Bangor, Maine– A homeowner in Bangor, Maine, finds himself at the epicenter of an escalating dispute with the city’s Historic Preservation Commission after replacing his slate roof with asphalt shingles without obtaining the required city approval. This ongoing controversy underscores broader tensions between historical preservation standards, homeowner affordability, and practicality, especially during a time when specialized craftsmanship and materials are becoming increasingly scarce and costly.
Steven Farren, owner of a stately historic home in Bangor’s renowned Broadway Historic District, recently took a controversial step by installing asphalt shingles designed to mimic traditional slate. According to Farren, the decision was driven by practical necessity, due primarily to excessive repair and replacement costs and difficulty locating available roofing contractors who specialize in slate roofing.
A contractor told Farren that the slate tiles were “too brittle” for repairs, thereby requiring a full replacement. Farren’s insurance company also agreed he needed a new roof.
The ordeal began when Farren approached Bangor’s Historic Preservation Commission in November 2024 seeking permission to replace his deteriorating slate roof. At this meeting, Farren presented numerous professional assessments indicating extensive roof damage, including photographic evidence suggesting at least 90% of the existing slate roof required complete replacement.
Farren believes his slate roof was installed more than 100 years ago and well past the 75 to 100 years slate roofs usually last, he said to the Board of Appeals. In addition, his slate roof had been installed over cedar shakes.
At the meeting, detailed discussions unfolded about the financial burdens involved in maintaining and replacing historic slate roofing. Farren informed commissioners of previous repair efforts amounting to approximately $28,000, covering multiple patches costing between $3,000 and $5,000 each. These repairs, according to Farren, offered only temporary relief from leaks and deterioration, leaving the roof vulnerable to further damage and threatening the home’s structural integrity.
Farren further presented cost estimates indicating that replacing the entire roof with authentic slate tiles would cost over $200,000, an expenditure he described as economically infeasible. This figure sharply contrasted with the significantly lower cost of asphalt shingles, ranging from $600 to $850 per square, compared to slate’s typical price of around $2,500 per square. This cost disparity became a central argument in Farren’s request for leniency from the commission, which is tasked with preserving the historical integrity of the district.
According to City of Bangor Historic Preservation Commission Minutes, Commissioner Liam Riordan, among others, challenged Farren’s claims, suggesting that the homeowner may have overstated the extent of damage. Riordan expressed skepticism about Farren’s estimate that 90% of the slate was irreparable, noting discrepancies based on photographic evidence provided during the meeting. Riordan emphasized the commission’s primary obligation to preserve historical authenticity, advocating for repairing original materials rather than opting for modern substitutes whenever feasible.
Further complicating the meeting was the involvement of Commissioner Matthew Weitkamp, who disclosed potential conflicts of interest due to his professional ties to slate roofing. Weitkamp’s colleagues from Blackstone Restoration, specialists in slate roofing repair, presented strong arguments supporting the continued use of slate roofs, citing their longevity, serviceability, and historical authenticity.
Despite Farren’s presentation, Commissioner Anne Marie Quin articulated a clear stance against deviating from traditional materials for historic homes, stressing that slate roofing should ideally be replaced with slate to maintain historical accuracy and architectural integrity. Quin, along with Riordan and Weitkamp, ultimately voted against the application, resulting in a narrow but decisive 3-2 denial.
After this denial by the Historic Preservation Commission, Farren sought reconsideration from Bangor’s Board of Appeals in January 2025, where he reiterated arguments about cost, practicality, and consistency of enforcement. Again, his appeal was rejected. Undeterred, and citing urgent necessity due to ongoing leaks and structural concerns, Farren proceeded to replace the slate roof with asphalt shingles in defiance of city regulations.
Following this unauthorized roof replacement, the City of Bangor swiftly responded by issuing Farren a formal violation notice, demanding that he revert his roof to slate within 30 days or face additional punitive actions. This violation notice heightened tensions and attracted broader community attention, sparking debates about the appropriateness of current preservation standards.
“This isn’t about money; it’s about reason,” Farren reiterated publicly, highlighting ongoing concerns about affordability and the lack of qualified local contractors capable of performing slate roof replacements within reasonable timeframes. Farren noted that many slate roof specialists in the region either refused to provide written cost estimates or had waiting periods extending beyond a year, exacerbating the urgency of addressing his home’s roofing issues promptly.
Another significant aspect of the dispute involves Farren’s assertions regarding fairness and selective enforcement. Farren cited at least 23 neighboring homes in the same historic district that had similarly replaced original slate roofs with asphalt shingles without any known enforcement actions or penalties. He argued that his situation demonstrated an inconsistency in the application of the city’s preservation standards, emphasizing that his attempt to follow official channels ironically led to his current predicament.
Commissioners countered this claim by reiterating their responsibility to preserve the character and authenticity of historic neighborhoods like the Broadway Historic District. Commissioner Riordan specifically noted that historic homes form an essential aspect of Bangor’s identity, and deviation from established standards could significantly undermine the district’s historical value.
Planning Officer Anja Collette provided further context during commission deliberations, explaining that financial hardship could be considered but required detailed and verifiable documentation, something commissioners felt was lacking in Farren’s submission. Collette emphasized the importance of consistency and thoroughness in reviewing financial hardship claims, a standard to which the commission rigorously adheres.
The commission suggested Farren consider exploring alternative materials that could better match the original slate’s appearance, particularly around highly visible areas such as the eaves and roof cap. Although initially hesitant, Farren indicated willingness to discuss alternative materials but expressed frustration over the prolonged review process and urgency dictated by the deteriorating state of his home.
In response to the commission’s suggestions and ongoing procedural complexities, Farren voiced concerns about fairness and impartiality, specifically questioning the appropriateness of Commissioner Weitkamp’s involvement, given his professional affiliation with slate roofing. Despite these concerns, the commission affirmed Weitkamp’s right to vote after determining no direct financial interest in the specific project existed.
The ongoing dispute, now drawing significant attention locally, is set to escalate further as Farren prepares to appeal the city’s violation notice. His continued defiance and determination to argue his case before Bangor’s Board of Appeals could potentially establish an influential precedent affecting future roofing decisions and preservation practices across Bangor’s multiple historic districts.
As this conflict unfolds, it highlights critical tensions between the practical realities faced by homeowners of historic properties, the stringent regulations designed to protect architectural heritage, and broader community perspectives on the evolving meaning and implementation of historical preservation.
The outcome of Farren’s case, watched closely by Bangor residents and preservationists alike, may influence broader discussions regarding modernization versus historical authenticity, potentially prompting a review or adjustment of existing preservation guidelines to balance practical needs with historical integrity more effectively.
