's a conflict. You don't have to vote that there is or there's not. It should be phrased in a yes there is a conflict fashion. So the motion should be that we think that member Kiebler has a conflict of interest and then you should go from there, just for clarity's sake for the record. Okay thank you [14:23] Nathaniel King: So I will entertain a motion to the effect of what legal said. I cannot introduce a motion, but Mr. Keebler cannot do it. Mr. Keebler cannot vote on it, correct? That's correct. Okay. [14:39] Speaker I (unidentified): I would like to introduce a motion that Commissioner Keebler has a conflict of interest in this case. [14:47] Nathaniel King: Seconded. So, in this vote, if you vote yes, you are confirming that there is, in fact, a conflict of interest. If you vote no, you are saying there is not a conflict of interest. Are you tracking? Okay. We'll start with Katie. Put you on the spot. No. No. And I will also vote no. I do not find that Commissioner Keebler has a vested financial interest or conflict of interest in this application. notification. Would you like to proceed or is there anything else Mr. Farron? Yes yeah. Okay also I will note real quickly that you'll see that there are some, there's a photo here that Mr. Farron brought, those by for us, they were not included in the original packet [15:29] Speaker E (unidentified): so I will let him explain what those are. Yeah, what that photo shows is, I assume you guys have gotten the photos of property in 1969 along with the present photo of the property. So the left side from the front was originally was a sunroom that has been modified, not by myself, but by the previous owner. And that the windows there are in fact vinyl replacement windows that were installed by the previous owner, just to show that what we're we're doing like for like for what was approved previously for the property throughout other areas. So I have so a lot of mine is my presentation is to answer Mr. Poolen's questions. So number one, he had a total of 21 windows are proposed for replacement. The windows are number one through six and eight through twelve. The schedule notes two number three and two number five windows. The house photos show only one number three and one number five. So there will be, so to answer that, there will be a total of 19 windows replaced. The original spec sheets added two windows in error in quoting for number two the proposed replacement windows four five six and eight are shown with a six over six grill pattern and number 12 with a four over zero grill pattern. These particular existing windows have no grills and I seem to have lost. So, Windows 4, 5, 6, and 8 will have the 6 over 6 grill pattern to match current windows throughout the rest of the property, which were replaced previously before I owned it. The number 12 is to propose to have a single one-by-one grid to match the existing located on the first floor left. This decision will be left solely to HPC if they have preference to either. Safety is my primary concern. Either option is amicable to me. Based on that, what I'm looking at is the sunroom again, and the windows that we're then talking about are the front windows that were added sometime around 1900. I had thought that perhaps putting a single bar through the middle to match those would make it flow, knowing that none of this, as you can see, the front windows from the older picture had stained glass until 1969. That was removed at some point after that in the last 57 years, and just single pane plain glass was installed. I'm open to either option. That is really of no concern to me. My thought, I would prefer the single bar. I think in my preference it kind of gives it a little more flow and goes With the sides of the house, but I'm, I'm open to either. The, quote can be adjusted as needed to deal with that, however the committee sees fit. Number three, will the vinyl replacement windows frames and sash be wider than the existing conditions? If so, how much are the glass dimensions reduced? So as per Mike Pullen's request at our meeting, I have measured existing window glass exposure. His request was for window number five to be used as an example, and dimensions are as followed based on number of photo on window number photo. I can read through all of them if you like, but I think you guys have that. Basically throughout we lose a half an inch, so we lose a quarter inch on each side for these replacement windows. Number four, windows number two and three feature crafted geometric colored glass borders in the top sash. The replacement windows, will the replacement windows lack these details? So for windows two and three, my preference is to replace with a six over six grill pattern. If retaining glass is a requirement, it will be done in phases by numerous trades. Bix paint stripping out of Auburn will remove all the hazardous lead at a rough verbal estimate of $400 per unit, at which time it will be brought to Sunrise Glass to remove the glass from its frame and reassemble as an insert to replace to the replacement window glass sizing. Once completed a prairie style sash will be ordered with exact grid, to match the glass layout. The estimated cost is 2500 to 4 000 per unit. This work will be done on a time and material basis. A number of, as you can see from the pictures, a number of the, those panes of glass are not necessarily severely damaged, but they have spider cracks in them, which could, during removal and trying to rebuild, could destroy them. But I'm open to either. This is, you know, at this point, we're looking for functioning windows and whatever has to be done. Number five, are these custom-made windows to fit the existing openings? Openings or will fillers be needed to infill the openings? All windows are custom fit and will require no fillers. Are the grill mutton, grills mutton, simulated divided light, SDL, 5 8 inch wide with a putty glaze profile? The grill muttons are simulated debated divided light, 5 8 inch wide with a putty glaze profile, and I did provide an additional document from Harvey Windows to you guys that shows the simulated divided light and all that and how each will look. The existing windows appear to be painted in an almond color on the main house and a dark green on the barn. White windows will be very conspicuous. Almond color vinyl is a no-cost option. The existing exterior storm windows are painted a yellowish color. Windows are of a variety of yellow to white shades. Upon completion of the windows, the home's exterior will be receiving a complete paint job. All trim will be painted white at that time to seamlessly flow with the windows. [21:41] Nathaniel King: Did you talk about question number seven, the exterior profile of wood trim? [21:46] Speaker E (unidentified): I probably skipped it. Yes, all the- Just wanted to make sure. Yeah, all the exterior profile of wood trim will be retained. It doesn't have to be touched at all with replacement windows. So yes, I did skip that one. [21:57] Nathaniel King: No worries. Thank you very much, Mike. [22:00] Speaker E (unidentified): I have still more. [22:02] Nathaniel King: Oh, I'm sorry, by all means. [22:03] Speaker E (unidentified): So I've gone through all of the criteria that they asked that the that they highlighted for us to go through. So part one the project meets the evaluation standards of 148-9a regarding general standards. So the commission finds that based on exhibits 2 through 13 the application satisfied historic preservation code 148-9a requiring that any alteration of the historic structure will preserve or enhance its historic and architectural character. The answer all existing wood casing will be preserved and left intact architectural character will be enhanced by removing non-period correct aluminum storm windows throughout therefore allowing a clear unobstructed view of windows along with the entirety of the existing window casing which is currently covered up diminishing the view of the casing along with the clear glass opening part two the project meets the evaluation standards of 148 9b regarding renovations alterations and repair the answer to that the work proposed does not destroy the distinguishing qualities nor character of the structure or its environment but in fact enhances the distinguishing qualities and character by removing non-period correct additions such as aluminum storm windows and wood storm windows in addition to allowing for property aligned windows with no gaps warps or separations between the glass and frame as is currently the case throughout number three 148 9b 2-c the report submitted by sunrise Glass along with photos shows that repair is not possible and will not change the fact that windows are single pane with not code compliant windows. The new material will match previously approved windows throughout the property installed by the previous owner in composition, design, texture, and finish, providing a more uniform look throughout, enhancing the original detail of the window casings which has since been covered up by previous owners with the addition of the aluminum storm windows. Throughout which are currently inoperable and diminish the home's original architectural features. Preservation code 1489B2D. The distinctive stylish features and examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize historic structures will not be destroyed. All existing trim will remain intact and will be further enhanced to showcase the craftsmanship which has been covered up by the existing aluminum storm windows and improperly fitted and installed wooden storm windows number nine which is 148 9b 2i. Wherever possible all alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if they would be removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. The essential form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. The installation of the new windows requires no alteration of the existing trim and window casing. The new windows are precisely measured, fitted, and custom built to the existing opening, requiring no portion of the original structure to be altered in any way, shape, or form. That have danger associated with aging windows. Aging windows present a variety of dangers ranging from health hazards like toxic dust to safety risks such as compromised security and fire escape failures. These risks are primarily driven by material degradation, outdated technology, and the presence of hazardous materials commonly used in older homes. Key health and safety hazards are lead paint poisoning. Windows in homes built before 1978 frequently contain lead-based paints and finishes. The friction created by opening and closing older windows generates toxic lead dust, which can be easily inhaled or ingested. This exposure is known to cause severe neurological and developmental damage, particularly in children. Windows contain some of the highest concentrations of lead in older homes. Asbestos exposure. Asbestos containing materials may be present in older glazing compounds, putty, caulking, or insulation, particularly in homes built before the 1980s. When disturbed, these materials release dangerous airborne fibers that pose significant health risks. Mold and mildew. Damaged and deteriorating seals and rotting frames allow moisture to seep into walls and floors, creating ideal conditions for mold growth, which causes significant respiratory issues. Fire and emergency egress risks. Over time, older window frames warp, rot, and may be painted shut, rendering them inoperable, ultimately eliminating critical emergency escape routes, aluminum wooden storm windows are a violation of NFPA and not permitted to be installed in any window which serves as an escape egress. This includes any sleeping or living area within a home. Structural failure and physical injury. Rotting wooden frames can break or splinter, causing injuries. Furthermore,, older glass may not be tempered, meaning it can shatter into sharp, dangerous shards rather than safe, blunt pieces, causing serious, often deadly injury. Aged glass becomes brittle and can shatter easily, especially during storms or accidental impact. Leaks from old windows can lead to wood rot in the surrounding wall studs and flooring, potentially compromising the home's structural integrity. Energy and maintenance issues. Outdated windows significantly reduce efficiency. efficiency. 30% of a home's heat is lost to poorly insulated windows in older homes, resulting in wasted fuel and unnecessary emission of greenhouse gases, having severe negative impacts on the environment. Property value reduction. Outdated or damaged windows can diminish a home's curb appeal and reduce its overall market value. Constant maintenance. Old windows require constant painting and repair due to rotting or deteriorating materials, trap moisture which is nearly impossible to mitigate, further expediting the peeling and rotting process of the wood. Installation of modern replacement windows will preserve architectural character while improving safety, energy efficiency, and overall home performance. The Harvey windows I am proposing to install are amongst the leading brands due to their lifetime warranty strength and operability, along with their historically accurate design meant to mimic older windows. A replacement with these windows will help to ensure that the structural and historical integrity of my home is preserved for countless years to come, while also ensuring better human health, a healthier environment, and most importantly, preserving life and fire safety, which must take priority. I can think of no circumstance where the preservation of human life be held to a lower standard than so-called historic preservation. Denying this request would prioritize outdated materials over the preservation of human life itself. I did contact a number of window restoration companies which I believe you have and go through the list, each and every one of them told me I would have to bring the windows to them. One of the companies said they do serve Bangor. I told them I had 19 windows, they told me to call them when you have 200, which I am not planning to do, so and then they also said that they would take them, I could bring all the windows to them, which would then require me to board up at least half of my house, making it in our my house inoperable, not just my windows, and that would not correct anything with frames, anything like that, so it would not necessarily wouldn't make any corrections. I'd have windows with no paint and new glass, but they still might not fit in and still wouldn't open or close. I also have a letter here from Adam Fashion from the City of Bangor Fire Department. This letter is to follow up regarding your questions about egress windows and residential occupancies. NFPA requires in every sleeping room and every living area one means of egress and one means of escape. In your case, windows are what you have to meet the means of escape requirement. Windows must have a minimum opening width of 20 inches, height of 24 inches, have a clear opening of 5.7 square feet overall, located not more than 44 inches off the finished floor and no more than 20 feet above finished ground level. The means of escape must be kept free of any obstructions, including but not limited to windows that may not open properly or stay open on their own. The windows must also be capable of opening for escape without the use of tools, keys, or special effort. And then all I have really left to that is the inspection, which you have seen from Sunrise Glass, and I believe you've also gotten the RV brochure, which the shows the simulated divided lights, and also shows if the committee especially wants the stained glass done, it will get what is known as a prairie grid, which will be custom built for the outside to match the glass design [30:27] Nathaniel King: okay, thank you very much for all that too. No, okay, I mean if you've got a part two, we're happy to hear it. Okay, thank you very much for all that. Heard enough. Yeah, oh no, that was very detailed, and we really appreciate all the information that you have provided, Mike, or what, Mike Consultant's [30:52] Speaker J (unidentified): report, please and thank you. Thank you, that was very thorough presentation [31:01] Speaker K (unidentified): your choice. I don't think so. No, I think you're fine, so [31:09] Speaker J (unidentified): a couple of things, a couple of points. We had a pre-application meeting with the applicant to help to describe what we, what the issues were going to be that would be brought up tonight, so you did a good job covering that. The window number 12 that we're talking about, if you all can find that photo, was part of my package, and can we get the page number real quick? It's page two, but there's probably several page twos, I don't know, in my advisory report. Okay, let's go down [31:46] Speaker F (unidentified): there it is. Ah, here we go. So if you can find that page 86, okay, on the on the full document, all right [31:54] Speaker J (unidentified): I think as Steve mentioned that this house had modifications done around 1900. And some of the modifications included the bay windows that you see, the two-story bay on the front of the house, and very likely that bay window that you see on the left side of the house, which actually has the feature geometric colored glass in it, in the top sash. Well, what I wanted to point out was window number 12, which is the narrow windows on the sides of the two sides of the front stack of windows, is basically open at the top. It's considered a transom light, okay? The transom light above the main window in the front has no grid in it. The ones on the side have no grid. Grid so the applicant said that they would go with the commission's recommendation if we, I'm suggesting that be if new windows go back in on those sides that they match that same pattern, which is one transom window at the top and a full window below it with no grid in it, just so you understand what that point was. Sure, thank you very much for measuring the glass. It's important to note that every one of these applications for windows, the commission I think has been getting more and more sensitive about any reduction in glass. Some window manufacturers have a very stubby and wide window frame and then a window sash, and you can lose as much as five to six inches around the perimeter of this. The applicant did provide a detail looks like this, you all saw that, and it actually gives a true dimension from the opening of about three and five eighths. That's very close to what the existing conditions are. Wanted to make sure you all saw that, so prove that the glass is within a half an inch I think all around. Give me a second. I did want to at least describe a scenario where not for 19 windows but for some windows that people might have in their homes, they, if they're wooden windows, and you make a good point, they do require pretty continuous maintenance. You do need to stay ahead of them to keep them operable, but wood windows, the stops can be adjusted over time if the windows are stuck. You need to keep from painting in the windows solid so that they don't operate. That's always an issue, and a lot of times in these windows they actually had double hung windows had a rope and a counterweight that went into the jams, and so over time those get lost, and if they're lost there's nothing that helps to introduce a little bit of help in opening up a window like that. So but the point is they can be repaired, just to make a point that sometimes wood windows can be kept. The point about the glass, the geometric pattern glass that we see in the top sash, I think windows two and three. The point is that is an element of distinctive craftsmanship. Even in 1900, that was a fairly common detail that was used, but it does express a kind of a special unique feature of the house. [35:25] Peter Keebler: So the stained glass, you're talking about? [35:27] Speaker J (unidentified): They're stained glass panels. They're squares that usually modify in color from red to blue to yellow, whatever. We see them a lot in houses of that period. So one thing that the applicant might consider is maybe that window just gets prepped and painted out white to match all of the rest of the work that you have intended for the house. That'd be one way. I, you didn't list that as an option, but that might be one way to preserve if the commission finds that important when you do your review. Everything else here I think you've covered it well. Simulated divided lights basically mean, so for those of you that don't know what that is, the applicant did a good job of providing a product cut for that, but there's a fixed grid on the outside which looks like putty glazed mountains narrow 5 8, which is typical for windows in this area. Then there's an intermediate grid that's inside the between the panes of glass, and then there's an interior grid applied. So looking at it from any angle it looks like a solid piece of milled wood. So I think that's all I had. Steve, you have anything else you wanted to add? [36:43] Speaker H (unidentified): My name is Violet. Some of the members normally from previous meetings with respect to the stained glass I'd make a couple of points. First of all, simply painting trimming out the window does not take care of the immense heat loss that goes through those windows. They're still old dilapidated single pane windows. Secondly, Steve has offered at great expense to try to get them put into a frame that would then be attached to the to the new windows that he puts in, and years ago one of my companies owned a house at 66 Smith Street, not in an historic district, but it had stained glass windows or two stained glass windows that we thought were kind of neat and we wanted to preserve them, but they had the same issues as the ones that Steve's has that I've looked at, and that is that they all had these spider cracks in them, and we took them to Sunrise Glass with the hope that they would be removed carefully, and they disintegrated upon an attempt to remove them. And having looked at Steve's and remembering the conditions of ours on Smith Street, I suspect that 's exactly what's going to happen with at least several of the stained glass panes, because they're all individual panes that are letted in. And again, I don't want to go back to slate roofs, but like slate roofs, they have a life expectancy. They don't last forever. And I suspect that 's going to be the case with these, although he's offered, if you insist on it, to try to put them in panels. But I don't think most of them are going to survive. [38:51] Nathaniel King: Mike, do you have anything else to add? Okay. [38:53] Speaker E (unidentified): To that point, as we saw from the bay windows that were added in 1900 that originally first and second floor both had stained glass, it was removed sometime after 1969, by whom we don't know, but they were not removed because they were in great shape and functioning. So it's a you know everything like you said everything has a has its lifespan and the house is now 160 something years old and it's the it's it's ready it's ready for some love. [39:30] Nathaniel King: Thank you appreciate that okay that concludes the consultant's report but remember how to talk and now we can go to questions from commission members and one question I kind of have for Mike like is if these stained glass the stained glass feature is you know significantly damaged in such a way that it's not going to survive if they were to do like a like thing like for example if there was colored plastic or something that he could put in a similar pattern that hangs in the window providing the appearance well not the still the same as stained glass I'm just wondering if that is an option that could help have a similar look from the street well again I know it's not the same as the stained glass stained glass is gorgeous [40:23] Speaker J (unidentified): but I'm just I'm just trying to think out loud here I think if you could just follow what the applicant is offering sure commission needs to consider it that way that's part of the application okay I'd rather not weigh either way okay thank you then to say that if the commission views this as being an important characteristic or craft of the house that character defining feature [40:47] Nathaniel King: that's your call okay thank you appreciate that other comments questions from other commission members and these are questions for either Mike or for the applicants as well [40:59] Speaker I (unidentified): I tried to follow all of that. Was a lot, the prayer, a lot was the prairie grid, the suggested replacement he said for the stained glass is that. Am I understanding that? Do you want to speak about that, prairie? Sorry, I tried to follow everything you were saying. It was a little bit, a lot. Yeah, so the prairie grid was that what you were suggesting is the replacement for the stained glass windows? [41:27] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes, so what is the prairie grid if you have, I [41:34] Speaker F (unidentified): do believe it's on page 91 of the full document. [41:38] Speaker K (unidentified): Thank you. Here, oh cool. Yeah, it should be to the, to the right, I believe, the majority of them. What [41:46] Speaker E (unidentified): I have circled in red is the colonial grid, which is the six over six pattern, which is common on most older homes. The prairie grid is next to it, which they will custom make that to fit as the window does, so it will have more grids so that the glass when they make the stained glass piece, if that's what needs to happen to get these windows replaced, then they will, they will custom make that. Was what is the extra 2500 to 4000? That's for those two. It's 2500 to 4000 per window to do that. And as you know, and if that is the only amicable thing, and as we mentioned, the glasses could potentially crumble a few pieces with their spiders. We know they're not going to survive. I know Sunrise Glass can certainly get stained glass replacement, but that's an added cost. I don't know what stained glass costs. I don't know who does it, and it's, you know, if that is the only way to get this done, then that is what will be done. And is that two or three [42:50] Speaker I (unidentified): windows on that window pop out? Yes. Okay, windows. So I wasn't sure if there's a third one on that. [42:56] Speaker E (unidentified): Third one was replaced previously. Okay, without any stained glass. And a quick question regarding [43:02] Peter Keebler: that picture in these two, the exposure here is from the street, meaning the picture that is taken here showing these two windows, that is a picture from the street. That's from Broadway. [43:14] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes, that's the, what's yours, from what I can see from the replaced windows, the third in that [43:19] Peter Keebler: that bay there, and it's actually facing towards the rear. Correct. [43:24] Speaker F (unidentified): But I do think, though, that one thing that is clear is that this architectural feature has been, it is to paraphrase part 2-3 directly, that while repair is preferable to replacement, that the replacement of this deteriorated architectural feature is necessary for purposes of lead, for purposes of safety, for purposes of basic livability. And so we're discussing how do we ensure that this replacement is done in a manner consistent with the principles of this board so and you can't replace with the original glass because it will be it will very likely as you said turn to dust yes and [44:19] Speaker E (unidentified): and continue to be and she'd be in which they're you know as they're cracking for what reason I don't know okay maybe somebody previously hit them with a hammer I doubt it but I think they're just with the you know the houses yeah 150 something years old the houses have moved and shifted and everything else is cracking why not the windows too yeah okay well I mean the principle is that [44:41] Speaker F (unidentified): the new material should match the material being replaced in composition design texture and finish and as and with the information provided to us it does seem like that the applicant has taken with that like with the with this like with that proposal every step to ensure that is fulfilled that one can reasonably do okay all right what are the thoughts of the rest of the commission on that [45:09] Nathaniel King: do you have any more questions for the applicants [45:13] Speaker F (unidentified): question period no discussion comes after no I know sorry I apologize I'm getting I apologize I'm getting ahead of myself it's okay man yeah was there any was there any other thing that you looked into for they looked into this I would further submit that at over [45:32] Speaker H (unidentified): four thousand well four thousand dollars wanted to make it and then gonna take it to sunrise to take it out that also qualifies as an exception for undue hardship I mean to spend that much on two basically half one-third windows it seems a little excessive thank [46:04] Speaker K (unidentified): you Peter brother Peter I don't have any other questions [46:07] Nathaniel King: questions now okay I do not have any other questions for anyone so that now opens it up to public questions comments concerns support no support do we have anyone online oh [46:28] Peter Keebler: do we is that a somebody had registered but they're not on Zoom so okay I haven't shown them all right so seeing [46:37] Nathaniel King: That we have no reg registered public commenters. Is there anyone in the audience? Okay, thank you. Okay, now there is no more public comment. I will close the public comment period and we will move to discussion. So commission members, microphones on. [46:59] Speaker F (unidentified): Discussion. I suppose return to my previous question. Do you like, do you agree with, like, do you have any thoughts on, like, summation that it seems like the pro, like, the replacement proposal with the prairie windows seems to best satisfy the requirements? [47:19] Speaker I (unidentified): To clarify, do you mean with the prairie windows and the stained glass, so doing the full? Yeah. [47:25] Nathaniel King: Like, okay, the only thing I'm worried about is the condition of the glass, and you know, glass breaks down over time. Window pane glass, bottle glass, whatever you're talking about, you know, it is to me it is a distinguished, fairly distinguishing feature, but you know, we need to think about what code is saying and what the best way to move forward with this. You have any? [47:56] Peter Keebler: Certainly, I think from my perspective, the overall application is extremely well put together. I think the one piece we have is the stained glass issue. What I'm thinking too, and we look at the exposure, you know, from the street, the way it looks without the stained glass, it distinctly is different than what it has been since whenever it was put in, which was a long time ago. Yeah, from the standpoint of the commission and looking at accepting changes to the original as becoming historic because of their placement and their longevity in the structure, I think the stained glass does meet that, if you will, the, you know, the problem of course is that if you, is the color, I mean, the color is distinctive, and without color there, you will lack what is the actual architectural aspect of those windows. You know, we're we're faced with the problem that we always have with a lot of these things, which is that we don't have technology today that matches what the design elements were at the time, and we are as homeowners and restorers faced with doing what we can to try to match what was there when you have to update because there is a point and I agree with that you know you got to do something because you need to maintain the integrity of the structure and those are the pieces we have I guess the question to me comes down a little bit as to the you know part of our concern we talk about things is it technically feasible to attempt to maintain the color in the stained glass aspect and that's kind Of what the discussion has been kind of going here as to, well, if we try to replace it, do they fall apart and that sort of thing, the prairie glasses. I'm, I'm trying to understand the proposal is to replace it with a prairie glass and no stained glass left, is that, they're correct if [50:07] Speaker E (unidentified): The, so if approved without stained glass, it would get the six over six like the rest of the home has, I see, if, and then the prairie grid is basically it's just a grid different than the, it's still the SDL, but what, it's just a different pattern of it, and what they will do is at the time, if assuming the glass is usable and salvageable, they'll make a frame with like a metal band around the whole thing that we'll insert at that time, then it will go back to the dimensions, will go back to Harvey, they Will make another top sash with all of those so that it will look from the outside as if the glass is still there, as if it was never replaced or an insert, but that all comes down to, I mean, of course, that, like I said, that's an extra possibly four thousand dollar window, of the glass disintegrates, it's making new pieces of stained glass, the glass itself is yellows and greens, it's not super beautiful, it's nothing like what was originally on the front of the house, which I know from my next door Neighbor, it has amazing, the leaded glass with amazing design, which unfortunately was taken out of my house at some point, and you know, so it's, but I would, if you know, and the other to think of, you know, as far as like uniform from looking at a house from the inside and outside, the back side of that was replaced previously and has no, has no stained glass, I don't know if it ever did, but it [51:48] Speaker I (unidentified): Now just has a six by six, thank you, thank you, if he did that and wanted to change those colors, would that still meet, does [52:03] Nathaniel King: That fall under the paint color caveat that we don't debate [52:08] Speaker I (unidentified): We don't talk about because it's a big investment if you don't even like the colors [52:12] Speaker C (unidentified): As well, I mean, it's fair, but I don't, yes, oh okay, yeah, I would say, excuse me, the [52:21] Speaker J (unidentified): The best information you have was in the application, there's actually a pretty good photograph of it, yeah, it looks, Steve, like you have a yellow, a red and a blue kind of primary colors, and probably the darker colors would absorb heat differently than some of the lighter colors, could cause some stress, and that may be where the cracking is coming from, I don't know, it looks like there's kind of an even amount of red and yellow mostly, so I don't know, that's it, right, I would say that, yeah, oh maybe Yeah. [52:58] Peter Keebler: so what i would say in discussion here is that the applicant has included in his application a willingness to consider either direction here standpoint of practicality i think it comes down to a thought process as to what is technically reasonable and feasible and the unfortunate things we don't really know it's feasible unless you try yeah to restore them obviously the idea would be to do what you had suggested and i applaud you looking into what you can do with that and how to make it look the way it does with that as an option. Obviously that's the ideal in terms of I think what can be done today with these windows, but I think that then leads to, I mean, this is really the question in front of us. You have said you're willing to go either direction, so in your application, if we approve your application that has that option, and then I presume you'd be asking us to say what our stipulation would be [54:04] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes. Obviously, I'd love to save myself $8,000 plus. There's still a lot of work to be done on that house after that's done. $100,000 worth of siding and painting and all that. So there's, you know, every penny helps. But right now, safety is my priority and being able to get out of the house in case of a fire and someone not losing their car, they open a window and it closes on [54:29] Speaker K (unidentified): nobody wants lead dust. Appreciate it. Absolutely, that's this. Yeah, and the question is what do we [54:37] Speaker H (unidentified): do if you require, sorry, do you mind getting like, yeah, if you require him, you require him to do that, then what happens if they take them apart and I don't know how many pains are, I forgot the number, yeah, and that's what number of pains if they disintegrate upon taking the letting out from around them, what do we do? Yeah, and that was going to be one of my questions [55:07] Nathaniel King: was what do we do in this situation where if we said hey okay this is approved with the caveat that you do the stained glass thing and they go to do it come to find out more than a certain percentage of it's not savable do they have to come back to us and say in a full meeting say this wasn't doable or is it a minor revision or do you come to me I mean they weren't able to do [55:31] Speaker F (unidentified): it can you sign off on this yeah like I mean can we just put in a stipulation says that like they attempt to do it in this original way but if it does but if it does turn if all turns to dust just in one's hand then it is the most it is the only like reasonable that full that is full [55:51] Peter Keebler: Replacement is the reasonable course of action. Yeah, I think you can make a condition asking [55:56] Speaker L (unidentified): them to saying they should attempt that, but if not, then you know, the alternative that you're okay [56:01] Peter Keebler: with. Yeah, I asked a question of Mike real quickly. The op, the other option to doing what we just described was replacing these with six over the six pane. Yes, in your opinion, from an architectural perspective, is that more of the original of what the house may have had there? Is it very hard to say that, Peter? [56:27] Speaker J (unidentified): I think most of the windows were actually one over one, or maybe some of the windows were two over two. You know, in time the barn did have six over six windows. That pattern, as Steve said, the applicant said, has been picked up in new windows that were made on the back and other places of the house. So for consistency, I think the applicant wants to go to the six over six sash patterns. [56:52] Peter Keebler: But I guess my point is that in that location, that may not have been what would have originally been there. And an observation I make is that the design that is there now is a peripheral colored glass, right, which is essentially a frame of a clear glass. And I might make the opinion that the prairie glass you're talking about has a framings in it that creates a similar sort of [57:20] Speaker J (unidentified): framing pattern without the color. Yeah, and I think it's important to note also, Peter, now that you picked it up, is that in that, in those particular windows, numbers two and three, the bottom sash is [57:32] Peter Keebler: open, there's no grill, right? And I just, from a standpoint of looking at the picture and the way it is now, the six there is going to look very different. This is sort of a little bay window sort of situation where often it's more one light than multiple for that reason. And I'm putting forth that there might be an option to consider sort of an in-between where if the applicant would be willing to consider doing prairie glass there as a pain rather than, it would create a framing. Do you understand what I'm talking about? The design element would have a similar sort of framing look to it, wouldn't have the color, but it might be a compromise from the technical perspective and the cost perspective. I would presume it wouldn't be four thousand dollars to have the prairie piece rather than the six light. So I bring that forth as a, as a possible thought process. I'm thinking about it as we look at this from afar. I actually, I mean, I think part of that design element is the framing aspect of the Colored glass there with the center inside, and my observation of the prairie is that it's as a sort of similar look to that without the color. And so there might be a compromise here. I don't know. I bring that forth for discussion with the other members of the commission, see what others might think. [59:05] Nathaniel King: I think that's an interesting idea. I don't mind it. I think that's good. I think if we, you know, being able to kind of keep a similar pattern, even if we can't keep the stained glass, it still kind [59:17] Speaker J (unidentified): of differentiates it. Look at like it is now. I think to reinforce that the bottom sash being open with no grid doesn't complicate that installation, and it makes it distinct because the bay on the front would be then similar to the bay on the side. So [59:35] Peter Keebler: and are you replacing, I'm sorry, the third window, Peter, do you, can you turn your microphone? I'm sorry, was the plan to replace that third window? Is that already been, that one has already [59:47] Speaker E (unidentified): been replaced with a six over six. Yeah, but it's not facing the road, so no, I understand that. [59:53] Peter Keebler: I'm just saying that if it were to be replaced and you were planning to replace it, doing it in [59:58] Speaker E (unidentified): kind with the other two would make sense. I would, I would certainly, yes, if the, if the only, if the, if the route we're going to take is as you mentioned to the prairie there, which I don't disagree with, then yeah, I would get another replacement window for that side so that [1:00:13] Peter Keebler: that area is all uniform. I appreciate that makes sense though from a site perspective, and we always talk about what you see when you look at the, at the house, that's what you see from the road, right, [1:00:24] Speaker E (unidentified): more or less. You're not seeing the back side, right, where just beyond that is a massive tree. It's a very small sight line, and then there's another tree right on the other side. It's a small, I guess [1:00:33] Peter Keebler: my point is if you're looking at this bay from the road, this is pretty much you're standing in [1:00:37] Speaker E (unidentified): front of the house. I don't see the six over six. You do not. No, but yeah, from the street you do see [1:00:42] Peter Keebler: those two. I offer that as a, I think a not unreasonable option. I don't think that's [1:00:47] Nathaniel King: unreasonable at all. I think that's good. I think it's good, and it's obviously the applicant's open to it. I think that's, that's fine with me. Do you think it doesn't cost eight thousand dollars? I think you'd have a hard time finding somebody that disrespects with that. True. I would just [1:00:59] Speaker L (unidentified): suggest the commission include that as a condition, if you all, yes, Katie, anyone, any other [1:01:06] Nathaniel King: comments, discussion, questions before we go to move to the vote? I [1:01:14] Speaker I (unidentified): Do love the idea of trying to save that stained glass, but I think that the prairie idea is a great compromise and definitely keep some of the aesthetic without insane price point. Maybe I get some stick on colors. Get out. [1:01:29] Speaker F (unidentified): There this prior race you can change a little sharpie. Yes, the historic sharpie. Yes, and as it [1:01:35] Nathaniel King: fades they just touch it up again. Yeah, perfect. Okay, so Anya, I'm my right to assume looking at because I'm looking at it on my phone that the highlighted portions green are the portions that we need to vote on. The portions highlighted yellow are not provided. You all agree that [1:01:53] Peter Keebler: the yellow highlighted ones are not applicable? Yes, that would be a motion that we would entertain. [1:01:58] Nathaniel King: Okay, so what we can do is we can entertain, I would entertain a motion that the portions under part 2, 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, part 3 in its entirety are not applicable to the application. So we could, I would entertain a motion on that. I would so motion and a second. Okay, vote starting with Katie. Yes, and I also vote yes. So we find that those portions as previously discussed are not applicable to this application. So moving on to the procedural, I could speak today background that the application was deemed complete on April 16th, 2026. The proposed project is a certificate of appropriateness that the applicant paid all applicable fees. Do I have a motion to approve the procedural background? So moved, second. It Peter? Yes, I also vote yes. So we approve the procedural background. Now we get to [1:03:09] Peter Keebler: the fun part. I would like to make motion. Okay, but under part one, number one, the commission finds that based on exhibits 2-13, the application satisfied historic preservation code 148-9a requiring that any alteration of the historic structure will preserve or enhance its historical and architectural character. Seconded. Okay, on this one, if you are voting [1:03:32] Nathaniel King: yes, you are finding that based on those exhibits the application does satisfy, and if you are voting no, you're saying that it does not satisfy. I actually will give that clarity on every one of these. So yep, okay, starting with Katie. Yes, I also vote yes. Okay, I so move that the [1:03:54] Peter Keebler: commission finds that based on exhibits 2-13, the application satisfies historic preservation code 148-9b, 2b, requiring that rehabilitation work does not destroy this distinguishing qualities nor character of the structure and its environment. Seconded. Yes, [1:04:12] Nathaniel King: yes, and I also vote yes. [1:04:16] Peter Keebler: I move the commission finds it based on Exhibits 2-13, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code 148-9b 2c, requiring that while repair is preferable to replacement, in the event that replacement of deteriorated architectural features is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture, and finish. So if I might make a point. [1:04:39] Nathaniel King: is this is probably the one we would want to throw the condition yeah on this one so we if you want the condition for the prairie glass as you described you may want to add that condition [1:04:51] Peter Keebler: Into this. Okay, and adding to that motion the condition that the replacement of the two small bay windows that have currently a border of stained glass be replaced with a prairie style pane that is one pane without divisions and the lower glass is clear and the lower glass is clear. [1:05:16] Nathaniel King: Seconded. Katie? Yes. I also vote yes. Moving on. Whoops, we are on number four now, we are. [1:05:25] Peter Keebler: Number four, the commission finds based on Exhibits 2-13, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code 148-9b2d, requiring the distinctive stylistic features or examples of style, skilled craftsmanship which characterize historic structures is not damaged or destroyed wherever possible. [1:05:43] Nathaniel King: Seconded. Katie? Yes. Yes. Yes. I also vote yes. [1:05:48] Peter Keebler: Next, the Commission finds that based on Exhibits 2-13, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code 148-9, requiring that wherever possible, all alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if they were to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. Seconded. Eder? Yes. Yes. Yes. I also vote yes, and then we have a decision. The commission finds that based on the findings and parts 1-2 of section 4 of this document, project meets the requirements for a certificate of appropriateness and therefore grants a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed project. [1:06:32] Nathaniel King: Seconded. Okay, Katie? Yes. And I will also vote yes, and with that we issue the certificate of appropriateness for the project at 198 Broadway to Mr. Stephen Barron. Well done. Thank you for your time. Well done, application. Thank you for all the detail. All right, moving on to – what's that? We go – okay. If you have more windows, we'll listen to it, man. We got it. I got to go find my agenda here. It's a problem doing it on my phone. Okay. Okay. Can we insert the business from last week into this so we can then move on to the draft ordinance changes? [1:07:17] Speaker L (unidentified): Are you talking about the two applications from last? Yes. Yeah, you had already postponed it to this meeting. [1:07:22] Nathaniel King: Yeah, I just wanted to introduce that ahead of the draft ordinance review. Yeah. Okay. So, we will move on to the applications from the last meeting that were moved to this meeting. It will be a certificate of appropriateness for 28 West Broadway, Map Lot 022-065, the Whitney Park Historic District. The applicant is Blackstone Restoration, owner Steven and Allison Freeze. Approval is requested for a certificate of appropriateness at a property located at 28 West Broadway for the removal of the crown trim abutting the slate roof in retrofit K-style aluminum gutter and downspout, as well as temporarily remove three courses of slate in order to install a copper lined wooden gutter on the east and north sides with a round copper downspout. The property is located as previously stated at Map Lot 022-065 in the Whitney Park Historic District. The owner is Steven and Allison Freeze, and before we move forward on this, yes, I [1:08:30] Peter Keebler: need to bring up a concern of possible conflict of interest, and the con, potential conflict is that I rent space to Blackstone Restorations for a workshop. As brought up previously, I personally do not feel this meets a conflict of interest, as renting to this group does not provide any greater financial gain to me than if I had were renting to anyone else, and in fact, if they were not there, I would rent to someone else for the same amount and have no change in my financial situation because of it. Thank you very much, and so this is crap the same. Yeah. [1:09:20] Speaker F (unidentified): I motion that you have a conflict of interest in this matter. Remember Keebler, member Keebler, I motioned that number Keebler has a conflict of interest in this matter and should recuse himself. [1:09:38] Nathaniel King: Well, before we move on to the motions, I think we should probably, we should, we should, because it is probably to leave. I don't think you have to leave just yet for the yes or for us for the discussion. So you rent the space to Blackstone, so whether or not they have got, they received this, they won this bid, you would still be collecting rent from them regardless. And you don't, what's the legal terms? Interest, special interest that the public [1:10:08] David Szewczyk: Doesn't have? Yeah. So a financial interest is a direct or indirect interest having monetary or pecuniary value, including but not limited to ownership or shares of stock. And then a special interest is a direct or indirect interest having value peculiar to a certain individual or group, whether economic or otherwise, which value may accrue to such individual or group as a result [1:10:29] Nathaniel King: of the passage or denial of any order. So in plain language, knuckle dragger, that means [1:10:37] David Szewczyk: the special interest part. Yeah, all of it. Okay, so the financial interest would be getting value directly from approving or denying an order. Okay, a special interest is a value that's peculiar, so different, to a certain individual. So if he had, say, this was something that had [1:10:59] Nathaniel King: stock or share prices, he has a share, then doing this thing makes it go up or down, [1:11:04] David Szewczyk: something like that. It could be that kind of goes more to the financial interest side of it. Special interest is a little bit more complicated, like it's a little bit harder to explain, but basically, they would get a value that isn't necessarily a financial value from the passage or denial of this application. [1:11:29] Speaker K (unidentified): Okay, I think I got that. [1:11:31] Nathaniel King: Any other questions for legal that we [1:11:39] Speaker I (unidentified): wanna discuss? I was just curious if legal could offer a opinion on whether or not they believed that this was an interest [1:11:51] David Szewczyk: interest or can you just give background? I can ask further questions of member Keebler. So I think the, I think a question that comes to mind is, would you derive any extra value, like do you get any percentage from Blackstones, or is it a [1:12:13] Peter Keebler: flat rental rate? It's a flat rental rate. As I said, if I rented to someone else, I'd rent for the same amount. I [1:12:21] David Szewczyk: think that might help you guys a little bit on determining this. [1:12:26] Nathaniel King: I can ask more questions if you want. So basically you're, you're saying that regardless of them receiving this job, you don't gain any extra money from them taking it or any extra money from [1:12:40] Peter Keebler: not taking it either way. The rents you on the first, and indeed if they fail and don't rent anymore, I rent to someone else, and I have no different financial issue. And they're not giving [1:12:52] Speaker I (unidentified): you fruit baskets for every time they get something? All right, then I think that covers [1:12:59] Nathaniel King: special interests as well. Okay. Okay, if you are comfortable, Peter, now you can do your thing. [1:13:09] Speaker I (unidentified): It's actually, would you like to do it this time? Sure, I would like to move that Commissioner Kiebler, or commission member Kiebler, has a special interest in this matter and should recuse himself. [1:13:24] Nathaniel King: Seconded. Okay, and this vote, if you are voting yes, you're saying that Commission Member Kiebler does have a conflict of interest and should recuse himself. If you are voting no, you're saying that he does not have a conflict of interest. Thank you. Words are hard today. So starting with Katie, no. No, and I will also vote no. So the commission finds that there is no special financial interest or conflict of interest, and the applicant can approach and proceed. Sorry. [1:14:03] David Szewczyk: Chair, one more procedural things, I'm sorry, and my third time, I apologize. You just need to give the applicant the option to, since you only have four members and not five, and you need four members to approve this based on your bylaws, you have to give the applicant the ability to postpone this again or proceed tonight? Okay. [1:14:31] Nathaniel King: I'll give you the option to proceed or to postpone because we do only have four voting members present tonight. You do have the option to push this down to May or we can proceed with it right now. Up to you. [1:14:48] Jed Nickerson: Thank you very much for that option. I would choose to proceed. Okay. In that sense, I would introduce myself as Jed Nickerson, and representative of Blackstone Restoration. Okay. Thank you for putting me on your agenda this evening. And I believe there was a PowerPoint that was to be provided for this presentation. Yeah, it's the one. [1:15:26] Speaker K (unidentified): Love showing people. Mm-hmm. That's very cool. All right. [1:15:35] Jed Nickerson: Okay, I'm here to discuss the application that's before you. Again, I thank you for your time. I'll try to keep it as brief and respect your time in that way. This is 28 West Broadway on the next slide. Some background history of the current location that we propose to be making this alteration to. Next slide. As you can see from the aerial view, this is the picture of the garage that they have there. Outlined in red is the proposed area to install copper line gutters. Next slide. These copper line gutters would also be including downspouts as indicated by the red lines here. Next slide. Here's the change order summary as this was brought to us and as you can see we're using materials that are consistent with the scope of the project as is. Next slide. And there's some references for you there. I know that was brief, so I'm open to any questions. Thank [1:16:57] Nathaniel King: you very much. We will move into the consultant's report through [1:17:01] Speaker J (unidentified): This project, which I'm working my way to right now, if you could find that and hand it over to, I'll read it into the meeting. I guess we decided at the last meeting, no sir, just a couple of questions you can respond to them if you could. So I asked the commission to determine or consider the following, the slates being temporarily removed, will they be returned to the roof, there [1:17:32] Jed Nickerson: are three courses of slate. The first two will be removed and replaced, the third will turn into the copper line cutter on the lowest part of the lowest. Okay, does the wooden [1:17:45] Speaker J (unidentified): gutter have an og profile, and you've handed this around, and that certainly is an og profile, [1:17:53] Jed Nickerson: and will the wooden gutters be painted? The wooden gutters are treated with linseed oil and then covered, they will be painted to match in existing. Okay, which is like a white trim or [1:18:07] Speaker J (unidentified): yep, from my points. Okay, thank you. Okay, [1:18:15] Nathaniel King: any questions of the applicant from commission members? Okay, I have no questions. Are there any comments from the public? Do we have any public comment or any, anyone registered for that? No, trucking right along. Okay, so I will open and now close the public comment period, and we've commissioned can move to discussion. I think, I think this was pretty straightforward. I agree, I have no questions. I don't know, I believe that, yeah, I believe it satisfies the, if I can find the points I was looking for without sorts here, apologize please. Anyone else have any questions, save me? [1:19:08] Peter Keebler: So chair, I would move that the procedural background, the application was deemed to complete April 9th 2026, and the pros, proposed project is a certificate of appropriateness. [1:19:20] Speaker F (unidentified): Seconded, I'm [1:19:23] Nathaniel King: trying to find my page that has all of those points on there. I have a printout, working on my speed, old school. Yeah, that's okay, there we go. Okay, go ahead and get, go ahead and do your motion. Seconded, all right, Katie vote yes, I also vote yes, that the procedural background was done before we move forward. Again, like last time, the yellow highlighted ones are recommended to, if we find it, so to not apply to this application. I believe that those are parts two [1:20:06] Speaker F (unidentified): number six, seven, eight, all of, and all of part three, a motion to deem those not relevant to [1:20:14] Nathaniel King: this current. Second, yes, I will also vote yes, so we find that those are not applicable to [1:20:25] Peter Keebler: this application, so not to steal everyone's, I'm happy to run through this or if you want to do [1:20:31] Nathaniel King: it doesn't matter to me so starting with part one okay no might as well do it here you [1:20:38] Speaker F (unidentified): Can do the third one and that way we'll spread the, we'll spread the label. All right, so I motion the commission finds that, based on exhibits 2-3, the application satisfied Historic Preservation Code Section 148-9A requiring that any alteration of the historic structural preserver enhances historic and architectural character. Second. So vote yes on this, you find that the application [1:21:00] Nathaniel King: satisfies it. A no vote finds that the application does not satisfy. Katie? Yes. Yes. Yes. I will also vote yes. Okay. Part 2. [1:21:12] Speaker F (unidentified): I motion that the Commission finds that, based on Exhibit 2.3, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code Section 1489B2A requiring that every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use which will require minimum alteration to the structure and its environment. Second. Either yes, oh yes, I'm sorry, yes, and I also vote yes. Okay, I motion that commission find that, based on exhibit 2.3, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code Section 148-9B2C requiring that wall repair is preferable to, you're on number two, yeah, you skipped it. Oh, did I miss? No, we just did 2B. [1:21:54] Nathaniel King: No, we did 2.1. So part two, number one, was 148-9B, 2A. Number two is 148-9B, 2B. [1:22:05] Speaker F (unidentified): Okay, sorry. Was that not the one we just did? Anyway, the commission finds that, based on Exhibit 2.3, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code Section 14892B, requiring that the rehabilitation work does not destroy distinguishing qualities nor character of the structure and its environment. Second. Okay, Katie? Yes, and I also vote yes. [1:22:26] Nathaniel King: We don't need to speed through this so rapidly. Hey, we take our time to read it. Hey, commit, I [1:22:32] Speaker F (unidentified): motion of commission finds that, based on exhibits 2-3, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code Section 148-9B2C requiring that while repair is preferable to replacement in the event that the replacement of deteriorated architectural features is necessary. The new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, texture, and finish. Peter? [1:22:57] Nathaniel King: Yes. Yes. I also vote yes. Okay. [1:23:02] Speaker F (unidentified): I motion that the Commission finds that, based on Exhibit 2-3, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code Section 1489B2D, E. Requiring that distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize historic structures is not damaged or destroyed wherever possible. [1:23:20] Speaker K (unidentified): Seconded. Okay. Katie? Yes. [1:23:23] Nathaniel King: Yes. Yes. Also vote yes. Okay. Number five. [1:23:28] Speaker F (unidentified): I motion that the Commission finds that, based on Exhibits 2-3, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code Section 1489B2E, B, requiring that changes which have taken place in the course of time have acquired historic significance in their own right are retained and preserved wherever possible. Second. [1:23:47] Nathaniel King: Yes. Yes. Yes. I also vote yes. Okay. We are now number nine. [1:23:54] Speaker F (unidentified): I motion that the Commission finds that, based on Exhibits 2-3, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code Section 1489, requiring that, wherever possible, all alteration structures shall be done in a manner that if they were to be removed in the future the essential form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. Second. Peter. Yes. Yes. Yes. And I also [1:24:19] Nathaniel King: vote yes and now we move on to the final decision. Right. I motion the commission find that the [1:24:25] Speaker F (unidentified): project meets the requirements for certificate of appropriateness and therefore grants a certificate of appropriateness permit for the proposed project second okay Katie yes [1:24:36] Nathaniel King: I also vote yes the application passes okay and now we move on to the second one which I believe is 218 Ohio Street map lot 32-089 Bangor Children's Home doing business as the Hilltop School presenting his Blackstone restoration stupid question time do we have to go through [1:25:02] Speaker I (unidentified): all the rigmarole about Commission member Keebler again yes no once on it you don't [1:25:09] Peter Keebler: have to do it again even though it's a second application great no because it's the same [1:25:14] Nathaniel King: company when we've already found all the greats you don't have to do it again okay so, always [1:25:23] Jed Nickerson: have time for a stupid question. Thank you again for your attention to this and that. We were going to have to flip through a few slides to catch up. I'm excited to. Bring us up to date on a current project. That has a new scope and this application is involved in that. but if we can skip through a few slides i just want to make sure that we're doing yes this is the previous application so 10 or 12 slides up ahead we should get to the recap of what has been completed this has been quite a fun project to work on and here we are next slide please. And references, yes. Continue, please. And I'm hoping you got the right slide. It does not appear to have the additional slides that were sent in. I actually have a computer Peter with me that might have those oh [1:27:00] Speaker I (unidentified): it is in the packet is [1:27:10] Speaker K (unidentified): it that one no nope so this is [1:27:20] Jed Nickerson: This one in the packet, that would be the application for the ramp that we are here to discuss. I was just hoping to give you guys a update as to the progress, as how has it been going, but well, perhaps I can do that another time. We can move on to the ramp. Yep, all right. As the application in front of you is presented, we've been asked to install a new ADA compliant ramp so that the school can now provide services TO INFANTS GOING FORWARD. I [1:28:03] Nathaniel King: HAD LAST WEEK. I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE THE SORRY. JUST A MINUTE. LET ME LOOK AND SEE IF I HAVE THE NEXT COMMENTS. [1:28:18] Speaker H (unidentified): I DO NOT. IT LOOKS LIKE I HAVE A COMMENTS RIGHT HERE. I'LL READ THEM OFF MY PHONE. NOT THE BEST. I APOLOGIZE. ALWAYS ZOOM IN. [1:29:14] Jed Nickerson: YES. ABSOLUTELY. CURRENTLY UP ON THE BOARD IS THE LOCATION OF THE BACKGROUND, I say the playground and towards the back of the school. What you see there is the brown enclosed porch and on the backside past the steps is proposed location for the ramp to be installed. We would be removing portion of the existing wall back there to allow for this ramp to be installed. Maybe you can see that in the next slide or so. [Speaker H (unidentified): So that] would be a top down view, the aforementioned stairs leading up to the door there and the ramp leading in a new direction now towards the back. [1:30:15] Peter Keebler: Is that a new door that we're looking? [1:30:17] Jed Nickerson: Nope, that door exists in there now. Okay. Yeah, outlined in blue is the location of the new ramp. That would be a section of the brown wall that we would be removing on the deck there. And the ramp would extend out over that garden there. [1:30:43] Nathaniel King: Are those three pipes coming out as well? [1:30:46] Jed Nickerson: Nope, the location does allow for the three pipes to remain, so. [1:30:51] Peter Keebler: What are they for, those three pipes? [1:30:54] Jed Nickerson: Ventilating their new heating system down below, to my understanding, yeah. [1:31:01] Speaker I (unidentified): When you say new, how new? [1:31:03] Jed Nickerson: It was not built in the same decade, or century as the building. Yeah. But I was not there to install that so I'm not entirely guessing like 30 40 years. Yeah, okay. Is that, is that all you have? I believe one of the questions was would we be painting the existing stairwell. That is outside the scope of this project. Okay, Mike first [1:31:32] Speaker F (unidentified): of all, thank [1:31:34] Speaker J (unidentified): Thank you for letting me use your phone. I can actually read it. Yeah, we had just a couple of real simple questions. One was in your packet there was that a fair amount of information regarding the approvals that were done by the commission in 2025 I think or last year. I just wanted them to be aware that the application in front of them really is just the ramp portion, right? Nothing that was provided in the back application indicates that the ramp will be painted to match the building and that's the dark brown color of the porch. That would be cool, okay, just to confirm that. And then as you say, will the existing steps be painted, which are just natural pressure treated wood, and the answer is no, they'll be left. That'll be outside of our scale [1:32:25] Nathaniel King: Yep, okay, yeah, it works. Okay, commission members, does anyone have any questions for the applicant? [1:32:35] Speaker I (unidentified): At, I have none. Thank you. Is the angle of the picture of from that first shot where we're not seeing the ramp at all, is that from the road or in line with the road, that first picture [1:32:52] Jed Nickerson: appeared to be from the driveway of the school itself. If you were to back up to the road, that view further disintegrates. It's usually lined up with a bunch of cars, then the fence. This project's not viewable from the road itself. Awesome, thank you. [1:33:14] Peter Keebler: I may have missed this, but I presume the material is pressure-treated wood for all of us. [1:33:22] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay. That's everything. [1:33:24] Nathaniel King: There are no other questions, and are there any public comment, any public questions? I will open and close the public comment, and we can now move to discussion. Is there any discussion? [1:33:33] Peter Keebler: discussion you want to have any discussion I think it's very straightforward, you know, just by looking at the drawing and my knowledge of the ADA requirements, it looks like the slope of the ramp is appropriate, and so I have no issue. I think this is a good project. Yes, is there going [1:33:55] Nathaniel King: to be a material on the ramp itself, like a like a non-skid or something, I'm assuming, yep [1:34:02] Jed Nickerson: to be ADA compliant, we would follow all those expectations. Okay. [1:34:09] Nathaniel King: So I, whoever wants to read off, I have a paper copy if you like. Katie, what's your, I've got right here, I just got to get to the right page. Okay, so we will want, again, I will confirm that the yellow highlighted are ones that we should consider is not applicable to this application, and we all would start with a motion for the procedural background. Do we need, real quick, before we dive into that, does the date need to be for today, not April 9th, or, oh yes, okay, a quick change, the date should read April 16th not April 9th, and then I would entertain a motion to approve the procedural background. [1:34:56] Speaker I (unidentified): Ground, I would like to move for us to approve the procedural background. Okay. [1:35:04] Speaker C (unidentified): Peter? Yes. [1:35:09] Speaker F (unidentified): I will also vote yes. Maybe for this one we can like set the precedent that you say you second and I'll start the voting. You can also do it, which is also fun. [1:35:23] Nathaniel King: It's just keeps me entertained. Okay, I would entertain a motion of non-applicability for the yellow highlighted portions. So you will need to read off that part two, one, and so on and so forth. [1:35:35] Speaker I (unidentified): I'd like to move that part two sections one, three, six, eight, and all of part three be struck because they are not applicable to this project. [1:35:48] Nathaniel King: Second. Yes. Yes. Yes. I also vote yes. [1:35:53] Speaker K (unidentified): Okay. Procedure will pass. Find those non-clickable. [1:35:56] Nathaniel King: Okay. We can start with the motions for part one. Sure. [1:36:00] Speaker I (unidentified): I would like to move that part one, second part one, number one, the Commission finds that based on exhibits three through seven, the application satisfied historic preservation code 148-9a requiring that any alteration of the historic structure will be preserved will preserve or enhance its historical and architectural character. Second. So a yes vote [1:36:25] Nathaniel King: on this finds that the application does satisfy. A no vote means that it does not. Okay. Yes. I also vote yes. [1:36:37] Speaker I (unidentified): I'd like to move that Part 2, Section 2. The Commission finds that based on Exhibits 3 through 7, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code 148-9B2B, requiring that rehabilitation work does not destroy the distinguishing qualities nor character of the structure and its environment. Second. [1:36:58] Nathaniel King: Go ahead. Yes. Yes. Yes. I also vote yes. Okay. Okay. [1:37:03] Speaker I (unidentified): I would like to move that part to section four. The commission finds that based on exhibits three through seven, the application satisfies historic preservation code 148-9B2D, requiring that distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize historic structure is not damaged or destroyed wherever possible. [1:37:27] Nathaniel King: Second. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. I also vote yes. [1:37:33] Speaker I (unidentified): I would like to move that section five, the commission finds that based on exhibits three through seven, the application satisfies historic preservation code 148-9B2E, requiring that changes which have taken place in the course of time have acquired historic significance in their own right, are retained and preserved wherever possible. [1:37:54] Speaker K (unidentified): Second. Okay. Yes. Yes. Yes. [1:37:57] Nathaniel King: I also vote yes. Yes. [1:37:59] Speaker I (unidentified): I would like to move that Section 7, the Commission finds that based on Exhibits 3 through 7, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code 1489B2G, requiring contemporary design for additions to only be approved if such design is compatible with the size, scale, material, and character of the neighborhood, structures, or its environment. Second. [1:38:22] Nathaniel King: Yes. Yes. Yes. I also vote yes. [1:38:25] Speaker I (unidentified): I would like to move that the Commission finds that based on Exhibits 3-7, the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code 148-9B-2I, requiring that whenever possible, all alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if they are to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the original structure would be unimpaired. [1:38:47] Nathaniel King: Second. Yes. Yes. Yes. I also vote yes. And the decision, please. [1:38:52] Speaker I (unidentified): Please, I would move that the Commission finds that the project meets the requirements of a certificate of appropriateness, and therefore grants a certificate of appropriateness for the proposed project. [1:39:03] Nathaniel King: Yes,, yes, I also vote. Yes, strip kit passes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, moving on find all of my things again. Okay I believe the next item of business was the proposed changes to the historic preservation code. I am looking for my meeting packet right now. Okay draft ordinance changes. Staff have included a new draft of the first round of changes to the historic preservation ordinance. This includes revisions based on feedback from the commission previously, some new changes to the demolition section, and an edit to standard subsection 148-9B to C based on feedback from the main historic preservation commission. The state commission was otherwise amenable to the proposed changes. Staff plan to also bring this draft to business and economic development committee. If both the HPC and the B and ED committee are amenable, staff will begin the formal process for Okay. [1:40:14] Speaker L (unidentified): So these are largely the same as what you viewed before, but we did incorporate your feedback about making commercial communication equipment still require certificate of appropriateness, whereas other mechanical equipment would be a minor. We also added examples of evidence that can be presented to show hardship and made it clear that evidence does need to be provided. And then we took pretty much all of this from the City of Portland's code with some changes. Their code is a lot more stringent. We just wanted to make sure there was enough flexibility, too. We did run this by legal as well, and they had comments on the in the hardship section, so we incorporated their feedback into that. So the other thing that we changed was with the demolition section. It was pretty interesting that our code currently requires that in any situation with demolition, the commission has to require a delay of 180 days, which doesn't seem to serve a purpose. So we said may institute a delay rather than shall institute a delay. And then we also added an extra provision that a demolition can be done if, you know, the building is destroyed by fire or natural disaster and has to be demolished. And then with let's see the section on replacement of materials, that's pretty much all the same where we incorporated, you know, economic and technical feasibility. We got rid of the composition and finish and instead and inserted color and other visual qualities. This wording is pretty much exactly what the secretary of interior standards says, and it's also what a lot of the other municipalities in this in the state say. And then that one piece at the end where it says replacing materials should be guided by preservation brief 16. That was a request from the state commission. Besides that one thing, [1:42:35] Peter Keebler: they didn't have any other comments on this, any of the not this last part, but this the middle section just reading through it seems a little rough i'm not quite sure how it flows i'm just going to read it as it's been corrected it says in the event that replacement is necessary the new material should match the material being replaced in color design texture and other visual qualities and were economically and feasibly technically feasible materials because the extra and in there well I've just the last term of materials I'm not sure what it's referring to The last word at the end, materials, well, that's what we say. I think you can say that currently [1:43:23] Speaker I (unidentified): that it the new material shall match the material being replaced in materials [1:43:28] Speaker L (unidentified): materials in color. That's what the great ordinance said, but yeah, another visual qualities [1:43:36] Peter Keebler: materials. Hang on, I just I don't know that last word hanging off the end. I'm not sure [1:43:41] Speaker C (unidentified): quite materials. I'd better go before the word, so no, I think yeah, I think what they're trying [1:43:49] Nathaniel King: To say is that the material, so the item that's being replaced, right, it should be replaced in the color, design, texture, other visual qualities, and where economically and technically feasible, material, so the same material. I hate to bring it up again, but like the slate roofing or some material like that, right, not necessarily saying slate roofing, but you know what I'm saying, like [1:44:13] Peter Keebler: that material should be replaced with a like or similar material. If can we just clarify and say we're economically and technically feasible the same material? Well, we don't want to say same [1:44:26] Nathaniel King: we would want to have similar or some sort of give us that wiggle room, not paint ourselves into the corner where we have to where it has to stay same. That makes any, maybe I think the, I think the [1:44:40] Speaker F (unidentified): lack of clarity is that we say the new material shall match the material in material right that 's not coherence so i think that the first i think they're trying to say is that the new is that the replacement should match in the like the just the in event the replacement isn't necessary the replacement should match the material being replaced in all of [1:45:04] Peter Keebler: this. Maybe that would be more. I just don't think the last word materials at the end of the sentence, it needs to be there. I think it's to be taken out. To me it's confusing because I'm not sure what, you know, you've already said the new material is going to match the old material, but yeah it does [1:45:20] Speaker I (unidentified): give more wiggle room to say we're economically. I don't think that should be taken. I don't think [1:45:25] Peter Keebler: that should be taken. I'll just take out. I think, I think that's reflected, I think by leaving the [1:45:29] Nathaniel King: material in there you're saying that like the new material, if technically and economically feasible, is replaced with the same material. I think it could be its own separate second sentence. Yeah, following, and maybe it's because I live in this regulatory stuff all day, but I mean it makes sense, it makes sense to me. Yeah, how it's where like I get, I get what it's saying. Yeah, it's legal speak [1:45:51] Peter Keebler: but yeah, sorry to the lord, I just think it's redundant, but that's why I read it, but [1:45:58] Speaker L (unidentified): I guess because it's redundant I'm not sure what why it's there. I mean I can double check. I Again, I took this from the Secretary of Interior standard and then other municipalities. I can double-check that they included that word. If they don't include the word, we could get rid of it. But I just wanted to make sure that we were in alignment with the Secretary standard. [1:46:20] Nathaniel King: And if it's in the Secretary standards, then I think we don't want to touch it. But I think that's okay as if it's not in those standards. It's not a big deal. [1:46:27] Peter Keebler: Just reading through, it seems like we've already said materials earlier in the sentence. Why do we have to repeat it? [1:46:33] Nathaniel King: John Potter, monkey, but I get what I get what it's trying to say, and I think again, like the previous chair and noted, we don't want to make it too great, but we also don't want to make it too right clear that makes sense, and we have comment. John Potter, Are we thinking about the comments any of this on it. [1:46:50] Speaker L (unidentified): I mean it's a workshop with you it's up to you really it's. [1:46:54] Speaker F (unidentified): John Potter, Always. [1:46:55] Nathaniel King: John Potter, All the comments about yours. [1:47:06] Speaker H (unidentified): With respect to the word materials that's that's been our problem and it doesn't seem like this draft resolves it because there's still a question of whether the material being replaced has to be replaced with the same material I don't know whether you want to call it same whether you want to call it composition because that's apparently what the word composition has previously meant and we're we're concerned three of us all own properties with slate rules well formally a slate roof the slate roof is the number one concern that we have but for example We have with us tonight probably 40 pictures of properties that have previously been approved for vinyl windows, which we think is appropriate as long as they look similar to the ones that have been taken out. But when you start talking about materials, composition, it's a gray area and it shouldn't be a gray area because when somebody reads the ordinance they ought to be able to look at the ordinance and say what do I have to do to meet the requirements of that ordinance that's what the United States Supreme Court has said that is what the main law court has set in those cases are cited in the memo that I presented you to say well we should have some gray area so we can exercise some discretion that your discretion is to determine whether or not an applicant has met the standards set forth in an ordinance not whether they have met any particular individuals thought about what seems to be appropriate and that's been our concern with the ordinance every meeting at which we've attended in a raised the issue well you've granted replacement materials for six other slate roofs to be replaced by something other than slate we're told yeah but there's there's no binding precedent to anything that We do, that's correct. And with respect, so what is the criterion then? What is the criterion? [1:49:44] Speaker J (unidentified): Every applicant, every applicant. Can I finish? Yeah. [1:49:49] Speaker H (unidentified): Assuming, I understand every applicant has to meet the standards. What standard is it in the ordinance that says roofs one through six that are being completely replaced can be replaced with some kind of a slate facsimile? But roof number seven, that one has to be replaced with slate, and I can make the same argument about windows. We had this discussion when we met about Steve's windows. And I said, well, Anya asked, well, should they address the question of whether or not of why they're replacing wood with vinyl? I said why does that need to be addressed because that's been a material that this board has approved, and you said well because every application is considered on its own merits. Well, if it looks the same and has isn't going to affect the architectural features and so forth, what is the criterion on which you would ever tell somebody, your window has to be wood for wood. These 40 others that have gone before you that we've approved can be vinyl, but yours has to be wood. What is the criterion that distinguishes that window from all of the other windows you've approved? What is the criterion that differentiated Steve Farren's slate roof from the six others that were approved by this board? That's the problem with talking about materials that have to be like or identical or match. Okay. And that's not a problem that's being resolved by these proposals. We would ask the three of us, as well as the other folks that were involved and helping draft some proposals that I've attached. We'd asked to be involved in this process so we can contribute what we think of some logical solutions. I mean one of the things that we did in our proposal is we incorporated the language from the Secretary of the Interior regarding substitute materials. Materials. We provided that to staff. We provided that to the council. Well, that's not in this draft. It's alluded to. The Secretary of the Interior recognizes the need to sometimes use substitute materials. What we got to figure out is one of those going to be required because there are so many times that it hasn't been. So saying that there's no precedent is meaningless unless you have a standard to which you're tying that. And you don't have a standard for when you're gonna insist on identical or matching materials and when you're not going to. [1:53:16] Speaker L (unidentified): That's the problem. I just wanna point out again, this wording that I used came from the secretary of interior guidelines and I inserted we're economically and technically feasible to account for their recommendation that be considered when making these decisions so i didn't and well we also [1:53:38] Speaker H (unidentified): what is economically feasible i mean does it depend on whether you are stephen king and have his money versus one of us who don't is that is or is it because the cost of again I'll use the slate roof is it because the cost of the slate roof is more than the assessed values of the homes on which they're being installed there's a reason and we suggested some Benchmark to establish that the problem is that then that traps somebody the [1:54:22] Speaker L (unidentified): benefit to having it be vague is the commission can there's so many different situations that could give someone economic hardship that like you would be limiting somebody to this threshold that you've set that's why the vagueness is there so the commission can determine that because we are [1:54:41] Nathaniel King: reviewing every application as it comes before us and as far as the criteria that we're looking at in terms of are we going to require you know snuffy smith to do this while we're going to require Jane Doe to do that. A lot of it is dependent on the significance of the property. It's dependent on the significance of the architectural features of that property. And who determines that is we have an architect. He does provide us that information. None of us are architects. He provides us that information in his professional judgment. This column is important. This column, well, you know, if they want to replace it with this similar material, it's not going to detract or it's not going to do X Y or Z that's sort of what we're [1:55:22] Speaker H (unidentified): using to make these determinations and I get back regardless of the economic hardship which is a lot of what we presented when we presented about Steve's roof I went back and looked at what files were available for the other six that were approved, including one with screw-down metal, and not one of those presented the kind of economic information that we presented in Steve's behalf. half. So again, I get back to then what was the criterion on which he was originally denied? [1:56:09] Peter Keebler: One of the issues is that was then and this is now. The reality is that the commission sitting in front of you now is not that commission. [1:56:17] Speaker H (unidentified): And guess what? The composition, the individual membership of a commission does not matter one iota legally because if it does, if it does, then that is, that is an admission that is a, it is a subjective judgment rather than an application of a standard. Steve, if I, that is a discussion, that is a discussion that Mike and Steve and I had the other day as well. You know, the board changes from time to time. That doesn't make a difference. Ask somebody who was applying for a subdivision permit or a site use permit, and they've complied with all of the standards set forth in the ordinance and say, well, yeah, but we're not gonna grant this because the composition of the commission or the planning board has changed. [1:57:18] Speaker J (unidentified): Yeah, if I could, thank you, make some good points, but the reality is not just that the composition of the board changes, conditions change, and the materials that are presented when an application is made. Tonight I think Steve made a very good proposal. I think everybody would agree that the application had all the materials that was needed. In the case of the Broadway house, the slate roof was defined as a character defining feature of the building. That's not always the case, and it's actually it's not often the case, but those features that are defined as character defining, and that's a standard that's used across the nation in evaluation of these buildings, is the character defining features are the things that when they're gone would change the important architectural characteristics of the house. So what we use for standards, Rick, are the same standards that are used by other municipalities. The standards for review that you're using are based on the Secretary of the Interior standards which are proven. Well, I as an applicant look at [1:58:29] Speaker H (unidentified): an ordinance say, ha, I have my roof, my windows, my trim, my downspouts are character defining. How do I know that? Is it, is it, does it, does it change annually depending on the makeup of the [1:58:50] Nathaniel King: commission? Because that's wrong. No, it doesn't, it doesn't change it, but that doesn't change based on the makeup of the commission. I'm an archeologist, I'm not an architect, right? If it's below ground, I know a lot more about it. If it's a building, it's a building to me. That's why we have Mike here. Mike says to us, these window muntins, these roof lines, these windows, these whatever features, these are what our character defining features. And he's basing that on the standard for architects. He's basing it on what standards architectural historians use. We have to use them at my office. He's using the same standards they're using, to layout this is what the character defining features are. Do we expect you as an applicant to come to us say yes here's my character defining features you're an architect maybe if you're not well maybe you're not going to know that the commit the report from Mike is what is giving us that information which allows us to then be able to take in your application ask questions and make determinations based on what the code at present or is modified it says [1:59:54] Peter Keebler: Can I interject for one moment because I would actually like to speak to what you were talking about and I understand that what you're discussing is from the point of view the applicant how do you tell what is applicable to your property before as you're making this application and I would opine that is one of the difficulties that every applicant has coming to this group. I came here 30 years ago with a new house I bought over in little city I didn't have a clue what I was supposed to bring and what the issues were and what the criteria were going to be used for the determination and so I very much. I'm sympathetic with that I will make the comment that the meaning that you folks had with Mike prior to doing this application Was indeed exactly for that purpose to provide that input so that you'd have an idea as you're working through this and creating an application so that you're better able to figure out what it is you're trying to provide to us and get what you want to have done. [2:00:57] Speaker H (unidentified): Well, and when the issue of wood versus vinyl came up, he said, well, everything's judged on its own. We're not bound by precedent. That doesn't tell me anything other than the fact that 40 others have been approved. And if you read, and this is at the top of the third page of my memo, that's from a main Supreme Court decision that says that ordinances are supposed to furnish guides for those of us who are seeking permits to tell them what's expected. We don't need to go consult an architect, we don't need to come before the board to ask an advisory opinion what's the significant part of my house and what's not so I'm not sure [2:01:50] Peter Keebler: How the what is stated here in the proposed change, how that does not, does not address that. I mean, the whole point is that we are trying to help applicants look at what they have and do the best they can with their resources to meet the architectural and historic standards as much as possible. And this basically says that, at least that's how I interpret it, that in the event that a replacement is necessary, the new material should match material being replaced in color, design, texture, and other visual qualities. [2:02:23] Speaker H (unidentified): You know, stop there. I agree with you. When you, when you throw in materials, I don't think it's any different than saying composition. [2:02:31] Speaker J (unidentified): Yet you reference synthetic or substitute materials, did you not? Right, that's a good document to go by. The Secretary of the Interior has a very good document you referred to, Rick, very good, substitute materials and how they apply. That's what the commission would use for guidance, you should use for guidance, and one of the points you'd [2:02:54] Nathaniel King: made too, which you do make a good point, how do I as a homeowner know if I have a character defining feature or not? And I know I've, we brought this up to the city planners, trying to literally rip off the city of Portland and what they're doing. They have a very nice handout that goes to, if you are coming to the city to say, hey, I'm applying, application, live in a historic home, they give you a handout where it highlights character defining features of most, generally for most of the properties in say the city of Portland, right? This style of column is important because of a, this style of roof is important because of this, so that the homeowner can look at that, look at their house, and say, yeah, maybe, okay, that could be considered, no, I don't think that is. And then you come in from the commission, Mike does this thing, we do our thing, we are trying to put together something like that for the homeowners in Bangor that live in these historic neighborhoods, so they at least have an idea of what these character defining features are, what it is that we're looking at when we're looking at a historic home beyond age. Yeah, and until we have that, we're [2:03:53] Speaker L (unidentified): trying to do those meetings with the applicants beforehand, which was helpful in this case, and I, and I think Mike said in that meeting that the character defining feature in this case was the stained glass window. So we gave you that information then. I mean, I don't know. [2:04:09] Speaker H (unidentified): Again, I go back to my question of when you asked about whether it was important for us to address. [2:04:15] Speaker I (unidentified): I was just a question. [2:04:16] Speaker L (unidentified): I wanted Mike to address because it was just a question. [2:04:19] Speaker H (unidentified): I can't tell from the ordinance when we need to do that. I can't tell from the ordinance, does my building at 9799 Broadway with a slate roof, is that character defining for that building or simply the brick facade? [2:04:34] Speaker L (unidentified): That's why we had the meeting, so we can have that conversation. The other thing, yeah. [2:04:39] Speaker H (unidentified): I don't need to have a meeting. I need to have an ordinance that says whether it's character defining. [2:04:42] Speaker J (unidentified): Rick, the other place you might find some really good guidance, since you own a historic building, is the city had several surveys done, architectural surveys. There's documented information about your property on Broadway of Steve's as well. There's karma forms that were created that are available, the digital forms that are available through MHPC on all the properties surveyed in Bangor, and there were hundreds of houses and buildings that were reviewed. So if you want to learn more about your property and what's important about it, I would suggest [2:05:17] Speaker H (unidentified): you read an ordinance that tells me what's expected and this one doesn't. [2:05:21] Speaker J (unidentified): Well, the more you know your building, the more you know your historic building, the better you're going to have make an application to come forward to the commission and get the review that you expect. [2:05:35] Speaker L (unidentified): The other thing is this is only the first round of changes. changes, there's a lot more extensive things we need to do that provide those guidelines that you're wanting. It's just going to take a lot of time. So we're going to do a second round later this year that incorporates those things. And we'll implement those guidelines about what is character defining in there. [2:05:54] Speaker I (unidentified): One of the things I'm worried about is the exact thing that you're asking for. If we are as specific as you are asking for, that doesn't let us be kinder, right? If we're as specific as you're asking for we don't have any play to be looser with the rules whereas it there's no way that we could be as specific as you're asking for and still have give [2:06:23] Peter Keebler: in how we if the ordinance was so clear about the character the defining aspect of those stained glass windows we wouldn't have any latitude to suggest anything else and [2:06:37] Nathaniel King: Also to the what we look at as character defining features, you know, some of that tends to change with the age of the buildings and the different historic districts, if they're contributing property or not. Like the districts you live in, the character defining features aren't going to change, but there are instances where, you know, as things become, it could become hit that 50 year mark. So that is 2026, so 1976 buildings are hitting that 50-year mark. If we don't have wiggle room as new buildings get into this historic period, we start having to judge them if we expand, you know, the expand these historic districts, create new historic districts or whatever. If our, if our code is so specific that it says, well, you have to look at a roof with this pitch, windows that have this, doors that have this, doorknobs that have this, then we're not going to be able, we're going to come back to the table, we're going to have to redo a whole new code, we're going to have to redo a lot more things. Some of this stuff changes. We have a little bit of wiggle room. It gives us that op, that ability to take an application in on its own merits, look at it, listen to, listen to Mike's comments and decide, hey, is this something that's going to work, is this something that's not going to work. Look, they came with a like material for their roof, it matches the secretary standards, hey, that's great, we have the wiggle room in the code, we should make that work. It's better for the applicant and everyone wins. If it's super specific where it says that we can't do that, or we have to do a, b or c, and you come in with d, then by a specific code we can't do a, b or c. [2:08:09] Speaker H (unidentified): I'm, I'm all for looking the same, but when you throw in material in place of composition and [2:08:16] Nathaniel King: and I, and I understand that, I mean, and that's what we're going to try to hammer out with this. I understand where you're coming from with the materials. I'm looking at it at a different way than you're looking at it, because I'm not a home, or I am a homeowner, but I'm not a historic home owner. This is just the first round, so we're, we'll work through some of that. I'm not [2:08:35] Speaker F (unidentified): what you've been out of shape is this or, and so this draft ordinance in the back is these the sort of changes that you and the group you're working with, that's what we put together [2:08:45] Speaker H (unidentified): back in the fall when we were dealing with the roof issue. And we asked to be notified and involved of future changes because I think, I mean, the other issue that we have, which I guess isn't an ordinance amendment, is there are roofs, there are windows and various other alterations that have been done to properties within historic districts that certainly haven't had certificates of appropriateness, and those people seem to get by quite well and do what they want. That's that's one option. The other option, and take a ride up Hayward Street, take a ride up Broadway to see people that just let their properties deteriorate so that at some point they'll either tear them down or come to you for a demolition certificate. Most of us who own historic properties don't want to do that. [2:09:58] Speaker F (unidentified): Just bring this up because a lot of what is discussed in this ordinance, in this draft ordinance that is being put forward, actually does the does it actually does more of what our fellow commissioners are talking about, where it is making it looser and more subjective, where be visually compatible as possible is significantly more subjective than matching in composition, design, texture, and finish, or it is a much broader term. And generally, it's also like- [2:10:36] Speaker H (unidentified): I would respectfully disagree with that because I go back, to Mike's Mike's request about vinyl windows, because when we had this discussion a week or so ago, he said, well, the because we've approved vinyl windows in the past doesn't mean that any old vinyl windows will do, and I agree with that. I agree with that. It's pretty easy to look at something visually and see that it has the SDLs, to see how much glass is exposed, or if you're losing any glass. That's stuff that's pretty easy to figure out. What I can't figure out is when you say, well, in this case, yeah, we gotta have slate or we gotta have wooden windows. That's the problem that we have. That's the starting point. [2:11:31] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, I suppose it's the relative balance, the relative emphasis on what is more important, of materials or texture or whatever, versus just what you have in this draft or in series, just visually, what is the thing, when looking at it from the specifically from the street, what does it look like, what does it look like, have that as the guiding stand. I mean, that's what we were [2:11:52] Speaker H (unidentified): talking about with the same class windows. Yeah, Rick, I think you just made a really [2:11:59] Speaker J (unidentified): Good point about a case-by-case basis by saying bringing it to the attention that oftentimes the vinyl windows don't provide the same characteristics that the ones that were presented tonight do. So for this handful of approvals that you cite here, there may have been two dozen that were denied. Did you look at the denials for people that came with vinyl windows and didn't get approved? I [2:12:26] Speaker H (unidentified): didn't find any. Didn't find any. We actually had one last year. To put it bluntly, the records for historic preservation suck. Well, they probably only keep them for 10 years. Well, record keeping prior [2:12:41] Peter Keebler: to a certain point in time wasn't great. So I mean, there's go back two years and there's a whole [2:12:46] Speaker H (unidentified): bunch of stuff missing. So we couldn't find it on most stuff. So this is just looking at our [2:12:52] Speaker I (unidentified): our requirement for applicable provisions and findings, part two, section three, where it says repair is preferable to replacement in the event that replacement of deteriorated architectural features is necessary. Is that perhaps part of the reason that some of these places were approved and some of them were not, that the level of deterioration on the case-by-case basis was different and that might have been reflective [2:13:21] Nathaniel King: perspective of whether or not these. I can say I've been on, I've been on this Commission since 2020 and I am brand new. Yeah, so I'm thinking back. I know there have been various reasons why we have, why applications have not passed, from a wide gauntlet of, you know, the applicant initially come forward with windows that were not appropriate in size or the features, the muttons or the number over numbers weren't, weren't right, all the way to, well, these windows were one color in 1910, now you're trying to do them in a different color. It's been like that since 1980. Well, we didn't, the whole big thing about that. So there's been a wide range of reasons why they have been, I guess, not approved. Okay, but typically all of the ones that weren't approved, it was, it was initially because what they, the applicant had brought forward didn't have enough detail or what they were asking to do did not match what the character defining futures were that were laid out by architect's recommendation. All right, advisor's recommendation and for those [2:14:37] Speaker I (unidentified): Those which have been done without a certificate of appropriateness, that would be based on, we would only know about that if we received code complaints. That is outside my schoolhouse. I'll pass it on. You? Yes, the answer is yes. Okay, so that gives you the opportunity, if you'd like, you can make code complaints on your neighbors, but any interest in doing that? So, question though. [2:15:02] Peter Keebler: Are you asking for an ordinance that is so specific that says that all window replacements should be vinyl? I am. It sounds like you're against original materials. First [2:15:17] Speaker H (unidentified): of all, if we're dealing with windows, I think somebody would be an idiot to try to put in wood windows to some of these houses. I've done it. Okay, yeah, but again, I get back to what are we trying to do? Are we trying to look at stuff that is going to last? Are we going, are we looking at stuff that is more efficient? And if there is a basis not to require or to require identical materials, please tell us [2:16:05] Peter Keebler: what it is, but this doesn't, this doesn't say there's a requirement for that. [2:16:10] Nathaniel King: Well, I think what, I think what Rick's getting at is they want to be able to know before they make, they come in with the application, right? Yeah, which I know the meetings, I think this was one of the earliest times we've done the meetings with where you met with them to sort of talk that through, and I understand [2:16:28] Speaker H (unidentified): you don't want to have to do that every time. I want a consultant to have, I want to be able to read the ordinance and know what I'm expected to do, because that's what ordinances are required to [2:16:37] Speaker L (unidentified): do. Can I, can I just make a point? For planning board meetings, the planning code is even more like straightforward than this, but we still require pre-application meetings with people to let them know the permitting requirements. It makes it more straightforward for them. [2:16:53] Speaker H (unidentified): I understand, I understand. I've done this with lots of planning boards all over the state, but I can go through an ordinance for a subdivision, and I can check off on my own with my own consultants, with my own advisors, whether I've met this and this and this. I can't do that with this ordinance. [2:17:19] Speaker L (unidentified): There are parts of even subdivision where the planning board can insert their judgment to say, we want you to do this. We want you to provide, say, a connecting road to go up here, or we want the open space to be located over here, because they're a quasi-judicial commission same [2:17:36] Peter Keebler: as this commission. They have judgment. Do it is because it's spelled out in the ordinance. [2:17:41] Speaker L (unidentified): Yes, they but they can insert judgment on some that's not because it's not clear-cut. In all cases, it's their job to provide that judgment in these cases because they're quasi-judicial. I mean, it can't be black and white. [2:18:00] Peter Keebler: I would make the comment that I think Mr. Farron's application tonight did exactly what you said you wanted to do, which is to know what to address with the application, right? Isn't that what you're saying? And I thought the application was an excellent application, even to the point of identifying the things that you had discussed with Mike, a particular issue, the stained glass window and the shape and the other things, et cetera. And you are thoughtful of providing a process of you'd be willing as an applicant to accept one or the other. But you identified those issues that were clearly and stated in your application presentation, specifically the ordinances that you were meeting and why. [2:18:49] Speaker H (unidentified): Following that, we still didn't have an answer. Oh, we're talking about tonight. No, following the meeting. Oh, that meeting. Okay. All right. We still did not have an answer as to whether or not there was going to be any issue regarding wood versus vinyl. I did not was it didn't become an issue. He says well they'll [2:19:16] Speaker J (unidentified): have to tell you when you get there. Yeah, that's exactly right and major application. [2:19:22] Speaker H (unidentified): And then my question would be on what basis would you have told us that's unacceptable to come to a meeting where I don't know that in advance so I can address it? [2:19:37] Peter Keebler: I don't think any ordinance is going to be able to provide that specific information for each property that may come in front of this commission. I don't see how it would unless you make a blanket statement that's authentic materials are okay. Is that what you're asking for? That's better than [2:19:54] Speaker H (unidentified): what you got. Oh not knowing again Steven his initial request on his slate roof didn't provide the economic hardship arguments. He mentioned how expensive it was and that he couldn't find anybody but basically he came in with the idea that this is what I'm proposing and I have a very difficult time conceiving how his roof could be such a significant architectural element of his house versus a church that has a very steep roof, which is visible to everybody that now has screw down metal on it that was approved. That's the stuff I can't understand. Is there have been numerous others and I you know like there's one on the corner of Pond and Hayward that has that has metal slate facsimile and again I don't know. Was that a critical element or whatever the appropriate element term is? I don't know. And there's going to be some way to figure out before you come to the board and be declined. [2:21:29] Speaker L (unidentified): I offer something. I just want to read the secretary standard first. It says the new future will match the old and design color texture and where possible materials. So, first of all, I would suggest I can, instead of saying the new material should match the material being replaced, I would say the new future should match the future being replaced in color, design, texture, and other visual qualities. We don't currently say in our ordinance that it should match in materials, even though the Secretary of Standards says this. So, what I can do is reach out to the State Commission again and say, since we already don't include that provision in here, is it okay if we just scratch that last piece? Will we still be... [2:22:17] Peter Keebler: How does that make it not still the Commission's decision about approving the application? I mean, I guess my point is that the application comes in asking for papier-mâché, you know, versus mahogany wood, if we don't say anything about materials, it's still going to be what we're going to have to approve one way or another. I mean, I'm just not sure how it really helps us to say that. Having saying that when possible to maintain material is, in my view, philosophically following the direction of trying to maintain historic preservation, which is kind of what we're supposed to be all about, I thought. Well we're supposed to I mean when appropriate and feasible technically etc I mean it may be that there at the future will never be anything but synthetic available well I may or may not be the [2:23:12] Nathaniel King: case today and that's what we have to we have to decide and there are as things progress we are going to have more synthetic materials but there are going to be things that we have to be open to we can't say well we're never going to use synthetic materials we're never going to use [2:23:27] Speaker F (unidentified): anything other than windows says that I would say personally make the decisions that the at least the tenor of what a playing officer Colette is talking about where you don't specifically require it has to be the exact same anyway but what we're trying to aim for is that it looks in a similar that looks in a similar way that it has that has the similar design as the similar design elements and coloring and historic features that made it important that made people want to preserve it in the First place, and that is the critical thing. More, and that is the critical thing, that is the thing that is more important than specifically what sound you make when you knock on that. And so having that as the guiding, having that as more the guiding standard, like what we're trying to talk about here is again, when people think about projects, when products come before us, there are a lot of different considerations. There's, there's historic authenticity, there's the aesthetic value, there's the efficiency, the eco, there's efficiency, there's the economic, there's like the economic, again we're talking about economic hardship, the resilient, the resilience of the property, that like whether it will continue to have this beauty for the into the future. And that is all of these are often competing considerations, and this is what we're talking about here is to what extent should we emphasize each consideration, and we should make it clear what is emphasized, and we should make it clear [2:25:09] Peter Keebler: what people should be concerned about. It sounds like you're discounting what the underlying material is as being not important to the quality of what it looks like or feels like, etc. And I can tell you if you look at any vinyl fence, it doesn't look like a wood fence. Yeah, no, what I'm saying is [2:25:27] Speaker F (unidentified): that it's not the central, that it's not such a thing like replacing it with the like material [2:25:33] Peter Keebler: is important. Where does it say here that's a central thing and that there is no wiggle [2:25:37] Speaker F (unidentified): room? I think that's what exactly what this says. It is the, it's where possible, it's that's where, that's where the emphasis, that's where the emphasis is. It's where it is that the default should be always to replace, always to keep it in the exact, in the exact fault is as you read [2:25:59] Peter Keebler: is to repair instead of replace of it all possible, which maintains every aspect of the original structure of whatever you're doing. Yeah, it's, I mean, we're talking about [2:26:11] Speaker F (unidentified): revising the council's, the ordinance, like the basically we're talking about, we're talking about amend, like clarifying what we want this commission to be. I think it's, I think it is important that we have that discussion of relative emphasis, about whether it does, about what we talk a lot about, whether the replacement, like what makes a, is the discussion we have here all about [2:26:36] Peter Keebler: those things directly as we're discussing any applicants process that's coming in, I say [2:26:43] Speaker F (unidentified): yeah, it is a, I think it's an important thing to talk, it is priority in our discussion what we [2:26:50] Peter Keebler: Think is the most important thing for the specific case that's there. In some cases it may be more of a material issue, in some cases may be more form. I think it's reasonable to want clarity on what's [2:27:03] Speaker F (unidentified): important. How are you going to make that clarity? I well I mean through the exact through exactly what we were talking about here, like specifically taught on specifically talking about the what is important is the so is this sort of like you know the what you're talking the vision you're talking about what is important is what it most probably like what it looks like how what like how similar it is in rather in look and finish as opposed to like specifically saying it has to be the same material I thought that depends on the situation [2:27:45] Peter Keebler: and what you have and the material itself is a seminal aspect of its appearance yeah and you [2:27:52] Speaker F (unidentified): don't have to specifically say the word material to get it and it does constrain and I think it does lead to pretty constraint like a lot of constraint if we specifically put in the word material because then we're talking because then we spend a bunch of time talking about whether the gutter the gutter should really should be cypress wood and then before it cuts before you know someone cuts and said you literally can't they literally don't make it [2:28:17] Peter Keebler: like that anymore that's the technically not feasible aspect it's easily dealt with so I think [2:28:22] Speaker I (unidentified): a way that we could do this with the writing is we could in fact put a colon after replaced in and then list one design two texture three color four or sorry three other visual qualities [2:28:45] Peter Keebler: So if you're going to rank, you're going to have to then put a relative weight to each of those things, which is an impossible thing to do. That's the point. We cannot have ordinances that are so detailed that don't allow for the interpretive aspects of what we need to do and determining what is a priority for any given situation. [2:29:04] Speaker I (unidentified): situation we don't necessarily have to say 25 this 50 this just having them in the order that we find is the priority at this moment for what we think this commission is don't think I can agree to an order that would be universal that's fair I think that would be a difficult conversation and we probably could philosophically wax poetically for like several hours and then having the [2:29:31] Peter Keebler: discussion do what it's supposed to do and each time us to have the discussion and come to a consensus to the degree we can and vote with a majority to say what is going to be appropriate [2:29:43] Speaker I (unidentified): For that situation, and also if we did do that and we did frank priorities, that might become a difficulty for a future commission that might have a different composition and might have slightly different priorities. And we need to, well, which is, yeah, that's, which is the problem. [2:30:02] Peter Keebler: Yeah, I agree with this order. I think number seven is the most important for my problem, I mean. [2:30:07] Speaker F (unidentified): at least then it'd be in writing and then they know what and then they know what 's what the changing priorities are specifically so what do you think Nate I think is we've gone [2:30:19] Nathaniel King: gone too far down the rabbit hole on what the meaning of the word is, and what we need to do is I think have Anya do another attempt. Let's take their comments into effect. Let's see what we can do with the language that we have here. Let's see if we can make something that's a little bit better, something that they might like, we were okay with, and that MHPC isn't going to get a lot of heartburn over, because ultimately, you know, we can change whatever we want, but if mhpc says it's not up to snuff, I don't know we're going to really be able to do much, personally. I [2:30:53] Speaker I (unidentified): really appreciated what you said about going back to, oh gosh, who was it that you said you were [2:30:59] Nathaniel King: going to contact? I mean, yeah, I think that's great. So mhpc is the main historic preservation commission, that's the governing body for the state and historic preservation, everything from architecture, archaeology, historic districts, all that sort of stuff, things. Awesome. I would add [2:31:15] Speaker J (unidentified): to that, your commission is a certified local government, that sets you to a higher standard review, and all of our ordinances need to be reviewed and approved by mhpc. Yeah, so but what's [2:31:28] Nathaniel King: important that we get, we do need to remember, is that this community group is a consulting party in this, and they have a vested interest in this, so that we do need to make sure that we are listening [2:31:37] Peter Keebler: to them, that we are trying to take their concerns. I totally agree with that, you know, I totally agree. [2:31:42] Nathaniel King: I think what Anya has suggested in trying to sort of dice this back up and let's try it again, I think that's okay. Awesome. Moving on from that specific section, were there any other concerns with any of the other spots or on end you have? [2:32:06] Speaker L (unidentified): I think those were really the main things. Again, up top in 148-9, I did just insert for clarity to take into consideration economic technical feasibility, just because that's what the secretary says that you should do, so yeah, okay, if there are [2:32:29] Nathaniel King: No other comments for the draft ordinance changes. We will move on to the other business, which is follow-up from previous meetings. Says staff will follow up with commissioners on some of the requests for assistance at previous meetings, such as draft social media posts on historic preservation? [2:32:47] Speaker L (unidentified): Yeah, I just had to ask the commission before to help us draft content for social media posts for historic preservation education. Thank you, Yasemin. And so I just wanted to see if anybody's done that. [2:33:01] Peter Keebler: I have not, I've meant to, but I haven't gotten to it, I apologize. It's okay. [2:33:05] Nathaniel King: If you can get me some sort of month, if we can figure out affinity months, if those are still a thing and what we are doing in Bangor, we can probably tie some of that to historic preservation. What is that? Sorry, like affinity months? I don't know if those are still thinking like February's African-American history month. Oh, October's main archaeology month. Okay, you know, preservation month, preservation month, yeah, stuff like that. We can throw the other social media posts on that. Yeah, even be something as simple as maybe on Mike's coffee break from the office, he could stand in front of an old building and you talk about it on, you know, Facebook Live or something. Yes, but no, I've in other commission members that maybe understand social media. I'm looking at YouTube, social media. You're smarter than me, you know. I'm on social media too, a little too much, too [2:34:01] Speaker I (unidentified): much liability in it, I think. The last time I posted on social media, it was because it was my [2:34:06] Speaker L (unidentified): job. I mean, you guys don't have to post it, we just need the content. Yeah, we just want to highlight, you know, cool tidbits about the historic districts and sites in Bangor, and we could, you know, do something about characters finding features. So well, I will make the comment that [2:34:23] Peter Keebler: I think this discussion is actually extremely fruitful. Okay, I think having, you know, the comment about including those folks in our discussion, we, this is an open meeting, we should be including any resident of Bangor has issues and interests. [2:34:39] Nathaniel King: Well, yeah. And technically when you're doing like a consultation at the federal level for any sort of historic preservation things, you have to identify, part of the process is identifying all of the consulting parties and contributing parties, those contributing parties or anybody that has a vested interest, historic societies and the project you're working on, things like that. Sure. The ones that you have a requirement to consult with tribes and other state agencies, these things like that in our, what we're doing here, neighborhood groups are an important group for us to take in, take accounts. I agree, comments, and also I didn't want to seem like we were trying to be dismissive of what they were trying to say, because they do have some valid points, but it's just we've got to find that balance. So I agree, but moving on from that, the next item on the agenda is to discuss the next special meeting date, potential date for the next special meetings are July 23rd or 30th, and staff will discuss the best date with commissioners. [2:35:43] Peter Keebler: Who's are these all Thursdays? Okay, that's like for me it's kind of far out. I know, yeah, no, it's actually not far enough out. [2:35:53] Speaker F (unidentified): Wait, is July, sorry, you said it was July 23rd or 30th? Yes, okay, I will not be able to do the 30th. [2:35:59] Nathaniel King: Okay, that's good enough. As far as I know, I'm available for both of them. Okay, I have no life. [2:36:05] Peter Keebler: My life is historic preservation. Okay, I think I'm available for either, so I don't have anything that's pointing out that I couldn't be. I will say too that I do think these special meetings are important for us. I think there's been a little bit of a shift in the in the commission towards looking at strategically what we should be doing and providing as what we're, how we're doing it, address the inconsistencies we have. I mean, I think that there are things that were approved 10 years ago that might not be approved today with how we look at things differently. That is true, but also the issue of precedence, Peter, to go back to your, you know, issue of wanting to be consistent, and I appreciate that. I've had that same discussion about consistency and what we look at in conflict of interest for that matter. Well, and those will be good things to talk about, right, and I think good things for the future. Yeah, saying I think we're having a, I think this is [2:37:08] Nathaniel King: a good that we're doing this. I think it's, I think it's good too. I think what will also be great is getting home. Yes, both of the states, that's fine. I feel bad for our city partners. Thank you. Yes, we're very grateful that I am, but I think you said you can't do the 30th. I think we shoot for the 23rd, everyone. Yeah, that works, shoot for the 23rd on you July. Yeah, okay, hopefully there'll be no other business in that meeting, but yeah, this stuff, this was just sort of a fluke, but if there are no other items to discuss, talk about, yell at me about, then I'll use my one power and [2:37:50] Peter Keebler: Adjourn. I do want to thank legal counsel for being here. This was a help.