The Milford Inland Wetlands Commission on Sept. 17 took no action on an application from 1 Bayshore LLC to demolish and rebuild a single‑family home at 1 Bayshore Drive and asked the applicant to submit clearer engineering and erosion‑control details before the commission’s next meeting.

The application, filed as IW250041, proposes demolition of the existing structure and construction of a flood‑compliant house in the same footprint adjacent to Cap Penn Meadow Brook in the South Central Shoreline watershed. The plans submitted to the city say the work would affect roughly 81 square feet of inland wetlands and about 2,268 square feet of upland review area.

Commissioners said the plans were revised and submitted late the day of the meeting and that they need more time to review specifics. Mary Rose, city staff, told the commission the revised sheets arrived that afternoon and that the application must be decided by Oct. 10 unless the applicant requests an extension.

Why it matters

Work within 100 feet of inland or tidal wetlands can harm wetland resources if construction sequencing, shoring and erosion controls are not implemented and enforced. Commissioners said they were not comfortable approving the project without explicit, engineer‑stamped details about how the existing concrete wall and foundation will be stabilized and how temporary dewatering material (referred to in the plans as a dirt bag or silt sack) will be removed without depositing material into wetlands.

What commissioners asked for

Commissioners repeatedly asked the applicant to have the civil engineer add a construction‑sequencing diagram and explicit notes to the site plans showing: when and how piles/helicals and foundation walls will be installed; how the work area will be stabilized; specific shoring details for protecting the existing concrete wall; contingency steps if the wall shows distress during construction; and precisely when and by what route the dirt bag/dewatering material will be removed from the site.

Commissioner Buddy Field said, “The only thing I don't see on here is actually how they're going to literally stabilize that foundation.” Several commissioners echoed that request and asked for engineer‑level drawings rather than general statements.

Applicant responses

Jennifer Ruspini, the applicant and property owner, said she received the commission’s written questions the prior day and that revised drawings had been submitted that afternoon. She identified her husband as a structural engineer and said he would prepare and submit a shoring detail in the next few days. On the dirt bag, Mr. Ruspini said the plan would be to remove the dirt bag off‑site and that removal would be done with small equipment and, if necessary, emptied before being moved so it would not have to be carried by hand.

Staff and regulatory context

Mary Rose told the commission she would forward the revised plans to the city engineer for review. Commissioners noted that some work limitations are governed by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) and that the applicant will need to comply with any DEEP requirements that restrict accessing the river side of the wall. Mary Rose also reminded the group that the application’s 65‑day review period expires Oct. 10 unless the applicant grants an extension.

Decision and next steps

After discussion, commissioners agreed to take no action at the Sept. 17 meeting and to continue the application to the commission’s Oct. 1, 2025 continuation of the public hearing and regular meeting. The commission asked the applicant to provide updated, engineer‑level plan sheets showing the requested sequencing, shoring details and an explicit method and route for removing the dirt bag prior to the Oct. 1 meeting. Staff will send the plans to the city engineer for review once submitted.

Other procedural notes

Commissioners also confirmed there had been no requests from members of the public for a separate public hearing on this application; staff said one inquiry had been limited to curiosity about the plans. The commission emphasized that its scrutiny reflects its statutory charge to protect wetland resources and noted that any similar application in proximity to sensitive resources would receive comparable review.

Next scheduled appearance: continued hearing and meeting via Zoom on Oct. 1, 2025. The commission must decide by Oct. 10, 2025 or receive an extension from the applicant before that deadline.