Historic Preservation Commission pauses review of proposed 'BANGOR' sign after public concern; item continued to March 13

The City of Bangor Historic Preservation Commission heard extensive public comment Feb. 27 on a proposed large internally lit installation spelling “BANGOR” at the intersection of State and Harlow streets and voted to continue formal comment until a March 13 presentation.

The proposal is being advanced as a public‑art installation by a private proposer (packet materials identify the sign and graphics). Commission staff explained the project will proceed through the Cultural Commission for a recommendation and then to city council for final action; the preservation commission was asked only for comments because the installation sits in the Great Fire of 1911 historic district.

Public speakers voiced opposition citing historic‑district compatibility, cost and safety concerns. Speakers raised the risk of vandalism, the sign’s potential to distract drivers at a busy intersection, and questioned claims about the project’s economic return. One speaker cited a Bangor Daily News poll he said found 68% of respondents opposed. Another urged the city to spend funds on infrastructure such as roads, sidewalks and riverfront improvements instead.

What the commission said and will do next Commissioners emphasized they had not received the presenter who prepared the materials and repeatedly asked to hear a full presentation from the project proposer. Chair Edwin Cherneski clarified the commission will not vote on the item in this forum because public art proposals are handled by the Cultural Commission with final review by council; the preservation commission’s role is to offer comments regarding compatibility with the historic district.

Commissioners noted open questions they expect the March 13 presentation to address, including whether the sign is properly classified as mural/public art or as signage subject to sign rules, whether neon or internally lit elements are permitted within the historic district, who will be responsible for long‑term maintenance and electricity costs, and whether the specific proposed location is appropriate given nearby traffic patterns.

The commission motion to continue the item to the March 13 meeting passed unanimously. The motion was made by Peter Keebler and seconded by a remote member; the vote recorded “yes” from Ann Marie Quinn, Nathaniel King, Rebecca Krepkie, Matthew Weicamp, Peter Keebler and Chair Edwin Cherneski.

Public comments recorded - Justin Cartier said the sign “brings a change to our historic area” and questioned a council member’s claim that the sign would “pay for itself tenfold.” - Suzette Ferrer said the letters are “gaudy,” could be vandalized, and would be distracting at a busy intersection. - Ray DuBois questioned using an out‑of‑town contractor when local contractors may be available and said the sign “certainly isn’t historic.” - Multiple speakers asked who will pay ongoing maintenance and electricity costs and whether the city would be expected to assume those costs.

Next steps The commission will hear a formal presentation and receive questions March 13; staff said the project will also go to the Cultural Commission before council consideration. Members asked that proponents be available by Zoom if they cannot appear in person so the commission can avoid repeated continuances.

Speakers quoted in this account are identified in the meeting record and appear in the speakers list for this article.