Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Character Defining Features topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debates clearer definitions and applicant guidance for character‑defining features
Summary
Commissioners and the commission consultant urged the commission to add explicit, style‑by‑style examples of "character‑defining features" to ordinance definitions, create applicant handouts or a short web presentation, and consider outreach to new property owners to reduce surprises at hearings.
The Bangor Historic Preservation Commission spent much of its July 9 meeting discussing how to make determinations more consistent by clarifying what the ordinance means by ‘‘character‑defining features.’’
Architect and consultant Mike Paulan led the conversation, urging the commission to adopt style‑specific lists (Greek Revival, Queen Anne, Italianate, etc.) and to reference Secretary of the Interior guidance so members and applicants can point to authoritative examples when reviewing proposals. Paulan read an explanatory passage describing character‑defining features as ‘‘a prominent or distinctive aspect, quality or characteristic of a historic property that contributes significantly to its physical character.’’ He gave local examples (terracotta cladding on the Frye Dugan Staples Block and cornice details on Greek Revival buildings) and flagged prior cases where removal of trim or cornice details had materially altered a building’s character.
Commissioners and staff discussed practical ways to make that guidance available: adding a definitions section to the ordinance, publishing a short PowerPoint or PDF on the City of Bangor website, creating a GIS story map that links district features to examples on specific buildings, and including a district‑information insert in ownership transfer letters. Staff and commissioners also recommended routine pre‑application meetings with applicants and the consultant to go over likely issues and to reduce surprises at public hearings.
Chair Nathaniel King raised the question of indirect effects, such as view‑shed changes when additions or new construction outside a district affect sightlines to historic properties; Paulan noted that other cities have created guidance for rooftop additions and visibility concerns, and suggested the commission consider similar pointers even though Bangor has seen only a few such cases so far.
No formal vote was recorded on ordinance edits; commissioners tasked staff to work at the staff level on draft language, handouts and outreach materials for future consideration.
