Bangor officials upheld a notice of violation the city issued a resident for replacing the slate roof on his historic home with asphalt tiles after being told not to.
The Bangor Board of Appeals ruled on Thursday that the city’s code enforcement office was right to issue Steven Farren a notice of violation for replacing the aging slate roof on his home in the Broadway Historic District.
That’s because the new roof, which is a type of asphalt that looks like slate but is cheaper and more contractors can install it, was put on after the city’s Historic Preservation Commission, then the Board of Appeals, told him he couldn’t.
After Farren replaced the roof in March, the city issued a notice of violation ordering him to “fix the violation” within 30 days. Instead, Farren appealed the notice, which brought the issue back to the Board of Appeals.
The stalemate between Farren and Bangor officials has brought into focus the often costly requirements placed on those who own historic homes and want to maintain them. The city’s handling of the dispute also sends a message to others who are interested in purchasing or altering a home in a historic area.
Seven people, many of whom have worked with Farren, spoke in favor of his appeal while one person voiced opposition to it.
While some appeals board members were sympathetic to Farren’s situation, they said they have to uphold city ordinances, which the homeowner violated because he installed an asphalt roof without the proper approval.
The Board of Appeals doesn’t have the ability to issue an allowance for Farren’s new roof, said David Szewczyk, Bangor’s city solicitor.
Farren countered by saying he replaced his roof with a more affordable and accessible alternative that mimics slate in order to both keep his homeowners insurance and protect his home from water damage.
“All I’m doing is protecting my home and I will do that at any cost,” Farren said.
Farren referenced more than a dozen homes within the Broadway Historic District that, at some point, had their slate roofs replaced with asphalt seemingly without the city’s approval or knowledge. If they’ve never been punished, Farren said perhaps he should’ve asked for forgiveness instead of permission.
Farren included two letters in his appeal application that the board considered on Thursday. One was from his insurance company warning him that his homeowners insurance would not be renewed if he didn’t replace his roof by June 3.
“This roof is in poor condition and requires that the entire roof be replaced as soon as possible,” the letter dated Jan. 22, 2025, from National General Insurance said. “The current condition of the roof can result in future losses.”
The second letter, dated Feb. 10, 2025, is from Massachusetts-based New England Infrastructure Inc. outlining the results of a roof inspection on Farren’s home that took place on Jan. 17, 2025.
Help us raise $40,000 to fund the BDN’s civic news mission this spring. Learn why we are asking and how to give.
That inspection found numerous slate shingles on the home were “cracked, flaking, lifting, shifted and missing,” leading to signs of rot underneath and water and ice buildup, causing further decay, the letter states.
Because of this evidence, Hugh Derry, a principal at New England Infrastructure Inc., recommended that Farren have his roof entirely replaced, either with new slate or asphalt shingles, rather than repaired.
Derry warned that a new slate roof would be “economically adverse,” as he estimated putting a new slate roof on Farren’s home would cost between $240,000 and $260,000. Additionally, Farren would likely need to wait until next year to have the work done, due to the limited number of contractors who work with slate, Derry wrote in his letter.
Both letters arrived after Farren asked the Historic Preservation Commission’s permission to install the asphalt roof, so they weren’t taken into consideration.
Brenda Hanscom Bilotta, the code enforcement officer who issued Farren’s violation notice, said the city would be willing to delay enforcing it if Farren made plans to go back to the Historic Preservation Commission with the new evidence.
It’s unclear, however, if Farren intends to do that, as he declined to speak with a Bangor Daily News reporter following the meeting on Thursday.
Farren needed permission from the city’s Historic Preservation Commission to replace his roof because his home is in a historic district. City code requires homeowners in this area have to get the commission’s permission before making changes that could alter the appearance of their home.
The home was built in 1880 and Farren bought the property in 2017, according to city property records. Farren’s home is currently assessed by the city at nearly $472,000.
The Historic Preservation Commission denied Farren’s request on Nov. 14, 2024, as it ruled that materials on historic homes should be repaired or replaced with the same material whenever possible.
A few months later, Farren took the matter to the Bangor Board of Appeals where he was again denied but went on to replace the roof anyway.
