New library design is wrapped in controversy

Does contemporary style belong in historic Milford?

By TOM KANE

MILFORD, PA — Two sides are gathering for an inevitable battle scene.

The two armies in question are the members of the Milford Borough Architectural Review Board (ARB) on one hill, and the members of the Pike County Public Library Building Taskforce on the other. In the middle lies a seeming no-mans-land where never the twain shall meet.

At question is the acceptance or rejection of the proposed design of the new Milford public library.

The library taskforce recently announced the selection of Frederic Schwartz Architects of New York City as the winner of a six-month competition to create a preliminary architectural plan for the new 18,000- square-foot central library. The Schwartz design, which is a contemporary and expansive “green building” plan, was the unanimous choice among a 12-person design jury that reviewed the presentations of three competition finalists during a day-long session on February 24.

The only problem is that the ARB rejected it. “It is not in compliance with the ordinances of the board,” said Beth Kelly, the former chair of the ARB. Kelly resigned from the board last month. Her place is temporarily taken by Kevin Stroyan, the board’s vice president.

That meeting and a subsequent one where the ARB repeated their opinion was an informal conversation between the two sides, not the formal meeting that the process will eventually require.

“The taskforce was aided by a consulting firm called CivicVisions, which had as its members prominent Pennsylvania preservationists, historians and the founding member of he University of Pennsylvania’s Historic Preservation Program, Dr. George E. Thomas,” said Maleyne Syracuse, taskforce chair.

“On our board is an architect and several people who are very conversant with architectural practices, as well as a prominent architectural specialist from Philadelphia, named Peter Benton, who supported our position,” Kelly said. “What is worse is that members of the taskforce not only expressed dissatisfaction with the competence of our members but, at times, spoke to them with disdain.”

At this informal meeting, Benton showed how the taskforce had to modify its design in order to make it acceptable and in conformity with the ARB ordinances, Kelly said.

“There was so much asperity from the group that I feared for my safety in walking home that evening,” Kelly said. “I have never experienced this in my community before.”

“When we showed the ARB three designs, they expressed no issues with them,” Syracuse said. “Their objections were non-specific. They told us to come up with some alternative designs. We realized that we could not comply with this provision since it would mean that we would have to spend more money—a lot of money—which was something that we could not do. We are a non-profit organization and have limited funds.”

Syracuse said that she had written a letter to the chairman of the Milford Borough Council, Matthew Osterberg, asking the reasons why the ARB objected to the design and he never wrote back.

“We can’t negotiate with a ghost,” she said. “The ARB has not told us exactly what they object to. They need to be specific.” She said the ARB members who were present at the first meeting were only speaking as individuals and not for the board.

Kelly’s position is contrary to this, when she stated that the ARB at the two informal meetings repeated that the design did not conform to the ordinances.

“We want to work with the ARB and resolve these differences,” Syracuse said.

The final decision will be made by the Milford Borough Council. “We are an advisory board of the council. They have never overruled any decision we have made in the past.

It is not clear when the next meeting of the two factions will occur.