Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Planning board declines to approve 1 Bayshore Drive coastal permit amid wall‑stability and monitoring concerns
Loading...
Summary
The board voted down a coastal area site plan (CAM) for a waterfront single‑family dwelling at 1 Bayshore Drive after staff and the city engineer said the applicant's wall stabilization and monitoring plan was inadequate and the applicant declined to accept all Inland Wetlands conditions.
The Milford City Planning & Zoning Board declined to grant a coastal area site plan (CAM) permit for 1 Bayshore Drive after extensive review of foundation and shoreline risks and disagreement over required conditions.
Applicant Jennifer Ruspini sought approval to demolish an existing bungalow and construct a new single‑family dwelling on a parcel whose foundation abuts Calf Pen Meadow Creek. Structural/geotechnical engineer Asmet Mikhail described proposed stabilization work to the existing waterfront wall and contingency buttressing if excavation shows deeper deficiencies.
Staff summarized multiple approvals and conditions from state and local reviewers: the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) had issued a permit with extensive conditions, the Inland Wetlands Commission placed 30 conditions on its approval, and the city engineer recommended a third‑party monitor acceptable to the city and additional contingency language. Staff found the applicant’s submitted wall stabilization plan unacceptable because it relied on the applicant’s spouse for self‑reporting and lacked independent verification. The staff memo recommended that approval be conditioned on a third‑party engineer acceptable to the city and that any breach of the wall render the permit null and void.
During the hearing the applicant acknowledged she had not agreed to all 30 inland wetlands conditions and said she was concerned about language that would make the permit null and void if the wall failed. The applicant proposed a third‑party monitor (an engineer named in the hearing) but the board and staff said acceptability must be determined in advance by the city engineer and relevant departments.
Mr. Mortimer moved to approve the CAM with multiple conditions referencing DEEP and Inland Wetlands requirements and a certified third‑party stabilization plan; the motion failed in roll call (1 in favor; 6 opposed). Board members who opposed cited unresolved engineering details, the applicant’s lack of written agreement to required conditions and the need for independent monitoring.
