On July 28, the era of the “pink house” on Northwest Front Street ended as demolition crews began tearing down the building. The house was the focus of a dispute between owner Jamie Masten and the city. Masten painted the house pink after city leaders denied a request for a sidewalk waiver on the property.
The City Council packet from June 22, 2020, includes a memo from City Planner Rob Pierce explaining that Mispillion Realty, owned by Jamie Masten, was proposing to rezone the parcel with the house, which was the former L&W Insurance Office, from R-1 (Residential District) to C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial). Masten planned to demolish the existing non-conforming office building and construct a new three-story office building.
According to the minutes from that meeting, the Board of Adjustments approved reductions in the front and rear yard setbacks as well as off-street parking requirements. Mayor Todd Culotta, who was then a councilman for Ward 2, pointed out that this was a better use for the property and Pierce stated that the current building was in the city right-of-way by over five feet. The new office building would place the entire structure on private property. Culotta also noted that the proximity of the railroad tracks made it difficult to develop the property.
Council approved the zoning request by a vote of 7 to 0 as then-Councilman Andy Fulton did not vote. Immediately following the vote, council discussed the requested sidewalk waiver.
Pierce reminded council that because the building would be completely demolished, code required the installation of sidewalks and curbing. Masten requested a temporary waiver as there were sidewalks along the frontage of Lakeview Apartments, but heading west, there were no sidewalks until the intersection of Dupont Highway. Masten was asking that a temporary waiver be issued until the city finds it appropriate to install sidewalks.
“There are sidewalks across the street that go all the way to the highway,” Culotta said in the meeting. “Therefore, walkers have the ability to go up and down the north side of the street and are able to cross the street to access those sidewalks.”
Councilman Jason James recalled that a sidewalk wavier was given to a different applicant on that side of the street until the city determined sidewalks need to be installed.
“When will that occur and at what point will the city start requiring sidewalks be installed,” James asked. “I think it would be appropriate to start with this property. Right now, the city is on the path of waiving them and it seems to be almost automatic the waivers be granted. If that were to continue, sidewalks will never be connected or only completed on the other side of Front Street.”
The minutes reflect that Councilwoman Katrina Wilson agreed with James, pointing out that she felt the city no longer required sidewalks. She also felt that as a commercial project, this was one that should require sidewalks.
“At some point, council needs to put their foot down and say it’s time,” Wilson said. “For a larger commercial project, I feel there is no better time than now.”
Fulton agreed, pointing out that the city was doing a lot of sidewalk work in the community and granting waivers was not purposeful. Since this was a complete teardown, requiring sidewalks was appropriate.
“One of our goals is to make Milford a walkable city,” Councilman Dan Marabello said. “To have to cross the street to access sidewalks on a state road can be dangerous and the traffic is often heavy. I agree that the move to make sidewalks mandatory needs to be made now.”
Then Councilman Mike Boyle agreed but felt that since traffic was heavy in that area, the city should seek the expertise of a traffic engineer. Pierce stated that the sidewalks would have to be reviewed by DelDOT. Pierce also explained that there could be some modifications and TAP projects coming to the area, but that may not be in the near future.
“There is an opportunity to do this,” Culotta said. “But it is a big deal for Milford to improve the look of an unsightly property for people driving into Milford. Putting Mr. Masten through this process with DelDOT will delay the project. He reiterated there are sidewalks on the other side of Front Street that can be used.”
Then-councilman Doug Morrow agreed with Culotta, stating that this would be a “sidewalk to nowhere” until the other lots are developed. He would prefer seeing the sidewalks installed as part of a larger project. He was also concerned about possible jaywalking if sidewalks are not connected.
“Unless the city receives a grant or state legislators fund a sidewalk project, it will unfortunately not happen,” Wilson said. “This is not a development and if a decision is not mad enow to start requiring sidewalks it will never happen.”
Masten spoke during the public comment portion of the discussion, stating he was not trying to get out of installing sidewalks, but that he didn’t want to construct one that went nowhere. Council voted to deny the sidewalk waiver with a vote of 5 to 3. Boyle, Culotta and Morrow voted against the denial.
A few weeks later, a fresh coat of pink paint covered the former L&W building, replacing the faded yellow that adorned it before. Masten stated that the color was chosen with a meaning.
“If you’re going to do business in Milford, bring your Pepto,” he is quoted as saying in 2020. “The city talks a pro-growth game but does the opposite in its actions. I have tried and tried, and nothing changes. So, a bolder statement was necessary.”
Although the pink was meant as a protest against the sidewalk, the Milford community embraced the color. Considering the city was still in the grips of COVID, it was a break from quarantine, masks and the potential for illness. Then-mayor Archie Campbell felt that the plan had failed, considering the community support, stating that “everybody loves the pink house.”
“We shouldn’t have anyone run into it now,” then-Chief Kenneth Brown said. The house had been damaged by vehicles several times in the past.
Masten was quoted in 2020 that he wanted to tear down the building, but he could not, so if he could not rebuild it, he would have to salvage what was left. According to city and county property records, the property is still owned by Mispillion Realty, so it is unclear what made Masten decide to demolish this house now. We reached out to Masten for comment but he did not respond.
