Historic Preservation Commission tables 198 Broadway roof decision after conflict finding

On July 31, 2025, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) voted that an associate commissioner has a conflict of interest and then tabled an application by the owner of 198 Broadway in the Broadway Historic District to replace a deteriorated slate roof.

The applicant, identified in meeting materials as Steven (Steve) Farren, sought a certificate of appropriateness to remove an existing slate roof and install GAF’s “Slate Line” architectural shingles on the house and matching material on an attached stable. Farren presented an insurance company notice and an engineering assessment saying the existing slate is beyond repair and that a full slate replacement would be prohibitively costly and delayed by contractor availability.

The case matters because 198 Broadway sits in the Broadway Historic District, where the HPC reviews exterior changes under the city’s historic-preservation ordinance (section 1-48). The applicant argued the combination of structural damage, a nonrenewal or conditional-renewal notice from his insurer, and contractors’ schedules amount to an exceptional-circumstances/hardship case under the ordinance. Supporters and several preservation professionals and contractors spoke at the meeting, while other participants urged strict adherence to historic-material standards.

Farren told the commission he sustained windstorm damage to the roof in December 2024. He submitted an insurance report from National General and an engineering/site-evaluation report from a Massachusetts contractor (NEI/New England Infrastructure) concluding most slate shingles are brittle and that less than 5% of the existing material is salvageable. NEI estimated a full slate replacement for the property at roughly $220,000–$260,000 and said slate contractors were not available until late 2025 or 2026. Farren and a contractor who testified said the proposed GAF Slate Line product closely mimics slate, carries a long manufacturer warranty, and would be quicker and less costly to install than real slate.

Contractor Rick Violet, who testified as a general contractor with slate removal experience, described widespread deterioration and contractor scarcity for traditional slate work. He and other witnesses presented comparative estimates for multiple nearby properties, arguing that full slate replacements would be economically infeasible for many owners and that substitute materials had been approved in prior HPC decisions.

Public-comment speakers were split. Several longtime neighborhood residents and preservationists urged strict material preservation and said the commission should defend original materials. Others — including property owners and contractors from the Broadway and West Broadway historic districts — described repair difficulties, long contractor lead times, high slate-replacement estimates relative to assessed values, and the risk that requiring full slate replacement would lead to property abandonment or demolition.

Procedural matters shaped the meeting. Associate member Peter Keebler disclosed that he rents workshop space to a Bangor restoration company that performs slate and roofing work. After discussion under the city’s conflict-of-interest rules (section 33-11 in meeting materials), the commission held a vote and determined Keebler had a conflict of interest related to the 198 Broadway application; he left the room for the remainder of the item. That reduced the pool of voting regular members to four, meaning the applicant would have needed a 4‑of‑4 affirmative vote to obtain a certificate that night.

Commission discussion cited the ordinance’s evaluation standards (listed in staff/consultant materials as 1-48-9) and the exceptional-circumstances/hardship provision. Some commissioners said the new materials submitted for this meeting — the insurance company notice and the NEI engineering/estimate — materially changed the record from the applicant’s prior hearing and weighed toward finding an economic hardship. Other commissioners said the HPC must evaluate preservation standards case by case and that prior approvals of substitute materials do not automatically bind the commission.

After extended discussion and public testimony, the applicant asked to postpone rather than press for an immediate decision requiring unanimous support. The commission moved and voted to table the application to its regular August meeting on Aug. 14, 2025. The meeting minutes and recording will be part of the packet for that hearing so absent members may review the presented evidence before casting votes.

Outcome and next steps: The associate-member conflict determination stands and Keebler did not participate further in the item. The application for a certificate of appropriateness for 198 Broadway was tabled to the HPC’s Aug. 14 regular meeting; the commission indicated the applicant may present the same evidence at that hearing and that absent members should review the July 31 record. The commission did not issue a certificate or deny the application at the July 31 meeting.

The commission’s discussion made clear what additional steps and documents the HPC is likely to consider at the next hearing: contractor estimates or written quotes, documentation of contractor availability and lead times, the insurer’s written notice of nonrenewal or conditions, and any engineering or roofing-assessment reports showing salvageability. The applicant and members also discussed warranty and longevity tradeoffs between full-slate replacement and architecturally similar asphalt products.

Because this is an ongoing, remanded matter with a scheduled follow-up hearing, the HPC left the record open to the same presentation and directed that the Aug. 14 meeting include all absent regular members for a full five-member vote if possible.