Bangor HPC denies certificate for 62 High Street trim repair

[0:36] Speaker A (unidentified): Oh so you've got yeah it would be nice so are you starting yes all right so we are live. [0:45] Nathaniel King: So the first thing we do have to do is election of the officers so I will do the chair and then the chair hold you in the vice chair so how that works is we just take nominations anybody family anybody whoever is nominated you can accept or decline the nomination and is anybody want to nominate anyone I [1:12] Speaker C (unidentified): would like to nominate nate king for jay [1:17] Nathaniel King: I accept okay any other nominations okay so we will do a roll call vote so I believe it's just regular members that vote for the officers so Becca do you want to go first yes okay Matthew associate I'm sorry I'm sorry [1:45] Speaker C (unidentified): I got mixed up Peter is not one yet it's right there -oh we need three we should be good [1:55] Nathaniel King: yeah oh they are yes oh wow okay yep so remember sax yes okay and remember yes okay All right. And do you two wanna introduce yourselves since you don't know the rest of the commission? I probably should have started with that, sorry. [2:15] Peter James Sachs: Hello, nice to meet you all. My name is Peter James Sachs. [2:21] Katie Coe: Hi, nice to meet you all, I'm Katie Ko. [2:25] Nathaniel King: Okay, so then it's in your hands to run the rest or the vice chair and then the rest of the meeting. Cool. So do I need to read off all of this before we elect the vice chair [2:43] Speaker G (unidentified): or do I need to proceed with just go ahead and do the vice chair and then you can read that okay [2:47] Nathaniel King: I nominate Rebecca as the vice chair yes anyone else have a nomination or wants the thumb wrestle okay I would say we do a roll call vote so we'll do a roll call vote starting with Katie yes [3:11] Speaker H (unidentified): Yes. Yes. Yes. I [3:16] Speaker G (unidentified): don't think so. I mean, well, you can vote for yourself. [3:19] Nathaniel King: Okay, I'll defer to Dave. Yes. All right. Thank you. Good evening, and welcome to the January 8th, 2,026 meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission. My name is Nathaniel King, chair of the Commission. The Commission members are, to my left, your right, Katie Coe, Peter Sachs, Matthew Whitecamp, Rebecca Krupke, Peter Keebler, and then our architectural consultant, Mike Bolling, city solicitor, Dave Sevchik, thank you, and planning officer, Anya Cullen. So, I will give an explanation of the Historic Preservation Commission. 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 downtown and waterfront areas of Bangor. Second, the Commission has several responsibilities under the Historic Preservation Section of City Ordinances Section 148, including issuing certificates of appropriateness for construction of or changes to buildings within the City's designated historic districts. 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 that there are a total of five votes for any motion. Historic preservation applications must receive four affirmative votes for a certificate of appropriateness to be issued. Design review applications must receive three affirmative votes for approval. So the order of the meeting will be as follows. I will call the applicants in the order they appear on the agenda. When I call your project, I will ask you to present your application from the podium. Once you have made your presentation, I will first ask for the consultants report, second for questions from the Commission members, and third for any questions or comments from the audience. When questions are completed, the Commission will have a discussion of the proposal and the standards of review under which the proposal is being considered. 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. I will then ask for Commission member votes. Some final points for applicants before the HBC. See if it looks like 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 to be made and approved prior to starting your project. Okay, so with that, we have one, two, three, four regular commission members present, so we have enough, so we do not need to have the [7:13] Speaker G (unidentified): associate members vote. Okay, we're doing, we have that five. Oh, so actually reading the bylaws [7:20] Nathaniel King: You can select one of the associate members to be voting on the matter tonight, so you haven't voted [7:27] Nathaniel King: in a while. Sure. Are you okay? All right, so then we will have Matthew White camp as a voting member for tonight's agenda. Before I get into the old business, is there any new anything that needs to be added to the agenda? Is there any new business anyone would like to bring forward? Okay, yes. [7:53] Speaker I (unidentified): At our last meeting we did have some discussion regarding the meetings that we're having and what their frequency should be and what potential agendas may be appropriate. For example, if we had a second meeting in a month, we had talked about one meeting for applications and one meeting to discuss the sort of the business of the committee and strategic planning for the committee. And I don't know if that needs to be as an agenda item, but I think that's something I would like to have us discuss tonight and decide whether we're going [8:28] Nathaniel King: to make a change or not. Okay, so will we move forward by adding that as new business at the end of the meeting or and add it under other business? Okay. Anyone else? Okay, so on the agenda we will first proceed with old business. I would entertain a motion for approval of the meeting minutes from December 11th, 2025, which was postponed, so we don't have any meeting minutes. All right, I should probably read ahead. So then now we will move on to the certificate of appropriateness, 62 High Street, map lot 042-102, High Street Historic District, applicant Tyler Smith, owner Gilpin Holdings LLC. Approval is requested for a certificate of appropriateness for the removal of rotted trim boards and replacement with white PVC boards. Property is located at map lot 042-102 in the High Street Historic District. If you all would please approach the podium and let's get it on. Hello. [9:44] Louis Morrison: My name is Louis Morrison and I'm representing Gilpin Holdings, the owner, and Tyler Smith, the contractor. And I don't have much of a presentation, maybe a little bit of backstory about the property. Actually, Mike will give us a much better backstory of the property. But as far as my work in the property is that I represented the buyer in the transaction as a real estate broker, also a business partner. And basically, you know, the trim around this building has been falling off for years and years. When we went and looked at the building originally, it sat on the market for about a year before we purchased it. And we went and looked at it, let's say this time last year, probably. Went up into the in the in the building is mainly housing voucher program low-income housing excuse me which is great we're big advocates for that. We go up into the attic of this property which was pretty wide open and open to the common areas and basically it was more living up there for squirrels dozens and dozens and dozens of squirrels and other rodents that you can see sometimes downtown so it kind of turned us away from it a little bit. We waited probably two three months went back looked at the building again and said where Zach is the right guy for this property he's he's bought 50 60 properties in Bangor the last five years has fixed them up everything from black-hearted houses to big complexes has done amazing things in here I knew he was the right person for the building now I'm an old guy he's a young investor I had to talk him into I promise you this is a this is the type of building you want to get into we didn't at the time when we looked at it know that it was historic but whether you know that's not neither here nor there the upstairs was in rough shape, but we knew we could do the right things to fix it. So anyways, revisited it, put it under contract in February of 2024. Wasn't able to close till March. I mean, it was a $1.55 million project. So it takes a little bit of, sucking up to the bank to, allow you to buy a property that old for that much money. And our first order of business and promise to them was to also make sure that it was much more tightened up than it had been for the past who knows how many years and really the only thing that was wrong that was the rotted trim all four sides you know allowing rodents to get in so that is why we need to do this and have as you probably know have done it within a week after closing on it so we're asking for permission to do what we've already done [12:49] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay thank you can I ask a quick question I'm sorry absolutely is that Zach that is okay hi yeah [13:16] Speaker H (unidentified): Okay here it is all [13:21] Nathaniel King: Right if we could go ahead and go ahead I just so I guess [13:26] Tyler Smith: To piggyback on what Louis said I would add two things what was there for existing trim I was there when Tyler did the work and it was rotted to the point where he wasn't removing it with like tools and hammers he was literally just grabbing it and it was like rotting away with his hand I think the pictures that Louis sent over will you'll be able to see that in the pictures and then secondly when we were standing in the attic you could see light coming in from the [13:57] Louis Morrison: outside so it wasn't like i guess not just light you could actually physically probably put a [14:02] Tyler Smith: person through somebody yeah so i guess i say that just try and emphasize how bad of condition [14:10] Louis Morrison: that portion of the building was in when we were looking in the pictures that i did reproduce last week even those were that property sat on the mark of 243 days before we were able to close on it so those pictures were taken at least 250 days earlier than that through a whole nother winter i mean it was you know i'm not trying to get away with anything it was really bad and dangerous you know and surprisingly i don't know how much longer the city would have allowed low-income housing to even be in there as unsafe as it was gotcha thank you very much you're welcome [14:42] Nathaniel King: thanks dad all right can we get the consultant's report thank [14:47] Speaker L (unidentified): you louis good job sending that project i hope you all have access to the packet that was sent out on this because i attached the national register nomination paperwork for you all to look at yes so this house is historic both as listed individually on the national register of historic places in 1978 and it's a part of the high street historic district which encompasses that and the hill house across the street and pretty much all the way up louis to hammond street [15:26] Louis Morrison: can i interrupt you for one second i one thing i did mean to put in my speech which i don't really have a speech but was that i love that you mentioned the high street historical district and i see that you guys are holding the meeting and i hope a lot of people attend to get some more clarity on historical i don't know who put that together but thank you because that's we need that so bad you know some of these young investors like this property the second he closed on it he handed it right over to a management company to you know so that we could focus on the building and those historical things just go nobody knows so we'd love to have you guys both oh we're going to be there we're the only two trying to bring everybody that should know that you guys are here for us not against us it's for realtors and developers [16:11] Speaker L (unidentified): Absolutely, yeah, but yeah, let me give a brief report. First of all, it is after the fact the improvements were made, and we'll talk about the design and the issues of the cornice and how the cornice gets profiled. But I wanted to read just a little blurb from the National Register listing. This is written by Earl Shuttleworth. You may have all remembered Earl. Used to be our state historic preservation officer. He's now retired, but that doesn't mean he isn't still working hard every day. They refer to this as the General John Williams House, and I'll explain why. Above the door of this is actually, I think, a cast iron plaque that says Mason House 1820. I think it's above the header, the lintel coming in the house, but they refer to it as the John Williams House, who's an important general. It says it was built between 1822 and 1825, even though it says 1820 above the door will go within that area. It's a solid two and a half story west facing building of brick and granite trim in the Federal style. This is unique. One of the, I think this was cited as being very likely Bangor's first or oldest brick building that still exists in Bangor. So it's, it's an important historic place. It was known locally as the Mason House because from 1835 to 1955 the Mason family lived there, 120 years this family lived within this house. I understand it is now multi-family or apartment like structure, but yeah, I think it's eight, is it eight in that one? [18:00] Louis Morrison: Six, two together kind of came as a package. It's 22 units total though. [18:07] Speaker L (unidentified): So it's almost certainly the oldest brick house residence in Bangor, listed in the National Register in 1979, and the black and white photo which was part of the package, you can find that photograph, what that, what that shows us pretty clearly, this was in the days before it got in worse condition over time. This was 1978. And what it shows pretty clearly, Lou, is that there was a cornice, a gutter system that ran along the front and probably in the back too. And then there were downspouts on either end of the building. That's important as a feature. What's been put up on the building now is basically the blank, solid single board that would receive the gutter system onto it. So the gutter system that I can see here is profile. It's called an OG or a K-style. That's a K-style, which is the most common gutter profile. And it returns as a boxed condition at each end of the gable. You can see on that photograph as well that there's actually a boxed return, we call it. Do you have a copy of this picture? [19:21] Louis Morrison: I've looked at it. I don't. I'd like to take a look forward. You don't mind. [19:25] Speaker L (unidentified): yeah oh sorry yeah thank you so I think my point is what's been put up is really the base for what a little bit of more completed work will improve and so if I could just read you my notes sorry I [19:44] Louis Morrison: didn't know if you guys got that or not I probably any emails and stuff I did but I didn't I don't have a printout for that yet so my points are and i'll just read them off and i did see i don't want to sorry to keep you know you might you know i'll forget i did read that part you wrote and i was thinking how does he think that middle gutter looks good because the middle gutter looks horrible and it was never even attached but in that picture it's at just on the ends right which we would love to put right there's back right yes although the place it does sit kind of on a hill and then the water just goes well but yes yeah i think on each ends would be appropriate these ones in the in the new picture these aren't the old gutters those were pieces of aluminum somebody just stuck up to that probably because the other ones rotted and fell off like the one on the left-hand side that you know probably so again as shown in that black [20:34] Speaker L (unidentified): and white photo that's a part of your app application or the materials for review the original details of the even right trim included the profile gutters with the returns at the gable ends of the house profile the gutters was the classic og as i said the return of the gutters matching those removed will significantly reduce the eve trim scale right now you've got a big blank board it's a modern detail for a house that's extremely historic sure so what i'm recommending in my review is that we return og style or k style gutter along there and downspouts at each opposite end of the building the re and the rake trim originally was two piece not a single piece of trim apply the rake trim is the trim that goes up on the rake of the house which is the gable ends so that's up to the commission what's been put on there now is a single piece i think it would actually now be clumsy to try to put a second piece on there [21:33] Louis Morrison: so i'm not gonna you could almost slice it but it would look well you the problem is the roof edge [21:38] Speaker L (unidentified): Edge the drip edge along that side comes right out to the face of that. It'd be hard to improve. So that's for the commission to discuss. So and the added benefit of this is not just the integrity of the historic building, but the real added benefit is that it manages the roof water and it keeps it from sheeting over the brick face of the buildings, which would freeze and crack the bricks and cause all kinds of future problems. So and it also gets the water away from the building and the foundation. And it makes things much safer. So those are the essence of my comments. [22:13] Louis Morrison: I just want to add if we can, because we would love to add gutters and remove shutters. Those are not original. No way are those original, right? We would make that a separate application, I know, but I just, I mean, who did, you know, somebody did that in the 80s and that doesn't belong on that brick building, but we haven't touched them. They originally had shutters like those ones, not though, not, I don't know what they are now. Those are vinyl green that, yeah, I know they look black, it's hard. [22:42] Speaker L (unidentified): To tell from this photo, but they also were on the gable ends. Nevermind, they were ugly. Well, it's most important the front facade of the building, the gable ends, the return sides don't have shutters now. They did at one time, apparently, but I guess we could add that's, it's separate, yes, I hear you, not even on the application. So you really asked for a, this application was really to review the front. True. So those are my comments, Nate. [23:12] Nathaniel King: Thank you. Okay, so now we'll open it up to the commission for questions. I. [23:23] Speaker I (unidentified): Have a question, sort of clarification. What we have before us, then, is an application for after-the-fact approval of what's been done. However, as Mike has been suggesting, from a historic perspective, it may be appropriate to have something additional done. Your application does not include that additional work, correct? So from the standpoint of, I just want to clarify what we're discussing is an approval for what has been done, not what has been discussed could be done in the future to make it more. Historic. I just want to be clear about that. Yes. Okay, but I think that. [23:59] Louis Morrison: Would be a different application anyways, because what we'd be putting on would be a new modern gutter system than this anyway. So we'll and we'll definitely apply for that. I. [24:11] Nathaniel King: Was just going to say if there are alterations that you all think could help you vote in favor of this, you can ask them to come back with a change to their application. I don't know that they would have to reapply. I think they could just come forward with a change to this. I would prefer to [24:31] Louis Morrison: finish this part, okay, because there's a lot of other things on that building and 22, the one beside it, including a lot of slate work and stuff that we want to do, but we want to ask [24:41] Nathaniel King: for permission. So just mean if you all feel like you're not going to vote in favor of it because you're voting on if you feel like you can't approve it because of the way it is now, and you wanted to vote, you know, on an alteration, it's just an option. So thank you. [24:59] Speaker M (unidentified): Matt, Peter, Lou, I have a question for you. When you approached this project and you were looking at it, was there an aluminum gutter on the building at that time, or was that, there was [25:13] Louis Morrison: bits and pieces of old what looked to be like a slash yankee gutters, like rotten, but no loom. There were, there was aluminum downspouts. I wouldn't call it remnants. Yeah, it was like a trim not across the front. There was like on [25:33] Tyler Smith: the right side there was probably like one piece that was dangling, but like definitely not. It used [25:40] Louis Morrison: see that a lot, but nothing along. Yeah, the whole front was just like rotten, like somebody had taken [25:47] Speaker M (unidentified): a, just gone, I think that's a rip edge off of the roof already that went into the wooden gutter that [25:52] Louis Morrison: was there. We didn't do anything with the drip. Yeah, the drip edge is the at the bottom of the slate, right? No, that's still there and still in grit in actually pretty good shape. Okay, so then the gutter [26:06] Speaker M (unidentified): it's been probably gone for a good while, I'm guessing for a long time, is usually integrated, [26:11] Louis Morrison: right? Yeah, we have a bunch of those properties and it definitely didn't have, definitely didn't have that because [26:18] Speaker M (unidentified): in this picture from 1978 it looks like it was still, I [26:25] Louis Morrison: think the owner from like say 92 to 2008 never did one thing to the spelling too, so yeah, any [26:40] Speaker H (unidentified): other questions from the Commission, but [26:44] Nathaniel King: do you have any, you can ask me, I'll think I'll fight you, okay. [26:52] Speaker I (unidentified): Go ahead, Peter. So a couple questions and this is actually from his perspective of other Commission. We've had some discussion about the situation that we've had that you are participating in, which we not infrequently have been getting applications for after-the-fact work. And we want to partner with folks like yourselves that are doing this, so you have an understanding of what the underlying issues are, the importance of the historic aspects, and take advantage of the incredible resource we have, particularly with Mike, and being able to look at this and give recommendations about how to maintain the historic character. Absolutely. The whole purpose of this commission is to try to help with Bangor maintaining as much of its historic cultural heritage as it can through the buildings that we have. So one of the issues that we've been discussing, and this is, I want to just get input from you folks, in terms of we hear from people, oh, I bought this property. I didn't know it was historic. I didn't know there were regulations that I was going to have to follow when I bought this property, et cetera, et cetera. And so we're trying to figure out ways to help new owners or prospective new owners to understand some of these issues and so that we are in a position to advise prior to work being done, which costs money, of course, to do the best we can to make this and maintain it in an historic perspective. Perspective. So in that, understanding that, for example, you have, what, 50 to 60 properties? Is that what I understand from your saying? Yeah, he's going to eat, yeah. So that's a lot of properties, and that's wonderful that you're doing what you're doing in terms of preserving buildings that can be used for low income and that sort of issues that we have in the city. But the question would be, I'm first going to ask, do you remember receiving from the city after purchasing this a notification that this was in the historic district? And when you had certain responsibilities as the new owner as regards the historic aspects of this [29:00] Speaker H (unidentified): structure I [29:03] Tyler Smith: would say that came in the mail okay so yeah I had already moved okay and that's [29:24] Louis Morrison: this is probably a main reason why I'm here tonight Mike can attest I've been taking advantage of Mike for 20 years I've been or since 2009 I've been doing this stuff in here and I am responsible for him buying this property I feel like I am responsible for him not good work knowing the rules and taking advantage of Mike because Mike would have done all this work for us for nothing and it would have been great he always does and this is where we want [29:48] Speaker I (unidentified): To foster this process, but it works better for everybody. Absolutely. Okay, we don't actually, at least I should say I don't, as a member of the commission, enjoy being in a position of looking after the fact work and trying to do a workaround to try and make it be a little better. Isn't a good [30:02] Louis Morrison: feeling either when you stop, you know, I follow, we follow the rules by the by a t. It feels like you've written something wrong because you have, and it's not, it's not the best feeling, and you [30:12] Speaker I (unidentified): are in a position as you described that it took a long time for you to get to a point of purchasing this property, that you were looking at it over an extended period of time should have done so. That looks to me like an opportunity possibly on the part of ourselves, of the city, and possibly on your part as well, in terms of looking at what the ramifications of purchasing this historic property are over that period of time. Certainly appreciate the need to quickly get this into a livable position okay, and get that taken care of as soon as you had, you know, purchased it, etc. But when we think about it, you really, there's a lot of time that could have been, have had an opportunity to do this. And so the reason I'm just talking about this is we'd love to get input in terms of, and you're obviously in a position of doing a lot of this as you said, you work with Mike, etc. Do you have thoughts about how we as a commission or the city in general, in terms of how we approach these situations that you're in that would be, it would have been helpful for you and taking care of this before we're now then going to talk about, well, maybe we need to add some things [31:14] Louis Morrison: to this to make it more historic, etc. Absolutely, one thing I think of is, so a lot of properties I've bought over the years, literally on the day I close, it seems as though code office and I don't want to pick on Brenda, but I love Brenda, she'll call me and be, hey Louie, we see you just closed on this property's purchase property, make sure you, it's never been a historical thing, but they, the city seems to know the day we close on something. It would be nice if they had a relationship with what's and I know not everything is sold on the market, but these places that have been that are sitting on the market for 243 days that are historical building, it should be out there. First of all, the agent that sold it to us, who we love and who does a lot of projects around here too, that should be, you know, this is a historical building for sale, like if I, when I start selling my historical buildings, I'm going to be proudly advertising them as historical as you should, you know, this is, yeah, so it's nothing you guys, nothing on you, but maybe there's something there that you know you can look up every building that's on the market right now in Bangor, there's 20 or 30 historical, half of Broadway's on the market right now, talk [32:23] Nathaniel King: to Brenda about what her process is. Yeah, I don't know, the way we get notified is every month we get from our GIS person a list of all the new sales in historic districts in the Panjajuak, so then we send out letter. Even if we were to find out like the next day that a sale happens, like we would have to have that person's phone number and we may not always have that, we just have the mailing address and the USPS takes two weeks to get a letter out. Sure, we have that [32:49] Louis Morrison: kind of problem. Yeah, but that it's for sale I guess is the thing that, but I know, I was like [32:54] Speaker C (unidentified): like I was just going to ask this when you guys were discussing it too, and it was brought up, is why is code not doing that part? I mean, if they know the lot and they know, I mean, they must know it's historic. Why couldn't they just be like, and just for the record that you just purchased this is it's in a historic district or it is historic house. Why wouldn't code do that? [33:16] Louis Morrison: He got the letter a couple of weeks later, but we had a lift on the ground. [33:19] Speaker C (unidentified): That was from us, right? That wasn't code. I think code should like when you, Brenda, you're talking to Brenda, should be like hey heads up it's a historic house i can see it 's on her little chart thing [33:28] Speaker A (unidentified): talk to her and see what her process is. Yeah, and I think ultimately I think it's on us, I mean, I'm [33:33] Speaker I (unidentified): Going to take the fault for it. We well I think it's I think it's a combination of issues, and I would make the comment as we've discussed before that at the point of sale is too late for the prospective buyers to have an understanding of this. We of course want prospective buyers to be excited about the historic property, but part of that is then to take the responsibility of the preservation process which we are charged through you know essentially in force, and so that's where I'm putting this. From that perspective as you made the comment, you know how many historic properties are for sale right now? Sure, well and. [34:11] Louis Morrison: I think like that meeting that we're having in a couple weeks or whatnot, I mean I'm a real estate agent, I can pull up the MLS and as we're going through that meeting I see these districts are, I can tell you what's for sale in the, what you might not be able to do because you don't have access to. [34:25] Speaker L (unidentified): the mls nate if i could do we know if the parcel viewer the city has a parcel viewer which is based on gis information when you click on the parcel there's additional information if you hit it doesn't it give a list of data about the place and i'm not sure but it may throw is just looking [34:44] Louis Morrison: At lot lines but yeah I know he is down in there so it might be in there that it's. [34:50] Tyler Smith: Right so you point a bit yeah and I look at different houses you can tell how many. [34:55] Speaker G (unidentified): It's the houses I don't think I've seen there is yeah I mean if you scroll. [35:04] Nathaniel King: It can be easy to miss so when you identify the parcel it'll say is it in a historic district or site yes or no and then also you can turn on the layer of historic districts and sites and see it that way so yeah no. [35:18] Speaker M (unidentified): It's a really powerful tool for parsing out historic properties and districts. [35:23] Speaker L (unidentified): If people don't know it's there it's of no value yeah I bet I spend more time. [35:30] Tyler Smith: With almost everybody on that you do spend a lot of people just every night. [35:38] Katie Coe: I have a question so if a replacement is a one-to-one that's just a staff review correct. [35:47] Nathaniel King: Instead of going to HPC you mean if they're replacing with the same materials and everything yeah that actually doesn't even need any review because it is the same thing okay it's just very minor things like so if he completely followed Mike's recommendation would. [36:05] Katie Coe: That mean it wouldn't need to come back to HPC and that he would be all clear to just move forward. [36:14] Nathaniel King: Well I don't think what Louis has those, I mean you have to completely change the drum right, so I don't know if you would want to do that, but I mean I leave it up to you so to add the gutter [36:27] Katie Coe: system we wouldn't have to change. Yeah so if it would match the previous design that as it was suggested, then that would mean that you could move forward without having to come back to us. Technically I'm fine coming back, I just want to make sure this part is in that way that the system sort of incentivizes that one-to-one replacement right. Any [36:54] Nathaniel King: other questions or comments from the commission? We have anyone any public? Anyone in the public or on zoom? No. [37:04] Speaker H (unidentified): Oh yeah I want to kind [37:07] Speaker M (unidentified): of go off what Peter was saying is that with these after the fact application, this is no indictment don't worry, a situation where we propose ideas and changes with these after the post-hoc applications and you say you'll come back to us in a month and we never see them again right, and we need a remedy. Yeah I think but for me on this project I think that if we're gonna evaluate it we need to evaluate it in a way that if we never saw the applicant again we'd be happy with the result. I agree I [37:50] Louis Morrison: agree. Yeah because that's no indictment on your apps listen 100 I am on your team more than you probably realize yet we just ran into it with another. Absolutely oh I know I know yeah I get it there and there's some you know I don't want to I got to defend some of us developers too where I've been in years past and Mike saw me cry up here before like where I kept coming back and kept coming back and coming back and it was costing me millions of dollars in that time spent and at some point you just go can't do this I don't have millions of dollars you know so this is not that case but it can be on this side it can be very tough sometimes especially when it's three weeks four weeks in the world of contracting in Maine feels like 10 years. Well you guys volunteer your time so it's it's it's a tough it's a tough all the way around but it's hard. Yeah okay. [39:06] Nathaniel King: Seeing as though there was no one in the public no one on zoom we'll go ahead and close the public comment and now it can be opened up to the commission for discussion amongst the Commission so [39:24] Speaker C (unidentified): just to clarify we're not you're gonna come or the gutter issue is not on the table tonight it's not part of the application it's just what has already been done correct and [39:41] Speaker I (unidentified): Apropos Matt's comments that, you know, if we are approving what has been done, then we are putting a stamp of approval on that, and there is no specific requirement on our parts that anything else be done. And so in a sense, we're agreeing with what has been done, not agreeing with what might be added to make it more historic. So [40:09] Speaker M (unidentified): with that i when anya earlier spoke saying that we could add caveats and say you know maybe have the applicant come back with a gutter design if we can't stand you know having this big white trim board up there absent of the gutter kind of as Mike described it really breaks up the facade of that house and adds so much detail just it's such an elegant detail that wouldn't gutter up there I think it's really important to the structure on such a important home in town my opinion looking at the Picture is that [40:43] Speaker I (unidentified): As a defining aspect of this, because it provides a framing for the rest of the structure in a way that gives a fine detail to really pop the rest of it, in a sense. And what I mean by that is an historic aspect as a federal building, yes. And I mean, I have to say, I hope the owner is excited about having the oldest brick, you know, structure in Bangor. This is a, this is a remarkable structure, and this is one of those things that again in partnering with you rather than being in opposition, we want to we Want to encourage people like you to be excited about this and looking for possibly other things that you could do as part of what you're doing. And since this [41:30] Speaker M (unidentified): Is a federal register property, we have a very high standard we have to try to maintain with this. [41:36] Speaker I (unidentified): I do have a question about that. Is my understanding that structures on the national historic register must meet national exterior requirements for [41:47] Speaker L (unidentified): Renovations as well, same standards that you would be alive. [41:51] Speaker I (unidentified): I know, but does the national register office delegate to us as the local historic commission? Okay. Okay, you have, so in that sense, we are then instruments of the national storage register as well for this property, reviewing it. [42:09] Speaker L (unidentified): Basically, the ordinance says you review all historic district and landmark structures. So and you're using the same standards that the secretary of the interior. [42:20] Speaker I (unidentified): So, by extension, we are, if we're agreeing to this, then we are saying we think it matches the Federal, and the Federal does not take on any other, any aspect. [42:30] Speaker M (unidentified): Okay, it's good and you're saying, Peter, that this gutter is this defining characteristic of this architectural characteristic and historic guest characteristic of this home. It's also incredibly functional for this building to survive long term. You do realize there was no [42:46] Louis Morrison: gutter on this building, correct? Yes, and I, how's the mason, you're trying to steer this into a into a completely different thing than what we were, I've been talking about all day. There were two aluminum downspouts from lows attached to the front of the building on the right hand side that were attached to nothing on the top, be [43:06] Speaker I (unidentified): clear, I guess I don't understand what you're saying. [43:11] Louis Morrison: He's he's steering this that there was a gutter that ran across the front of this when we bought [43:16] Speaker L (unidentified): this building and they're absolutely in history though from a historical perspective that was [43:22] Speaker I (unidentified): part of the original aspect of the building and unfortunately part of the process here is when you apply to do something with the structure it opens up that discussion back to the historic [43:37] Nathaniel King: But there's also a standard about changes taking place in the course of time, common sense, all those things that you guys have been discussing for the past year. [43:49] Speaker I (unidentified): Thanks so much. I'm just curious. Are you not interested in putting a gutter on the front again? [43:59] Louis Morrison: No, I am. It sounds like you're not, I'm sorry. Yeah, so I won't go back and all kinds of new improvements. This but regarding the trim that's up on the building I want to go to sleep tonight feeling like I did the right thing, yeah, knowing that I did the right thing for the citizens of Angkor and for this property, any [44:19] Peter James Sachs: other comments? Yeah, I will say I can't look looking at the level of decay on that has had accumulated on the building I can't say that is preserved that is like a would be a respectful preservation of history to leave that there, yeah, and if I just [44:41] Louis Morrison: wouldn't paint it at all white what was the other rot it would, yeah, like it does, that's true, that's true, white now when you drive by it's a brand new piece of tram the statutes actually require [44:52] Speaker I (unidentified): the owners to maintain if there is a problem such as that requires that be replaced and fixed so it's not an issue of saying oh when they bought it this is its condition this is then the definition of its historic you know structure and then you know what were you going to do with that 's not what this is so just to be clear we're not going to the point of sale we're talking about the structure and its historical aspects and since they're making modifications that those modifications meet the historic preservation guidelines, even if those modif or not modification [45:31] Louis Morrison: Okay, the other modifications, but you could never go back to what was there, you understand that? [45:35] Nathaniel King: Right, oh yeah, it doesn't exist, yeah. Well, that's why there's room in the register standards and stuff for, you know, new materials, things that are aesthetically like, kind, things like that, sure. Because, you know, what we don't want to be approving is applicant comes before us, we have a beautiful federal building, and they want to turn it into something modern, oh, vinyl side this building [45:58] Louis Morrison: or something, I mean, yeah, something you got vinyl, yeah, that takes away and isn't part of the historic [46:04] Speaker I (unidentified): you know, character of the structure. So I will say that we have the resource in the picture here of what that gutter looked like, we do, and the effect it has on the facade, but I also don't [46:17] Nathaniel King: believe necessarily the gutters are the question for tonight. It's important to discuss and something that, you know, I appreciate that, you know, but I know what we're here trying to approve is what they've already done, but I do agree, and they've said they're going to come back in front of us, we definitely need to have that discussion. You don't know that's going to happen, no offense, [46:37] Speaker I (unidentified): because as Matt said, we've checked my records multiple times in the past, we've had this issue where we bring up after the fact renovate, renovations, make our recommendations, and [46:47] Nathaniel King: And then we don't hear anything from ever. Well, also, some of the times that 's happened, it's been a minor revision as well. So minor revisions aren't going to come in front of us. The chair, I guess, just meets with and or you. Right. And just signs off on it if it's meets whatever the standard and the chair. [47:03] Speaker I (unidentified): Yeah. So from a process, from a process perspective, I would ask that if we have the discussion in the commission about these issues and there are other things done that we are not aware of, that we do get feedback. So we understand that something has been done. That would be helpful, at least to close the loop from my perspective. [47:24] Nathaniel King: But I don't think that's happened in recent memory. I don't think it has either, and I don't think that's too big of an ass to basically like say in the meeting. We could say this minor business was attended to or something along those lines, just so that the yeah, so they could say, Oh, you know, 62 High Street came, and they there was a minor revision for their project. Project, yeah, but at the end of the day too, we've got to have faith that the applicants are going to do the right thing. That's all we can really do, you know, just got to have faith. [47:58] Speaker C (unidentified): yeah go ahead okay so cornice the cornice is what we're talking about not the gutters so like that underneath the trim of the roof line or whatever when you guys took off and this is going to sound so ignorant because i don't do any of this but listen i paint it i don't create it so the cornice is it completely did you have to rip off i mean there wasn't much left but did you rip off the old wood and then put on this one or is the wood underneath this [48:30] Tyler Smith: So if you look at the pictures, I'm not sure, but I got like half of the wood was there, so half of the wood, if not less, was there. [Speaker C (unidentified): Did you maintain?] So that was removed so that we put up a one by six, like nice PVC board across the whole thing. And that, the wood was removed so that the PVC board would sit flat. Flat, okay. And where the existing board was. [48:57] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay, I was just saying. [48:59] Tyler Smith: The shape of it is not changed, exactly. Right. And again, they were going, [49:16] Speaker C (unidentified): Right, okay, I know there's like some stipulations about like you can, if like the original is still intact underneath it, right? Am I not right? Wrong? So no, I'm like, no, kind of help me out. One of the [49:32] Speaker I (unidentified): regulation states that whatever is done can be essentially taken away and not affect the integrity of the underlying structure. So if you have an underlying board or that we're looking at that glass situation on one of the buildings downtown that they covered over that, but they [49:52] Speaker A (unidentified): left that intact. Exactly. If in the future someone wanted to come back and do it and the historic aspect would, the original piece would still be there. That's what I was trying to get at. It's [50:02] Speaker C (unidentified): Like if there's a little original wood there, even like the molding of it, to see how it, like, you know, if some of it was still there and somebody wanted to actually replace it with like kind, they could. [50:12] Speaker I (unidentified): Could pass it that way. I would assume that in this situation there's no real way to maintain any piece of that and have any integrity for the fascia board that goes across. That would be my impression from this. Yeah, do it right. Okay. [50:30] Speaker H (unidentified): There's no further. Yeah, I don't know. [50:35] Nathaniel King: So if the discussion is complete, then we can move on to taking action on the proposal to approve, deny, or otherwise handle it. And so, Anya, this is where we've got to do the long, a long read. Yes. Okay. So this is my first time with all of this. I want to make sure we do it right. So the procedural background, we're going to approve those three points, and then we will entertain a motion for each one of the parts. So part one, the motion will be for part one, part two, then there'll be a motion for one, two, three, and so on as it goes for each one of the parts, and then we get to the final decision, yay or nay. Correct. Okay. Also if you feel that any of these standards aren't relevant, you can vote that they're not relevant, and if there's a standard that you feel is, you can vote on that too. So okay. [51:37] Speaker H (unidentified): Do these real quick. Okay. I will then [51:44] Nathaniel King: entertain a motion for the procedural background. And when we're doing this motion, can we do all three points in a single motion, or do we have to do procedural background one vote, two vote, three [51:58] Speaker G (unidentified): vote? You can combine the procedural background ones. Okay. I'm just trying to find efficiencies [52:03] Nathaniel King: to. Yep. Yeah, streamline this a little bit. Okay. I would accept a motion combining the three points of the procedural background if anyone was moved, felt moved to make such a motion as [52:20] Speaker I (unidentified): an associate member can I make that motion no check that's what I wanted to check the voting member [52:26] Speaker M (unidentified): can. Yes. I move that we approve the procedural background. Sorry, I move that we approve the procedural background for the application of the general John Williams at 62 High Street. [52:42] Nathaniel King: I second. Okay, it will be a roll call vote of the voting members starting from my left with, okay, yes, and I also vote yes that the application meets the procedural background, that the application was deemed complete on December 11, 2025, the applicant paid all applicable fees, and that the proposed project is a certificate of appropriateness. Okay, so moving on, we will move on to applicable provisions and findings. So what we will do now is I will ask for a motion for part one that the project meets the evaluation standards of subsection 148-9a regarding general standards, and I will ask if the commission finds or does not find that based on exhibits two through five, the application satisfied historic preservation code subsection 148-9 health a requiring that any alteration of the historic structure will preserve or enhance its historical and architectural character. [53:50] Speaker H (unidentified): So motion may ask a question. [53:56] Peter James Sachs: So what is this compared to? Because does the improve the architectural character compared to what it was? What it was previously when it was built, when it was added to the register, or right before the alteration was made? [54:14] Nathaniel King: So I was asking if what the applicant is requesting to do, or in this case has already done, if what they're doing is going to preserve the historic character of the structure or if it's going to otherwise enhance that historic character. So if they were trying to take, you know, the front of this building and cover it in vinyl siding, right, would that enhance or not enhance the historic character? Would that preserve the historic character? [54:42] Peter James Sachs: So compared to the before versus after, does it enhance the historical character and architectural character of it? [54:53] Speaker I (unidentified): One might argue the historical character isn't a before or after. [54:56] Nathaniel King: All right, we're not getting into that. So basically aspect of the structure we want to ask is what they're doing preserving the building, taking care of the building, and is it in line with the historical character of the building? So if it's a Victorian, is it remaining a Victorian, or are they turning or whatever the structure of questions. So you want to have a motion then for part one [55:21] Speaker M (unidentified): Okay, and just one clarification is requires or from the votes. Correct. [55:29] Nathaniel King: Store for no three is for if good of appropriateness is for affirmative votes. Design review. Let's receive 3. Well, that's not my paper. Okay. Okay, so try 3 motion for part 1 applicable provisions and findings. [55:53] Speaker M (unidentified): I move that we vote on part 1 section 1 that meets the standards of 148-9 regarding general standards. [56:06] Nathaniel King: city, Mr. That says, I'm going to call you something from Texas 1 of these meetings. do we need to read the entire. Point 1, so, for example, I make a motion that we find the commission that the commission finds that blah,, blah,, blah. [56:27] Speaker N (unidentified): I recommend that you indicate in the motion. motion exactly what the motion is supposed to say I mean if you don't want to say all the words you can make references but I think that the recommendation is that the motion be made [56:42] Speaker M (unidentified): so that it expresses those words okay thanks I will restate it I move that the commission votes on part one section one of 148-9a regarding General Standards that the commission finds does not find that based on exhibits 2-5 hold on that's that was in there for your benefit so you [57:03] Nathaniel King: have to say whether you find or it doesn't find you have to choose one oh sorry yeah it's okay [57:09] Speaker N (unidentified): it's either emotion in the affirmative yes or in the negative thank you usually best in the [57:14] Speaker M (unidentified): affirmative all right third try I know that the commission votes on part one the that the commission finds that based on exhibits 2-5 that 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 is there a second [57:42] Nathaniel King: aye okay so we will do roll call vote starting from my left [57:47] Speaker H (unidentified): okay no [57:52] Katie Coe: no [57:57] Peter James Sachs: no [58:04] Tyler Smith: no i [58:07] Speaker H (unidentified): vote i [58:12] Nathaniel King: guess i vote no as well so the part one fails zero okay part two the project meets the evaluation standards of 148-9b regarding renovations alterations and repair i would take a motion for part two one [58:36] Speaker M (unidentified): i move that the commission votes on part two section one that the commission finds that based on exhibits 2-3 the application satisfies the sort preservation code 148-9b 2b requiring that the rehabilitation work does not destroy the distinguishing qualities nor character of the structure and its environment second hi Aye. Call vote. [59:13] Katie Coe: I'm just parsing. [59:16] Nathaniel King: If we need to dive into it 's okay to ask. Yeah, this is your first like can we break this down. [59:23] Speaker H (unidentified): you know it's [59:29] Katie Coe: just destroy the distinguishing qualities or character of the structure that 's a larger statement than i really feel that this damage is doing a strong term yes yeah very strong i feel exceptionally petty saying no to that i mean vote your conscience you are [59:52] Nathaniel King: Empowered by yes and what we're trying to ask with it is, you know, is based on the exhibits in front of us, is the application requiring a rehabilitation work that the work itself does not destroy distinguishing qualities or character of the building. So again, vinyl siding, what would that do to the building, right? Or, you know, if though those gutters, downspouts and stuff were still there and they ripped them off and are the renovation, that would, you know, yes or no, is that destroy the character. So Then you're asking yourself, does this PVC trim destroy the APO? It does. You can vote your conscience on it. If you don't vote that as well, it's okay. [1:00:45] Peter James Sachs: I'm gonna go with yes on this one. Okay, I'll go with yes as well. No, excuse me, sorry, just make a point [1:00:54] Speaker N (unidentified): of clarification. Was the motion made that it does destroy or does not destroy? Does destroy. So it was [1:01:01] Peter James Sachs: a motion made the motion was does destroy motion was just destroyed but i 'd like to change my [1:01:08] Katie Coe: book then. It does not destroy, my apologies. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. It does not destroy the distinguishing qualities or character of the structure. So you're avoiding [1:01:22] Peter James Sachs: voting no on them. I'm voting no. Yes, I would like to vote no as well. I remain a no and [1:01:33] Speaker H (unidentified): now you got me confused. The motion was not as this would not, yeah, we're saying is the motion is saying that it does destroy the expenditure quality versus another page, right? So a yes vote you would be [1:01:48] Nathaniel King: saying yes, this does destroy. No, you're saying no, this does not destroy. Okay, then I'm also voting no. [1:01:54] Speaker M (unidentified): Okay, sorry for the confusing language on that one. That's why it is typically best to use the fines [1:02:03] Nathaniel King: just so it's clearer what you're voting on, because it gets confusing with double negatives [1:02:07] Speaker G (unidentified): if you do does not find. So okay, all right, a motion for part two, [1:02:21] Speaker L (unidentified): so [1:02:26] Katie Coe: this is a motion to the commission, a motion to find that based on exhibits two through three, 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. [1:03:01] Nathaniel King: Is there a second? Or any questions on the motion? [1:03:03] Speaker M (unidentified): I second it. Okay. [1:03:06] Nathaniel King: So in this instance, an affirmative vote, you are finding that the application does satisfy 148-9B2C. A no vote is you are saying that it does not satisfy 148-9B2C. Okay. We're going to roll call vote. Starting with you again. [1:03:30] Katie Coe: I'm going to vote no, it does not satisfy. [1:03:34] Peter James Sachs: No, it does not satisfy. I'm a no as well. No, we'll [1:03:46] Speaker H (unidentified): vote yes. Okay. [1:03:50] Nathaniel King: Motion for three. [1:03:53] Peter James Sachs: Part two through here. I'll do it this time. I motion that the commission find that based on exhibits two through three, the application satisfies historic preservation code section 148 9b 2d requiring that distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize historic structures is not damaged or destroyed wherever [1:04:20] Speaker H (unidentified): possible. Is there a second? A [1:04:25] Nathaniel King: second. Okay, in this case if you vote yes you're voting that the commission does find based on the exhibits an application satisfies 148-9b2d. A no vote is your voting that no it does not satisfy historic preservation code 148-9b2d, right. Okay any questions. Right roll call vote starting with you Katie. No we'll start with Rebecca this time. Yeah, why not? Start with Rebecca. Change it up. No. No. Yes. Yes. And I will also vote yes. Okay, moving on to part two, number four. We'll entertain a motion. [1:05:44] Speaker C (unidentified): The commission finds, based on exhibits two through three, The application satisfies historic preservation code 1489B2E, requiring that the changes which have taken place in the course of time have acquired historic significance in their own right and are retained and preserved wherever possible. [1:06:14] Nathaniel King: Would you entertain a motion on the applicability of this to this particular application? [1:06:20] Speaker M (unidentified): I move that this section is not applicable to our findings for the rest of the application. I second. [1:06:27] Nathaniel King: Then roll call vote from Rebecca. [1:06:32] Speaker C (unidentified): So, yes, get rid of it? [1:06:34] Nathaniel King: Yes, it does not apply. No, it applies. Okay, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And I will also vote yes. We find that this is not applicable. [1:06:44] Louis Morrison: Full okay. [1:06:47] Speaker G (unidentified): Sec part two number five take a motion. The motion finds that based on exhibits [1:06:57] Katie Coe: 2 3 the application satisfies historic preservation code 148-9b2f requiring that alterations to a historic building to create an earlier appearance not be undertaken except when qualifying as restoration under the secretary of the interior standard of restoration. I don't think this one applies as well. I don't either. Let's make that motion. I make the motion that this does not [1:07:24] Speaker G (unidentified): apply. Second. Okay roll call vote starting with I can start again. Yes I also vote yes. [1:07:36] Nathaniel King: Number five does not apply. Okay and go on to number six. [1:07:43] Peter James Sachs: Part two, number six. Yeah, I motion that the commission finds that based on set on tip to rather based off exhibits two through three that the application satisfies historic preservation code section 148 9b 2i requiring that wherever possible all alterations to structure 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. A [1:08:19] Speaker M (unidentified): Second. Okay, we have a second. [1:08:23] Nathaniel King: We'll start with this one. If you vote yes you're finding that based on exhibits two through three that the application excuse me satisfies historic preservation code 148-9b2i. If you are voting no you're saying that it does not satisfy subsection 148-92b or dash 9b2i. Okay. So we will start down there with you, Katie. [1:08:59] Katie Coe: I vote yes. This finds that the application satisfies Historic Preservation Code 149. Yay. Yes. To verify, that means that they have not done any damage that cannot be fixed, right? Right. Okay. [1:09:32] Nathaniel King: Yes. I also vote yes. Okay so we will now move on to the final decision. I will entertain a motion on the final decision for the application from 62 High Street. I [1:09:52] Peter James Sachs: motion that the commission find that the project meets the requirements for a certificate of appropriateness and therefore grants a certificate of appropriateness permit for the proposed project. [1:10:03] Nathaniel King: I second the motion. Okay in this instance if you vote yes you're voting that the project does meet the requirements certificate of appropriateness and that it should be issued. If you vote no you're saying this project does not meet the requirements and that the certificate of appropriateness should not be issued. Okay Rebecca? Yes? No? [1:10:28] Speaker H (unidentified): Yes? No, I will vote. Yes. [1:10:43] Nathaniel King: Okay. So this the decision fails 3 to 2. Yeah, because that does require for affirmative. [1:11:05] Louis Morrison: Mr. does this answer some of your questions from earlier? And there's 0 knowledge. [1:11:20] Speaker H (unidentified): Oh, okay. I'm upset because it's failed. Okay, [1:11:41] Nathaniel King: so with that business being concluded. We have other business item number 4, being the annual training, planning, legal, and Mike Pullen. [1:11:53] Speaker G (unidentified): The time is with 8, 10, so I'll have Dave do the legal training first. Okay, [1:12:32] Speaker N (unidentified): So I'm, as I mentioned to all of you, I'm David Subject, the city solicitor, and I'll be doing some training tonight going over some topics, and you can feel free to ask me questions. You can also ask questions at the end of a section or at the end of the whole thing. I'll definitely make questions feel at the end of the presentation, but feel free to jump in and ask them whenever you'd like, if you'd like to. The first thing I wanted to cover in the handouts is kind of a smaller version, a shorter version of what I'm going to be talking about that kind of something that you can look at later if you want to. So one of the topics I'm going to be covering tonight is our is due process. So as a historic preservation commission you'll be sitting as a tribunal, as a decision-making tribunal, and as such you're required to adhere to due process requirements under the Constitution. This means that the Commission decisions need to be based on the information presented to them, that the process used to make the decisions needs to be fair. Basically, it's kind of a shorthand version of it. We'll talk more about due process when we talk about the public proceedings, requirements, and the importance of avoiding ex parte communications. Communications when the commencement when the commission is functioning as a decision-making tribunal, which you did tonight at the on the last regarding the last item, but generally the members of the HPC may not discriminate unlawfully against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, National origin, age, physical or mental disability, genetic information, gender, identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, cultural group, or political status. There is a state statute, the Freedom of Access Act, that ties into some due process issues. The Freedom of Access Act, or FOA as we call it, is a two-pronged state statute that has two purposes. One is that actions of public bodies should be taken openly, and the second purpose is that records of public bodies must be available to the public for inspection regarding the public records wrong any record that is in the possession of the city of Bangor, or any public official that would include you. That involves the business of the city, in your case the business of the commission, is considered public unless a statutory exception applies which makes it non-public. Because there are a number of statutory exceptions, I'm not going to go over them, but you should assume that any document or communication created or received by a commission member involving the business of the commission is a public record. Written communications include texts, emails, social media posts, and communications in electronic messaging systems or any other electronic communication regarding the business of the commission. Communications regarding the business of the commission should be considered a public record even if they are on your personal device. Staff recommends that you create a new email address for your position on the commission and use it, use that for any and all communications. And also that you do not delete any communications, documents, or notes taken during Commission meetings, because they may be the subject of a Freedom of Access Act request made by a member of the public. The City may request to view your electronic communications involving any business of the Commission in response to a citizen's FOA request. Request regarding the public proceedings aspect of the Freedom of Access Act, Commission hearings are public proceedings. As such they must be advertised and open to the public, as tonight's meeting was. There are certain exceptions where executive sessions may be held. Executive sessions close the public proceeding but are only allowed at a publicly noticed meeting by way of a motion to go into executive session, and only for certain reasons that are specified in the state statute. There are, I think, seven reasons you can go into executive session, six or seven, but only a few of them would really involve the Commission. Commission. Ones that you might use would be consultation with the attorney regarding the legal rights and duties of the commission. That would be one of them. Discussion of information and records that is made confidential by statute. So if you have confidential information that you've received, if you want to discuss that confidential information, you can move to go into executive session and discuss it in private. It's not something that, you know, so the other ones don't really apply to the commission. But when you, but executive sessions may be called only by a public recorded roll call vote of at least three-fifths of the commission members present and voting. A motion to enter executive session must cite the statute section that allows the body to go into executive session and the precise but brief nature of the business of the executive session without giving away of [1:18:23] Speaker M (unidentified): course the confidential stuff. Yes, I'm Dave, I have a question. Sure, the Freedom of Access Act, how long do we need to retain our records? Or that is a good [1:18:35] Speaker N (unidentified): question. However, there are retention schedules and those schedules differ depending on what kind of a record they're talking about, and I'm not prepared to answer that question. I would tell you to retain your records indefinitely until you, until we tell you that, I mean, because I don't know the answer. There's specific, some records you have to keep two years, some records you have to keep, some records you can destroy right away. So we recommend that you keep them while you're on the commission and I can answer a specific [1:19:13] Speaker M (unidentified): specific question about specific records if you just, yeah, so I'm not, I just, I tend to take notes on the packet and those packets build up over time. I have a huge stack of them right by time. I just wanted to know if I could start parsing through them at all, and I should know the answer to that, but I don't. If you have a second, I'd have to look it up. Yeah, if you have a second in the next couple weeks, would you let me know? Yes, definitely, thank you Dave. Yeah, can I ask [1:19:37] Speaker I (unidentified): a quick question about executive session? Yes, it sounded like from the process of this that an executive session comes out of a regular commission meeting as a possibility of having an executive session called as a meeting to discuss a particular issue. You mentioned for example consultation with count legal counsel about a legal aspect of the regulations or otherwise, yes. So is that something that could be decided on before the meeting and say we're, our meeting tonight will be an executive session, or because it has to be voted the way be described? Does that have to come out of a session that's already started? You have to notice [1:20:17] Speaker N (unidentified): Up all of your meetings publicly, and there could be a meeting, hypothetically, that where the only item on the agenda is an item that you expect to go into executive session on. Yeah, but don't worry because if there is an executive session needed to be scheduled on your agenda, you'll get help to make the appropriate motion. We'll have the language needed for the motion just as Anya had the language needed for your motions tonight regarding each of the elements that needed to be satisfied. So when you're in executive session, no other matters may be considered and no official actions may be voted on during executive session other than to come out of executive session. I want to talk a little bit about ex parte communications that tie into both Freedom of Access Act and due process. In fact, under the Commission's bylaws, specifically Section 4.1, ex parte contacts, and what that means is contacts outside of a public commission meeting, between any commission member and the applicant or the applicant's representative regarding the subject matter of the application are not permitted. There are certain exceptions where the chair can,. Contact regarding procedural matters, or with regard to. You know, whether somebody can attend a meeting to schedule the meeting, but. But generally, you can't talk to the applicant about. The subject matter of the application outside of a public meeting. Meeting so and you know you should also not discuss the bylaws don't say this specific which you also shouldn't discuss outside of a public meeting the subject matter of the application with someone who's an opponent of the application. The discussions that you should have should be presented by the applicant or by any opponents to the application and talked. We talked about at the meeting. Okay, you also shouldn't discuss. You shouldn't conduct site visits without public notice and convening the commission, and that's in your bylaws. So and when we're talking about communications, this is, of course, include text emails and social media communications as well. It also the commission's bylaws at section 4.2 also specify that you may not discuss pending commission matters with each other outside of commission meetings. So members of the commission should avoid discussion of substantive matters pertaining to an application verbally outside of a commission meeting or by email, text, or social media, or even by letters, if anybody does that anymore. You may discuss issues regarding pending matters with city staff, though those are not ex parte communications. So the combination of the due process requirements in the Constitution and the Freedom of Access Act requirements that come together, and members of the Commission should be presented with information at their meetings. Meetings, they should not go to outside sources to further research applications that are before them. There are both due process reasons and freedom of access reasons for this. For example, due process, if one person outside of a meeting gives you a piece of evidence, the other side hasn't had a chance to have their say on that piece of evidence. That is a due process problem. It is also a Freedom of Access Act problem, because it isn't occurring in a public meeting. So that's that's those are the 2 types of reasons why you shouldn't be doing outside research. [1:24:28] Speaker M (unidentified): Yes, I just have a hypothetical question so let's say someone hands you that piece of evidence. What's the right thing to do with? Do you report that to the city? What's what would you do in that case you shouldn't accept any evidence from anybody [1:24:44] Speaker N (unidentified): You know like if you have a letter someone sends it to you could you could send it to staff [1:24:49] Speaker I (unidentified): Okay all right so we got an email from someone we could forward that on the staff [1:24:54] Speaker N (unidentified): That you did not solicit yeah right yeah forward it to staff [1:24:58] Katie Coe: Would that then be included in the agenda materials it depends on what it is okay yeah [1:25:04] Speaker N (unidentified): Yeah, right? Yeah. Okay. So if the Hpc members have any questions or concerns, they can. They can be brought up in the public meeting to the applicant or to staff. And this ensures and conversations with staff can occur individually outside of the meetings. This is to ensure that decisions of the Commission are made openly, and are based on information presented to the Hpc in public. Okay, now your bylaws when they talk about the procedures that you use. They say that you would default to the democratic rules of order, which to me is great, as opposed to defaulting to Robert's rules of order. In my opinion, I read the whole entire democratic rules of order in an hour, and they are written in a modern way, and I like them. And so I'm gonna go over some of the some of the aspects of those rules of procedure. Procedure. Fairness and good order are the underlying principles. The final authority is the majority of voting members, provided a quorum is present, subject always to any applicable what is referred to as higher law, which means state law, city charter, city ordinance or HPC bylaws. There has to be a quorum in order for the commission to operate. And the HPC's bylaws require three members for a quorum, including the associate members can be counted as part of that section 5.2 of the bylaws. The bylaws, that same section, also provide that if there is no quorum present at a duly noticed meeting, but one or more members are present, the members present may open the meeting for the sole purpose of continuing all agenda items to another date set by those members who are present. [1:27:05] Speaker I (unidentified): Good question. If a quorum's three, but we require four yes votes for passage, then that's for something other than design approval, right? That means that even if we have a quorum of three, we certainly can't address an application that requires four yes votes. [1:27:22] Speaker N (unidentified): That's right. In fact, if there are less than five voting members able to vote, and tonight there were five, the applicant should be given the option of continuing the matter to a later date. Let's say there are four present. [1:27:38] Speaker I (unidentified): Why don't we just make the quorum five? [1:27:41] Nathaniel King: It would probably be impossible to get work done. I think the smoother change would be to change the number of affirmative votes. And I've just been thinking that as we're looking at ordinance updates we may do like a round one of ordinance updates and it would include this thing because I feel like this is more of an issue and then we can do further updates later on I think changing the number [1:28:09] Speaker G (unidentified): of affirmative votes required is going to be the best option you know so that's something [1:28:15] Speaker N (unidentified): That's something that you all can discuss it. So informal meetings, and I believe that an application in front of you would be considered for me. The chair guides impartially, as you did tonight, without taking part in discussion, except to guide the discussion in an orderly fashion. If, on rare occasions, the chair has relevant brief information, the chair may depart from this rule, but the chair should generally avoid showing any bias. If the chair needs to participate actively in a discussion during a formal meeting, arrangements should be made for another member to fill the chair position until the motion has been voted on. In informal proceeding parts of your meetings, the chair can participate in the discussions like other members. The chair should not make a motion. Generally, it's preferable that a motion be worded affirmatively, and it should not conflict with any higher law. That's not something that but each motion generally requires a seconder. And you know, in order for a vote to be taken under the under the democratic rules of order, a movers privilege allows the mover to reword or withdraw a motion before it has been voted on. Provided there is a seconder and not more than one member objects, rewording can be continued until the motion is as perfect as the mover, assisted by the members, can make it. If two or more members object prior to the reading out of the reworded motion, changes can be made only with a motion to amend. So in other words, you don't have to make a formal motion to amend a motion unless somebody objects to you doing that. An amendment to a motion can delete, substitute, or add words to a motion on the floor, but must not negate the motion or change its topic. And an amendment to a motion cannot be amended. So only one amendment per motion, according to democratic rules. For a motion to pass, a quorum must be present and more than half of the votes cast must be affirmative, unless a higher law provides a specific number of votes are necessary for the motion to pass. Higher law meaning certificate appropriateness under the ordinance says you got to have four votes, not just not just a majority. In order for a certificate of appropriateness to be approved, there's got to be four affirmative votes. Quick. [1:30:40] Speaker I (unidentified): Question about the motion. Yes, I don't know if it's Robert's Rule or what it is, but is there an option for someone to move the motion, meaning there may be ongoing discussion and back and forth and back and forth, so he says I would propose we move this motion and stop discussion. [1:30:57] Speaker N (unidentified): That is a Robert's Rules thing, I think you can still do it here. I don't know if it's mentioned in democratic rules or, but the idea is we've talked about this a very long time, let's let's [1:31:09] Speaker I (unidentified): do the motion. I move the motion. At least some other meetings I've been in, when you move the motion, then everybody votes about the moving the motion and then you go ahead and then right [1:31:20] Nathaniel King: Right. Right. I feel like that could kind of fall under the chair, trying to guide the discussion or keep the discussion. Maybe the chair could be like, right, we've talked about this enough. Let's get on with it. [1:31:31] Speaker N (unidentified): Yeah. I wanted to discuss the number of votes. You know, when you take a vote on an application, you're voting on all of the relevant criteria. If an applicant has to satisfy all of the applicable criteria in order for, say, a certificate of appropriateness to pass. If during your motions the applicant hasn't satisfied an element, then the vote at the end should be no, because a yes vote at the end doesn't make sense if all the elements weren't satisfied. Now, if there's an element where there's five votes and the vote was three to two, that element was satisfied. Okay. Even though there weren't four votes, even though you're talking about a certificate of appropriateness, you have to get four votes in order to make the final vote on the certificate of appropriateness. [1:32:39] Speaker I (unidentified): But an element might pass with three. Oh, I didn't know that. So yeah, that's a majority or that's a [1:32:47] Speaker N (unidentified): three. Well no, it's a majority. Okay. Right, tonight there were five votes, so there was one element that was voted three to two that it that it passed that element, but there were other elements that were voted that right way that did not pass. David, should that have not have been cited in the [1:33:02] Speaker L (unidentified): in the final vote that this application will be denied based on inability to meet section blah,, blah. [1:33:12] Speaker N (unidentified): What happened was the final vote was three to two and so it failed. Had the vote been four to one with the same votes on the elements, I would have asked the chair for a point of order because the vote wouldn't make logical sense. [1:33:32] Nathaniel King: So if we're approaching the decision, then should we not be also offering the applicant? So we talk about that in the preamble here about, you know, if you think your application is going to fail, you can withdraw and, you know, adjust your application and resubmit. Should we not be offering them that opportunity prior to the final decision? [1:33:53] Speaker N (unidentified): For example, I heard you make that offer to the applicant. [1:33:56] Nathaniel King: Well, that was not at the beginning, but not at the end. [1:33:59] Speaker N (unidentified): I mean definitely say it to the applicant at the beginning of the meeting, right, but they're not [1:34:03] Speaker I (unidentified): going to understand the procedural process here as to, you know, at what point can they say, oh, it doesn't sound good, is that, is that the discussion, or is it, and that's one of those things I feel [1:34:14] Nathaniel King: like if we're giving them that opportunity before we get to the decision, because when I'm telling them in the preamble this is what you can do, you know, if they're hearing all sorts of chatter about different things and window muttons and gutters and things like that, you know, they might come to that realization on their own, like, oh crap, maybe there's some more stuff we need to do. And then they should be given that, at least I believe anyway, they should be given that opportunity before the final decision, you know, applicant John Doe, based on the discussions, you know, as you have heard, some of these have failed and it may be unlikely that your, you know, certificate of appropriateness might pass, do you wish to consider withdrawing [1:34:56] Speaker N (unidentified): and resubmitting for a future meeting, and yeah, ideally I think that would be a nice thing to do. [1:35:03] Nathaniel King: Right, I mean, I think it's nice, but is it procedurally, is that okay? It is okay. Go ahead. No, well, I was just going to say what I was going to talk about my training, but I tried to say before, like if you feel like you're going to vote no on a standard, see if you can ask the applicant to come back with alterations that might meet your approval, unless you feel like he does need to do a whole new application, then maybe withdraw all of his best, but if he could [1:35:30] Speaker I (unidentified): just come back with changes, actually discuss that, and he said no, I don't want to do that. [1:35:35] Nathaniel King: Well, he did, I think he, I thought he was kind of confused about what I was saying. [1:35:40] Speaker G (unidentified): That's why I tried to clarify, but maybe he didn't want to, so I think the idea being if he [1:35:46] Speaker N (unidentified): decides, if he's given that option and he decides to withdraw, it is he saving an application an [1:35:53] Nathaniel King: Extra application fee or whatever the, yeah, what's the right term? Yeah, because there's like, because we've had that in the past where someone has said, hey, I'm gonna, you know, move this to the July meeting because it's May and they want, you know, June to work on the application. I don't want to say withdraw if that means, oh, then I gotta pay another 50, 60 bucks, whatever the proper term is. I could say if it's, you know, do you wish to continue, ask for a continuance or to modify your application. Yeah, I mean, what the procedures, the Planning Board is you would vote to continue [1:36:25] Speaker N (unidentified): it to a date certain as opposed to withdraw is really, is really the way it should be worded, because that is that way the application is still before you and there wouldn't need to be another [1:36:37] Speaker I (unidentified): other fee paid, so they can amend it as if you were going to hold over there. The whole idea here was that if he had said, oh, I'll just add to this my application that I'm going to put, you know, appropriate facial boards up or whatever, horn us up, I mean, then he would have to amend. He could [1:36:55] Speaker N (unidentified): request that the application be, that the consideration of the application be continued so that he may amend, okay, and then you would vote on whether to do that, right? Yeah. [1:37:08] Katie Coe: I just wanted to verify you said that if he's failed any part of the beginning section, the part [1:37:16] Speaker G (unidentified): two, then the decision, we can't approve there. Are in order to get a certificate of appropriateness [1:37:25] Speaker N (unidentified): he has to satisfy certain elements. Those elements were set forth in each of the votes. The only one, the only vote that didn't really set forth the elements was the procedural thing at the beginning, okay. The historical background is that we were calling it okay, that one wasn't an element, okay, but after that each one of those was an element. The ones you didn't have to satisfy were the ones that you voted were not applicable, okay, but the ones that are applicable in order to get a certificate of appropriateness, each element has to be satisfied. [1:37:58] Speaker I (unidentified): Okay, it did strike me that we're doing this, that first one that we voted on, not the, not the three, you know, that he got the application stuff, but then the one of content everybody voted down. My thought was, well, why do we go forward from here because we already have said this is inappropriate, see what I'm saying? I mean, you know, I mean, yeah, I mean, is there any real point going [1:38:20] Speaker N (unidentified): Through the rest of it isn't my customer question. You could, you could at that point, I suppose, in theory, ask for a final vote anytime one element isn't satisfied, but it's usually recommended to go through the elements. Okay, here's, here's just what I, here's how lawyers think sometimes. Let's say that the commission votes that three elements weren't satisfied, he appeals it, and it ends up in court, and there ends up being some problem with one or more of the votes. If you've got three elements that weren't satisfied, then it might be harmless air, and it wouldn't be overturned. Sure. Whereas if you just stop after one vote, and if there's some problem with that, then it could end up getting reversed and sent back to you. Sure. [1:39:06] Nathaniel King: Okay, yeah, I just wanted to note in the bylaws there's two options here. You can approve with conditions, and you can also approve an amended application, and they, it says it would happen in one meeting. So if they wish to amend it during the meeting, you could approve the application as amended, although it does say provided the amendments are sufficiently minor so that notice isn't required to butters, so that'd be kind of to your judgment. Yeah, that all makes [1:39:37] Speaker I (unidentified): sense. So at the end of this discussion, at the, for the final vote, if someone had moved to say, I move that this be accepted with the, these provisions, that's an okay way to do that. 's It's a way to make an amendment sort of, and that brings it to the applicant and says, this is what we would want to have. We're going to approve this, but you have to do these things. Yes. Conditional. I'm sorry. So can you read what you just wrote? [1:40:07] Nathaniel King: Yeah, so you can do an approval with conditions. [1:40:10] Speaker I (unidentified): An approval with conditions. Yep. And I presume that's the approval at the final stage, right? Yes. The last thing. [1:40:17] Speaker N (unidentified): And so if you wanted to put conditions in, you'd put those conditions in that final vote in that [1:40:22] Katie Coe: in that moment, you could put them in a previous, you, how detailed would we have to be with those conditions? Could we just say we would like him to follow the recommendations that were [1:40:31] Speaker G (unidentified): placed forward by the consultant? Yep, you could. I think you would need to vote to require it. [1:40:38] Nathaniel King: Yeah, it also says any conditions attached to an approval must relate to an applicable approval standard and be designed to address specific concern. When I first read that, I would, I was thinking you needed to make the condition on the, when you're making the motion on the approval standard, but I think like Dave said, it could just be at the end, you know, let's [1:40:59] Speaker N (unidentified): Say you went through four elements, and on two of the elements you voted, you made your motion, "I moved that the applicant satisfied this element with these conditions if," and then let's say so on two of the votes you voted that there need to be conditions. Then on the final vote you could say, "I move that the applicant satisfied the elements so that the certificate of appropriateness can be issued with the conditions as stated in the in the motions." [1:41:28] Speaker I (unidentified): Or you could just add at the end, or you could end with the end. Yeah, but that is the option procedurally. Someone making the motion can say, "Oh, we've had this discussion, this guy really needs a cornice on this board, right, you know," and then we will approve this with a condition that a appropriate cornice of OG, you know, you know, relief, whatever, be added, which would be [1:41:52] Katie Coe: preferred going forward, setting it up so that we can let them take a pause and come back to another meeting, or approving with a condition like which of those is going to make this move faster for them, and also would they have to accept our conditions? What if they said that they did not want to meet those, or they wanted to go back? Sorry, yeah, how would we set that up? They [1:42:18] Nathaniel King: would have to accept the conditions, because I know we've had business in the past where we have recommended conditions and the applicant was not amenable to those conditions, so then they would [1:42:28] Katie Coe: pull the application back and then redo the application. They would say, "No, I want you to [1:42:32] Nathaniel King: proceed with this application as it is because x, y, and z." Okay, they'd rather, I mean, you could in [1:42:40] Speaker N (unidentified): theory put the conditions on, and if the applicant doesn't follow those conditions, then it's a code [1:42:45] Speaker M (unidentified): enforcement issue. Yeah, we've also set conditions that the applicants had absolutely no problems with, and it's been a really smooth process. Yeah, just while we're in this conversation, I want to circle back to what Nate originally started us with, was the adding the out before the final decision, and I think that we really should give that out again, because you know when he's reading this preamble, that could be an hour, an hour and a half before we actually take this vote, and people who are not familiar with the process might not have that in the front of their mind. [1:43:21] Speaker I (unidentified): Absolutely, because as an applicant, I'd be like, well, where do I, where do I step in if I don't like what I'm hearing? Is it now too late because the vote's about to happen or whatever, I mean. [1:43:30] Nathaniel King: I think the priming that would, and I also think maybe adding something in the preamble too, to the effect of, you know, before we approach the final decision on the application, if you feel like it's not going to pass, you can request insert language here, you know, I would like a continuance to the next meeting or to your, you know, March 2026 meeting so I can address some of the concerns that were brought up by commission member or whatever they want to do, or amend the application, or amend the application based on comments. I think we've seen that in the past as well with an applicant where they said, Hey, we want to continue this because there's been some good comments. We want to readdress this, go back to the design, whatever. Yeah, I think I think it's important that we give the applicant that chance because they don't know what's going to happen when I'm talking about this in the preamble. But if we're halfway through these, you know, subsections on part two or whatever, and they might be like, this is feeling a little squirrely, maybe we need to go back and re-examine this. I want to give, at least give them that opportunity because it's, you know, saves them 50 bucks. I just wanted to note too in the bylaws, if you all felt like you needed to do this over again, I'm not saying you do, but if you did, you can reconsider a motion, but it has to be within 10 [1:44:52] Speaker G (unidentified): days of your vote. So I'm just on, you could we also just a separate thing, could we get, or could [1:44:59] Nathaniel King: I get a copy of the bylaws to all the commission members, both the voting and associate members as well? Yes, I think it would be good for us to have a chance to review those. Sorry if you didn't get those before, I had given them to the new members and I No, I'm sure I have them buried somewhere in my inbox. They hadn't already been foiled yet, but I just think it's good. Just good to have that as a refresher. And I know I want to make my own master chair document so I have things in front of me because there's things I didn't even think of tonight that I probably should have addressed. And I'm sure you did a good job. [1:45:36] Speaker N (unidentified): So I'm going to move on if you don't. Yes, I'm sorry. Members should discuss only one motion at a time. A member should not take more than a fair share of the floor time nor interrupt another member except as allowed with a point of order. A member who believes that a law or the meeting's good order is being breached may rise and say point of order. The chair then rules on the point that is made by the member, either correcting the situation or explaining why it is in order. If the chair declares the situation is in order, the member may request a vote on the point of order. First, the member and the chair briefly explain their reasons, and with little or no further discussion, the chair calls for a vote on the point of order. The majority of the members then decide the point of order. That would be the voting members. So I'm going to talk a little bit about the code of ethics. City of Bangor has its own code of ethics, and by the way, there is one rule in the democratic rules of order that if you ever decide to read them, that directly conflicts with something in the city's code of ethics. Okay, and the members of the HBC are required to comply with all the provisions of the city code, including its code of ethics. So this is a default position. So if the city code says something different, you've got to follow the city code. And the democratic rule of order that I'm talking about that should not be followed is the rule that says a member who would benefit personally from a decision may participate in the discussion, but should voluntarily refrain from voting. The city's code of ethics section 3311 a states that no commission member may participate in the deliberation or vote or otherwise take part in the decision making process on any agenda item before the commission in which the member or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial or special interest other than an interest held by the public generally. So that 's that's a standard conflict of interest provision that has to be followed from the code. So if a member wonders whether he or she has a financial or special interest in an agenda item other than an interest held by the public generally, that member should disclose the potential conflict. And if the Commission, after questions and deliberation votes by a majority vote, votes that member does indeed have a conflict, that member should immediately move herself or herself from the meeting room, should not participate in the decision-making process, and should not return until deliberation and action on that item are completed. [1:48:17] Katie Coe: When do you disclose? When you get the packet? When you're in the meeting? [1:48:23] Speaker N (unidentified): You want to disclose before any substantive consideration of the matter. In fact, if you know that you have a potential conflict with regard to an application, I think you should disclose it before the applicant even starts speaking, before you take on that particular agenda item. [1:48:42] Speaker I (unidentified): But it would have to be in the meeting because the commission votes whether you have a conflict or you don't. [1:48:48] Speaker N (unidentified): Right. And if for some reason you don't think of it until you're in the middle of the meeting, then you can disclose it when, you know, ideally you want to realize it before any substantive participation. But if it's already underway and then you're like, oh, wow, I didn't realize, then you'd bring it up as soon as you think of it. [1:49:08] Nathaniel King: Just want to say typically in the past, it's brought up when the chair introduces an item before we get to the procedural background. [1:49:15] Speaker N (unidentified): Round, yeah, okay. So a financial interest defined in section 33-2 of the city ethics code, financial interest is defined as a direct or indirect interest having monetary or pecuniary value, including but not limited to the ownership of shares of stock. Talk. Now, I mentioned about whether you have the interest or whether a member of your immediate family has the interest. That's defined in, immediate family is defined in Section 33 S.2 as spouse, domestic partner, parents, children, or siblings, including step, half, and in-law relations. So if you have a special, if you have a financial interest or a special interest, special interest is a little bit harder to define than a financial interest, that is defined as special interest is defined as 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 of the approval or disapproval by the commission, and which interest is not shared by the general public. An example would be one of the members of the Commission is an employee of a company that is before the HPC. So the recommended process for doing conflicts of interest is this. A member discloses the conflict that the member believes it may have to the Commission prior to any discussion on that agenda item. The commission discusses the details and questions and questions the member so that the commission has a clear understanding of the specific facts that may or not constitute the conflict. So I would encourage you, staff encourages you to ask specific detailed questions of the member, to bring out the specific factual details of the matter so that the commission is clearly informed before taking any vote on the potential conflict. The members of the commission, other than the one with the potential conflict, vote on whether the member has a financial or special interest with respect to the agenda item. If the majority of the voting members vote that the member does have a conflict, that member immediately removes himself or herself from the meeting room, does not participate in the decision-making process, and does not return until deliberation and action on the agenda item is completed. Any questions on that? [1:51:53] Speaker I (unidentified): Oh, yeah, I guess that this is a big issue in the sense of determining what the, you know, financial and pecuniary value you're talking about is in what sort of situation. This was a big issue for the application we had that went on for what over a year in which there was discussion as to whether a member of the Commission had a conflict of interest. It was brought up by that person. The Commission voted that person did not have a conflict. And then later another member, myself, brought up my concern that I was renting space to the company that the other person works for. OK, it was voted as not having conflict, but I was voted as having conflict because I was renting space to that company. It but my issue there had to be with the consistency of this and though we are not a court my presumption is that if you get to a court situation and there is inconsistency in the commission's voting as to what is a conflict or is not a conflict that may be fodder for the attorneys to essentially upset the apple cart of the proceedings of the commission because they weren't being internally consistent in making the decision about conflicts for a commission member that may have voted against the individual, okay? [1:53:19] Speaker N (unidentified): I'm not gonna give a legal opinion on whether past votes were consistent or inconsistent. I will say though, that it is important for the commission to get it right on a conflicts issue by asking specific questions about the facts so that you have a clear understanding of what the relationship is before you take your vote on whether there's a conflict or not. [1:53:46] Speaker I (unidentified): Not asking for a past issue, looking to the future. The concern of conflict in this issue was involvement in a company doing restoration work, which of course the vast majority of people coming in here are doing a restoration process with a company that's going to do it. Maybe they're doing it themselves with a company. The question I have is, it a direct conflict right out of the box or someone sitting on the commission or advising the commission that does the same work that an applicant's representative does? Is that a conflict? I mean, historically in this commission, it hasn't been, I can tell you that. But I'm asking in the future as we look at this, because I feel that I need legal thoughts as to what conflict really means in real life because if that is true that we are in a conflict with people on the Commission that do the same work that applicants are coming to ask about then we have a problem with I would be glad [1:54:58] Speaker N (unidentified): to have a conversation with you yes about conflict situations but I'm not going to give a legal opinion on a future one either okay i mean every situation it's done on a case-by-case basis so okay when the applicant's there if somebody feels they may have a conflict on that then they bring it up and i can't say you know hypothetically in the future if this applicant comes in and the business you know i just don't want to go down that road i mean but i'd be glad to have a long discussion with it with you about conflicts issues [1:55:41] Speaker I (unidentified): well i think i would like to have that because i still am unsure as to whether i have a conflict or i don't in my situation coming forth with anyone that comes in asking to do restoration work that is having the restoration work done and is representing them in their presentation that is either the group that I rent space to or someone that I don't. [1:56:05] Speaker N (unidentified): Well, the answer to the question is, do you have a financial interest in the outcome of the commission's decision that is different from what the general public has? It's [1:56:22] Speaker I (unidentified): kind of a gray area. I mean, if the company that rents my space base goes under and doesn't pay me rent because the competing person's getting this work [1:56:34] Speaker N (unidentified): Well I don't, I guess that's why we bring it up to the commission and the commission still want to [1:56:38] Speaker I (unidentified): have to bring it up every meeting. I appreciate that. Yeah, but I guess my point is, do I then bring this up at every meeting to say is this a conflict? I mean I think you bring [1:56:50] Nathaniel King: bring it up if that [1:57:00] Speaker H (unidentified): and it's not an issue. Well it was an issue, right? But that's [1:57:07] Nathaniel King: past. We're talking case by case by case efficient case by case basis and you know I'm just trying [1:57:14] Speaker I (unidentified): to be consistent, have an understanding of what this is in particular for new members. [1:57:17] Nathaniel King: I have no idea what their situation is. Sure, but I'm just saying that just for this in particular that you know it's a case by case basis and if that particular company that rents your space is not in front of us in any shape, fashion, or form, or is not in any way involved with the business in front of us, then it feels like it's a moot point. If they are, then it's okay. [1:57:39] Speaker I (unidentified): Yes, I need to bring it back. Oh, and I would appreciate that totally. My issue is just the issue that they're in competition with the group here. Interest. That's where I'm having trouble with this. I didn't think I had any conflict. I wanted to be transparent when I brought it forward, and the group thought I did. [1:58:00] Speaker N (unidentified): You want to think financial in this kind of a scenario and is financial defined as a specific monetary value or is it you know one cent and above is that financial interest is defined as a direct or indirect interest having monetary or pecuniary value other than the general public [1:58:21] Nathaniel King: Yeah right, so if he's getting even you know a dollar or whatever out of that it's considered to financial interests right. I'm just trying to think plain language you know because I'm a knuckle [1:58:31] Speaker I (unidentified): dragger and I need to think plain language. So I mean I certainly don't see that. I think I would have a conflict of interest if the company that rents space for me is representing an applicant here. I think that's a direct conflict. I don't have an issue with that whatsoever. My question is when you remove that one more step and the company that's renting for me and paying me rent is in competition that company could be argued has some stake in whether that gets approved or doesn't because their competition will get that job or they won't and so you bring [1:59:09] Speaker N (unidentified): that up, explain it to the board, to the commission, and they would discuss, ask you any questions, and then vote on it, and if they vote, you don't have a conflict. Then that's the determination that's that's part of your duties. [1:59:24] Nathaniel King: Mission members, and I think moving forward to we ask before we start any business, does anyone on the commission suspect they might have a conflict of interest and if no 1 says anything cool proceed on. I think that's and if they do, then okay, let's approach this. Bring it up, debate it, whatever then move on. So I think that's a good way to move forward. Yeah. Okay. Okay. [1:59:45] Speaker N (unidentified): So, I'm going to just talk a little bit quickly about motions and fact, findings. Staff is here to facilitate the Commission's work and I know specifically that Anya has important experience regarding the appropriate and recommended forms of motions. When it comes to the Commission's making factual findings and written decisions. She has experience on the planning board doing that they have to do that a lot more than your board does in terms of this just the sheer numbers of having to do that. So I would recommend the staff would recommend that you allow staff to assist when needed, so that your motions and written decisions will have the best chance of withstanding scrutiny in the event of an appeal to the Board of Appeals and or to a court of law. The legal department is also available to assist in this regard when requested. So economic hardship. Section 148.9.E.1 of the Historic Preservation Commission, the ordinance, states that the HPC may issue a certificate of appropriateness where standards for a certificate of appropriateness are not necessarily met if the failure to issue the certificate would result in undue hardship to the owner of the property. And there are three standards for the commission to vote on should this come up. The three elements are whether the property can yield a reasonable economic return or the owner cannot make any reasonable use of the property without a certificate of appropriateness being issued. Reasonable economic return under the HBC ordinance does not mean a maximum economic return or any reasonable use does not mean the highest and best use. So that's not always an easy standard to agree on, but that's the standard okay it's not the best economic return or maximum it's just a reasonable economic return or reasonable use the second element or a second element is whether the plight of the owner is due to exceptional or unique circumstances and not to the general applicability of the historic preservation chapter of the code And then the third one is whether the conditions or circumstances which constitute the hardship were caused or created by the property owner after the property became subject to the historic preservation chapter. So if the if the property owner did this himself or herself, that element wouldn't be satisfied. satisfied okay so anyway do you have any questions about anything I'm just curious [2:02:41] Nathaniel King: you said that's 148-9E1 in regards to certificate of appropriateness was that not include that was that not included in the our applicable provisions and bindings tonight [Speaker H (unidentified): tonight I] didn't think it was applicable but again if you all have a standard that you think is applicable you can vote to add it in there okay [2:03:15] Speaker M (unidentified): if I had one yeah last question for you when I started on the commission we had legal representation at every meeting I think it was the assistant solicitor I forget her name whether she was a it was a woman I she was really very helpful. Brittany? Brittany. Yeah. Is there any way that we could have representation with us? Because like you amended my order that I messed up and that was really helpful. So having that legal representation here I think could really assist us through this [2:03:46] Speaker N (unidentified): process. The legal department has two attorneys and one of us can be here anytime that you request That's how we have it right now. The current Assistant City Solicitor is Grace Ennis. She does a great job, and we really like her, and I want her to stay with us. So the arrangement is we will be here to cover it whenever you request us to cover a meeting. Just give us some advance notice is all Anya can just ask us. We work in the same building, you know, in theory. She could ask us the day up, but I don't really want her to do that right if you think there's a proceeding that's particularly difficult, or what whatever you know just ask, and we'll be one of us will be here. [2:04:44] Katie Coe: could we have maybe training wheels for the next meeting at least one more meeting to make sure that we're doing this correctly do [2:04:55] Speaker N (unidentified): you want are you know if you want to ask that we cover the next meeting is that what is that what you're asking we cover the next meeting please okay [2:05:04] Speaker I (unidentified): the question going back to finding actual saying i'm trying to get the wording in terms of if there's not going to be a reasonable return or the property will not have a reasonable return, that's exactly what that wording was. I guess the concern I have just about that is how does one determine that? I know that it's a judgment call in terms of how you're looking at things, but one of the big problems we have with historic preservation and of course in Bangor is that they don't have a deep economic base for people to draw upon to help with the cost of restoration work and preservation work which is expensive and so from that perspective you know we're always at odds with trying to meet what the statute says and you know the requirements that we have here versus the practicality of what it may cost for the owner to do. We, I'm not sure how, if I'm reading that or hearing that statement correctly, that if there is not expected to be a reasonable return in terms of the value of the property for the work that's being done, is that then what I'm hearing is the exception for the financial issue hardship [2:06:27] Speaker N (unidentified): has three elements to satisfy, that's one of the elements. Oh, so it's so all three, it has to, all three have to be satisfied, okay, in order to prove a hardship case. And there's actually two different prongs on the, not two different wordings on that prong, it's the property cannot yield a reasonable economic return or the owner cannot make any reasonable use of the property, so if they can prove either of those two things, that also [2:06:59] Speaker I (unidentified): have to meet the other requirements. Yes, the other two have to be satisfied. [2:07:05] Speaker N (unidentified): So you know this is a case about a hardship request and there was a big piece of property and based on a lot of factors that I'm not going to go into it was decided that the only place on the on this giant property to build a house if the variance isn't the requested variant, this is a variance case, it wasn't, right, was granted would be a 17 by 20 foot put space, which was like some really, small percent of the property, and the Court in this case, the Supreme Court of Maine, decided that prong of the hardship, which is a very similar prong to what's in our ordinance, was satisfied, because it wasn't, the court didn't find that it was reasonable for this person to have to build only on a 17 by 20 foot footprint, given the specifics of that particular piece of property, that wouldn't be a reasonable economic return. So, but it's another one of those things where it's a case by case thing. I'm [2:08:35] Nathaniel King: saying this because here's my evidence, here's item A, item B, item C. [2:08:38] Speaker N (unidentified): The applicant bears the burden of proof with regard to each element. If the applicant doesn't provide, doesn't satisfy the burden of proof, then they're not satisfied. [2:08:48] Nathaniel King: Yeah, because we have to act on the evidence that's before us, not on, only, on the evidence that's, that's before us. So if an applicant gives us too much information, that's great, because now we have more information to act on. If they just give us a couple of items and then it's, they're just saying, well, trust me, bro, it's, you know, this, that, or the other, then we can't act on that. Like, we have to act on whatever the evidence is that the applicant has given us. I think it's good to call out that hardship thing. But I feel like maybe moving forward in the voting provisions and bindings, we may want to make sure we have that in there. [2:09:24] Speaker N (unidentified): I don't know if we need to include it every time. I think that... [2:09:33] Nathaniel King: We could vote that if it doesn't apply. You can. We could say that. We could say, hey, you want to take more item seven doesn't apply because this is not, you know, you get on the card chip or whatever. [2:09:42] Speaker N (unidentified): If it's not included and no votes are taken on it, the assumption would be that it wasn't applicable. [2:09:49] Nathaniel King: If it's helpful to you, though, and if you don't mind taking the votes, I can just include all standards in the decision letters and you can vote whether it's applicable or not. Or alternatively, I can just give you a copy of the ordinance at each meeting and you can look over those and decide if you want to include one or not if it's not in there. So let's say standards are there. I mean, there's not a ton for historic preservation, so And I'm just wondering if in theory we could sit down, okay, now we're, you know, we're on part two. You know, Rebecca can make a motion. Hey, on part 2, sections 4, 5, and 9, the hardship do not apply to this, you know, application. And had a piece of voting could second, and then we could vote and say, okay, then we strike. [2:10:41] Speaker N (unidentified): Yeah, you can definitely group votes on ones that you all think are not applicable to speed up the process. [2:10:49] Nathaniel King: We don't have to read through those. [2:10:50] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, okay. That would be better. [2:10:53] Nathaniel King: Yeah, well, and I think, too, especially with new commission members, too, we want to make sure everyone's kind of maybe doing it the hard way a little bit first, and then we're learning. [2:11:02] Speaker N (unidentified): Yeah, I mean, these votes seem kind of cumbersome, but they do protect the decision when you take all of these votes and you word them in the way that basically mirrors the ordinance's provisions is what they are. [2:11:19] Speaker M (unidentified): And I think that was a really big step in our process when we actually started formally voting on each point. [2:11:26] Speaker I (unidentified): One concern I have is from the point of view of the applicant. We have all these ordinances that might apply, and we decide at the time of the meeting we're going to use these,, or these. What opportunity have we given the applicant to respond to the requirements for those particular ordinances? [2:11:44] Nathaniel King: So the applicant gets to pack it the same time that you do, so they can review it before the meeting. and they yeah i mean the ordinance is also publicly available but no i appreciate that [2:11:55] Speaker I (unidentified): and i suppose in the in the past from my sort of seeing it we've relied upon the applicant to know that they can look through the ordinances and figure out for example the financial hardship piece and have if they think that is relevant to this be part of their presentation and the data they provide to us to meet those requirements right because these we're saying it's a burden is on the applicant to provide the data for us to be able to make these determinations. So I guess my thing is that you know it seems inappropriate not to provide a good information packet to the applicant as to what all these ordinances might be, and what they might need to bring if they think that the that, for example, [2:12:42] Katie Coe: of exception applies to them is that information with the application like i would assume that the [2:12:49] Speaker N (unidentified): application would have an information no i staff always wants to be helpful to applicants and will be as helpful as possible to the applicants the legal department though of the city can't represent the applicants sure okay the legal department represents the city yep and if you know, I work with the Board of Appeals as well. And,, you know, if an applicant calls me and ask questions about that kind of thing, I try to be as helpful as possible. I tell them, I'm not your attorney. I can't give you legal opinions. But I can be as helpful as possible, you know, without representing you, because I represent the city and I guide the board at the proceeding right so you know if the applicant wants you know involved legal interpretations of the ordinance the applicant should consult their own attorney [2:13:49] Nathaniel King: Sure, yeah, okay. So then I apologize if this is a dumb question, not a lawyer. So then if we're not including a part, whether it's omitted because any staff doesn't think it's a, it's required or whatever, or we don't have it on here because of whatever reason we didn't think to bring it up, are we robbing the applicant of a due process opportunity or however you would word it? Because you know, if Snuffy Smith comes in front of us and has something that could potentially have been a hardship for economic return or occupancy or whatever, but it wasn't on the sheets, we didn't bring it up or we didn't think to bring it up, have we then robbed them of a due process? I don't think [2:14:33] Speaker H (unidentified): I think so. Okay, you're [2:14:37] Speaker N (unidentified): the chair. This is not an open, okay, this is, you know, the public can be here that, you know, you decide on things like that, but we're not robbing a applicant of due process if they don't present the evidence to satisfy the elements required to the application. [2:14:58] Nathaniel King: Well, we've finished the legal training. I'll be happy to give you an opportunity to speak. [2:15:08] Louis Morrison: We've got a whole entire hour, and yes, you're right. Very first time. I [2:15:28] Speaker M (unidentified): hadn't already done this work. [2:15:29] Speaker H (unidentified): This would have been kind of like 6, you know, 3 months. [2:15:34] Louis Morrison: No rest. That's the best. Any [2:15:52] Speaker N (unidentified): other questions? [2:15:58] Nathaniel King: Mike, do you? Do you? Do we need to have yours on a different day? [2:16:04] Speaker L (unidentified): It's going to be at least an hour. [2:16:10] Speaker H (unidentified): So may I? [2:16:11] Speaker I (unidentified): I suggest that we discuss whether we maybe have separate, you know, an additional meeting where we can have this, we can table that discussion as well. I don't think we knew. Hey, yeah, I'm fine with doing it at your next meeting [2:16:31] Speaker M (unidentified): and fresh, yeah. [2:16:33] Nathaniel King: Yeah, I'm awake on you. You mentioned something earlier about reconsideration of a vote at first time I've ever heard of it. So I would like to ask some questions about reconsider the vote. What is the process? Is that something we discuss obviously publicly is? [2:16:52] Speaker N (unidentified): Do we discuss that? I would suggest a phone call with Anya. [2:16:56] Nathaniel King: Yeah. Okay. Well, within 10 days, the only issue is that if they vote to reconsider it, has to be within 10 days of today, and they won't meet again for another month. The applicant also has the ability to request reconsideration, and that has to be filed within three business days of the vote. Okay, so in theory, if an applicant files within three days requesting reconsideration, then that is then moved to the February meeting for reconsideration. Okay, let me, let me just read through to make sure I'm not missing anything. Excuse me, could [2:17:32] Peter James Sachs: We reconsider a vote immediately after we take it. Is there, is there any sort of thing if new [2:17:38] Speaker N (unidentified): information comes? Yeah, motion for reconsideration is really something that's very close in time to when the vote was taken. So yeah, why there's a 10-day limit. So in theory [2:17:49] Nathaniel King: could someone have put forth a motion for reconsideration and then immediately follow with a motion to say continue to the February meeting or whatever the next prior, next month meeting would be, or whatever the month maybe that's going on. Just give me a second. Yeah, I'm [2:18:09] Peter James Sachs: sorry, this is the first I'd ever heard of it, so I want to make sure about the process. I'm, I'm asking like could we put emotion consideration like and add it on to the end of them, add it on to an end [2:18:20] Nathaniel King: of like the existing meeting? It says if a motion for reconsideration is made and it succeeds, a hearing shall be scheduled. The applicant and any other parties for whom notice was required for the original hearing, which would mean a butters in this case, would be notified of the decision, the date of the new hearing. So we would have to re-notify, so it would have to be a different thank you. Does that date have to be within? So we have to, we have to give 14 days for notification. Right, there's actually not a required, we typically do it like within 12 days. There's not a requirement on the length of time though, so but it doesn't give you like a specific timeline of when that hearing has to be scheduled. It would be up to you. So then, in theory, that motion was before an emotional was passed. The chair could say, can we schedule this for the February, March, whatever the following month meeting from when that was made? Yeah. Yeah. So I will, I will ask before we adjourn. Is there anyone that would consider a motion for, or can I even ask for that? Does it have to be, am I allowed to, I get first day as chair, so I'm trying to make sure. So the motion can only be made by a commissioner who voted on the prevailing side of the decision. [2:19:42] Speaker G (unidentified): So there's that restriction failing, so that's the yes votes, so only people who voted yes. [2:19:47] Nathaniel King: No, it's saying only people who voted yes can make a motion to reconsider. [2:19:53] Peter James Sachs: It wasn't, was the no side prevailing? Wasn't no side prevailing even though it was the minority [2:19:59] Speaker N (unidentified): vote? It was prevailing. The prevailing side was the side that voted that this application did, applicant did not satisfy, so it would have to be one of you two would have to be one of the two no votes you. [2:20:16] Nathaniel King: Agree with that. I mean, it's kind of complicated because the only reason the decision, well, see, it's complicated because, a, you made votes that it didn't meet certain standards, so then you shouldn't really have voted that it met the requirements, period. But then on top of it, you needed four affirmative votes to make the decision, so it failed on that basis, so it's kind [2:20:41] Speaker N (unidentified): of hard to say what the prevailing side is. It failed because the elements weren't satisfied. There was at least two, right, yeah, that were applicable, that the vote was that it did not satisfy those elements. There were three, so it would have to be a reconsideration of a number [2:21:00] Katie Coe: of votes. It'd be very complicated. We were also unaware that we could do the approval with the conditions that it would meet the standard of the consultant's recommendations, so we could, so I would be in favor of putting the motion forward that we reconsider if we could, in fact, then involve the applicant and determine if they would be willing to accept the approval with the conditions to meet our standard or are recommended. [2:21:46] Speaker N (unidentified): So you want to make a motion? [2:21:49] Speaker G (unidentified): motion yes for reconsideration of which vote of the oh goodness because the one the sections that did not and were you one of the right bailing yes I voted no on the final decision okay yes [2:22:09] Nathaniel King: And I think she voted no on all but one of the subsections of part two on my tip sheet. [2:22:20] Katie Coe: Right. I mean. But you also. [2:22:24] Speaker N (unidentified): If you reconsider the final vote. Right. There's no way logically that vote can be that the applicant satisfied the elements. [2:22:32] Katie Coe: Right. Which is completely correct. Correct. But you folks did say that we could say that we would like him to satisfy those elements as part of a motion of approval. So we could do it with conditions that would require he meet those standards. [2:22:50] Speaker N (unidentified): But you've already voted that he did not satisfy two of the elements. Correct. Correct. So I'm going to suggest that the motion to reconsider the final vote would be [2:23:09] Nathaniel King: No mood right checklist I don't know right so a motion maybe to reconsider. If the that the project met the evaluation standards under part 2 parts. It would be much more complex failed part one failed, and then part 2 sub 1 2 were what failed, and then the final vote right this would and if there's nothing we can do there's nothing we can do [2:23:44] Speaker H (unidentified): I'm because [2:23:47] Katie Coe: Essentially what we would be saying is he did not meet these standards however if he [2:23:54] Speaker G (unidentified): Accepted the redesign the recommendations this motion for to reconsider can be made [2:24:05] Speaker N (unidentified): By way of a request made within 10 days of today's vote, okay, it could be sent in. [2:24:13] Nathaniel King: Do you mean by the commissioners? Do you mean who would send it in? Anybody. It says, though, they have to move reconsideration at the same or at a regular or special meeting of the commission. Or the applicant can also request in writing in three business days that the decision be reconsidered. [2:24:40] Speaker N (unidentified): That can happen. Yeah, if the applicant requests it within three business days, then you would schedule a meeting to consider the applicant's request for reconsideration. [2:24:52] Speaker G (unidentified): Then I [2:24:58] Katie Coe: withdraw the potential motion that I was attempting to do, okay. [2:25:04] Nathaniel King: Yeah, I mean, we could, we could send that to the February meeting. It is on the agenda. It'd also be my presentation table that too. [2:25:27] Speaker I (unidentified): Thank you about the add-on agenda to discuss whether we have more meetings. So they don't go so long. [2:25:58] Speaker M (unidentified): Continue our just, would it be continuation or tabling planning and advisory consultants. I move to continue making continuation for the planning and Mike Poland's training till the February 2026 meeting of the and the discussion of future meetings as well. Excuse me, until the February 2026 seconded, yes,, I also vote. [2:26:36] Nathaniel King: Yes, and if there's no other business, in the words of Edmund, my one power I adjourn.