Milford wetlands agency finds Bayshore Drive rebuild is not an exempt activity, tables application pending complete plans

The Milford Inland Wetlands Agency on Aug. 6 determined that work proposed at 1 Bayshore Drive is not an exempt activity under Section 4 of the agency’s regulations and tabled further review until the applicant submits a consistent, complete set of plans.

Staff described the proposal as removal of an existing dwelling and construction of a flood-compliant replacement in the same footprint adjacent to Calf Meadow Creek and Long Island Sound, noting both inland and tidal wetlands on the property. Mary Rose, agency staff, told members the application as presented included multiple, inconsistent plan sets and did not meet criteria for an exemption under MIWA rules. “It is my opinion that this is not an exempt activity under section 4,” Rose said.

The application materials, as summarized by staff, indicated work in roughly 81 square feet of inland wetland and approximately 2,268 square feet of upland review area; the 81 square feet and a portion of tidal wetlands were under an existing rear deck and stairs. Rose said the applicant (1 Bayshore LLC) had asked the agency to rule the project exempt, but staff had determined that sections of MIWA’s Section 4 (permitted uses and nonregulated activities) did not apply given the proposed demolition and replacement and the lack of evidence a building permit for the existing structure predated July 1, 1974.

Commissioners and staff agreed they lacked a single, consistent plan set to review. Several commissioners said the absence of complete engineering and foundation details prevented the agency from receiving the application fully or determining impacts. “Without a set of plans, you don't know what they're really gonna put there,” Commissioner Rick Ritchie said. Commissioner Warren Field said the submission was incomplete and recommended a full package for an educated decision.

The agency voted unanimously to determine the activity is not exempt under Section 4 of the MIWA regulations. After that vote the commission agreed to table further consideration until the applicant supplies a complete and consistent set of plans; the motion to table was made to allow the applicant to correct plan inconsistencies and provide required hard copies and revisions. The agency noted that CT DEEP had reviewed a footprint variant and issued conditional approval if the applicant stayed within that footprint, but MIWA decisions are separate and require a complete local application.

Mary Rose told members the applicant had submitted a signed application form and the application fee, but staff had received different plan versions with varying revision dates that created uncertainty about which set to treat as the official submission. The agency also noted procedural timelines: the public may petition for a public hearing through Aug. 20, and MIWA has statutory timeframes for opening a hearing or deciding the application once a complete package is received.

Two formal actions were recorded: (1) a determination that the proposed work at 1 Bayshore Drive is not an exempt activity under Section 4 of the Milford Inland Wetlands Agency regulations (motion made by Commissioner Matthew Connors and seconded by another member); and (2) a motion to table the application until a complete set of plans is submitted (motion made by Commissioner Rick Ritchie and seconded by Commissioner Ray Gradwell). Both motions carried by roll call. Agency staff will send the applicant a letter listing the materials required for a complete application and will resume review once a consistent plan set and required documents are filed.