The devil is in the details

MILFORD - Borough Council President Matt Osterberg said there is no comparison between the doors at 408 West Harford Street and 202 Fourth Street. Both structures have been subject to review under the borough’s historic district ordinance and found wanting. On Monday, the council endorsed the borough architectural review board’s rejection of Donna Ruffino’s vinyl-clad storm door at 408 West Harford. Several years ago, Gary Shelto’s steel door at 202 Fourth Street was also cited as inappropriate. He had no permit for the work and was eventually fined. But Shelto went to court and, after several years of litigation, the borough’s insurance carrier paid him $75,000 to end the lawsuit. Ruffino, whose real estate office occupies the West Harford building, said she didn’t know she needed a permit to replace the old battered and unpainted aluminum door. Review board chair Beth Kelley noted in the board decision that the door was not reviewed or approved by the board prior to installation. She recommended that no storm door be installed. Ruffino was also free to reinstall the old door, or get an all-glass, wood frame door that would not obscure the historic raised paneled wood door. Kelley said Monday that the decision was in keeping with a sensitive restoration done by a previous owner. Ruffino said the old door was discarded after one of her agents and a contractor had been cut while passing through it. Osterberg said the borough was not aware that the old door had safety problems when it was offered as an alternative. “I’m not going to spend any more money on this door. I think if the people of Milford were polled, they would agree that my door looks fine,” Ruffino said. Osterberg said the door’s appearance was not in question. “They look good. I sell doors like that,” he said. Ruffino was not satisfied with the decision and said she planned to consult her attorney. She remained undecided about her next step Wednesday. “I’ve had a lot of people tell me I should fight this,” she said. “I think they want to make an example of me,” she concluded. In another review board oversight decision, the council also endorsed the review board’s rejection of a skylight that was installed at the former Pizza House property at 107 East Harford Street. Kelley noted that the skylight’s location and style were inappropriate for the period of the building. The project was also completed prior to a board review or the filing of an application. But the council endorsed a review board decision to approve a birdhouse-topped gate at Chris Hobbs’ Broad Street Alley project. The decision came despite a minority opinion letter from board member Don Quick, who urged denial, noting no application was ever filed or any permit given for the work. “This structure has, in my opinion, no architectural relevance whatsoever to the building or the borough,” and was the result of “a long, contentious and confusing discussion,” Quick wrote. He said allowing it, without approvals, would set a precedent making compliance in future all the more difficult. Kelley had voted with the 4-2 majority in approving the project. She admitted that a check of board minutes confirmed that no application for this structure or approval for it existed. “Shoot me,” she added. She said that in her subsequent review of the plans, she found nothing that violated the ordinance or presented any likelihood that the board would not have granted approval had the process been followed. She said Quick’s letter arose because “Mr. Quick doesn’t like the birdhouses.” Council member James Price said he would be “happy” to overturn the board recommendation based on Hobbs’ failure to obtain approvals. Solicitor John Klemeyer counseled caution in using the failure to gain approvals, saying, “Many, many, many things are done in this borough without approvals.” Klemeyer said he’d be in court several times a week if all of them were cited. “This is a very complicated and confusing ordinance to administer,” Osterberg said Wednesday. He scheduled a joint council, review board and planning commission meeting for 7 p.m., on Jan. 15 to discuss “procedural issues.”