18,000 square feet of controversy

MILFORD — The library board may have won over many citizens at their public presentation for the new library plans, but members of the Milford Borough Architectural Review Board remain unconvinced. Meeting Wednesday night, the board heard from its consulting architect Peter Benton, who highlighted design areas he finds problematic. These included building location, parking, form and massing, and materials. Despite what Benton described as an “elaborate and responsible process” that the library board conducted, he said that the results will need modifications to comply with relevant borough ordinances. Most of these he included in a recent letter to the library board, to which there has been no reply. Benton suggests further consideration on the building’s potential negative impact on adjacent structures and all of the buildings of comparable size in the historic district. “I would like to see some more options. They need to demonstrate how the library meets the specific requirements of the ordinance,” he said. Board Chair Beth Kelley said that the current design has no way of enhancing or contributing to the historic buildings of Milford. She said that the design in fact does not comply with the requirements of the ordinance. “We have to be very careful about protecting why [the Architectural Review Board] is here… It’s not about style, it’s not about taste. It’s about the law,” Kelley stated. Board member Don Quick objected to the plan for the front of the building, calling it a “fallacious argument for green space.” Quick said the area could never sustain itself and would wind up being paved five years from now. He also said that the board should not be forced to approve the design just because the library already purchased the property in Milford n a condition of its initial funding. Vice-chair Kevin Stroyan, referring to the rear of building which partially hangs over the adjacent stream, said that “it’s one thing to cop a view; it’s another thing to use someone else’s property.” Member James McLain remarked that the library design should contribute to Milford as a unique place, not internationalize the town with its design. “It is very unfortunate they never talked to us beforehand,” he said. Borough resident John Seidenstricker emphatically advised the panel to take proactive measures in affirming their position. He said that the library board is trying to make a political issue of the new design and putting on a show for residents. “There is a disconnect with the citizens … why did they only give us one option, take it or leave it?” “Contemporary does not belong in Milford ... You are making Rite Aid jump through hoops; I hope you are willing to do the same for the library. They don’t respect your process,” he said. There were no representatives of the library at the meeting, which had been rescheduled after the Monday holiday. As of yet, there has been no planning interaction between the review board and the library board or architect, something that frustrates many members of the review board. “We have to let them know that if they continue with these plans they are going to run into some issues. The ball is in their court. They need to come to us,” said board member, Duane Kuhn. Quick agreed, “They need to get in here and start hearing these things.” Kelley said that they are going to notify the library board of the board’s support of Benton’s preliminary evaluation and communicate that the library board is welcome to engage in the planning consultation process. No review application for the project review has yet been filed.