Milford wetlands agency schedules site walk for proposed rebuild at 1 Bayshore Drive amid engineering, jurisdiction questions

The Milford Inland Wetlands Agency on Aug. 20 agreed to a site visit for a proposal to demolish and rebuild a single‑family home at 1 Bayshore Drive after weeks of review and debate over wetlands impacts, engineering constraints and jurisdictional authority. The agency scheduled an on‑site walk for Sept. 10 at 5:30 p.m. and asked the applicant to bring the structural engineer and a soil scientist.

The application, filed by 1 Bayshore LLC and presented by Jennifer Ruspini, requests demolition of the existing home and construction of a flood‑compliant replacement in the same footprint. The project documents submitted to the agency say work would affect about 81 square feet of inland wetlands and 2,268 square feet of upland review area; a portion of tidal wetland currently under the rear deck also would be impacted to remove and replace that deck.

Board members said the site is unusually constrained and raised detailed construction and public‑safety questions. Commissioner Buddy Field said he was concerned about work against an existing stone/block revetment and asked how helically‑anchored foundations would be installed without undermining that wall; Commissioner Ray Gradwell warned that a failing wall during construction could produce a significant hazard. “It’s a very tricky and complicated ordeal,” Gradwell said. The applicant’s structural engineer, Carl Ruspini of Ruspini Consulting Engineers LLC, said the team had discussed the approach with Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection staff and that plans call for leaving the revetment in place and, if needed, temporarily shoring it during construction.

Agency staff and commissioners pressed the applicant for more detail on measures to avoid wetland impacts during demolition and foundation work. Wayne Devanzo, P.E., of Fairfield County Engineering LLC described planned controls: silt fencing around the northern and western perimeters, a mud‑tracking pad at the road, a small dewatering basin with a dirt bag and hay bales if needed, and removal of debris to the road rather than stockpiling on site. The applicant’s team told the agency they expect no net increase in impervious surface.

The applicant, Jennifer Ruspini, also raised a separate procedural issue about whether her property is exempt under a pre‑1974 residential exemption in the agency’s regulations; she said the home was built in about 1930. Agency members and staff told her the commission had already determined the planned work does not meet that exemption and therefore the application properly is before them. “We don’t agree with you, respectfully. We don’t think that modifications to an existing property is an exempt,” the chair said during the discussion (as recorded in the meeting).

Because the site sits at the edge of state and local jurisdiction — the Connecticut coastal jurisdiction line intersects the property — commissioners asked staff to coordinate with DEEP and the city engineer. Mary Rose, city staff who presented the application materials to the agency, noted that the identical area of tidal wetland and the revetment have been permitted by DEEP and that the agency’s principal jurisdiction is the inland wetland and upland review area above the coastal jurisdiction line. The agency requested that Mary Rose obtain clarifying input from DEEP about inspection or contingency procedures if the revetment fails during construction.

The agency also gave direction to the applicant: provide a written, detailed construction sequencing plan and means‑and‑methods for demolition, foundation installation and dewatering that specifically address protection of the inland wetlands and the upland review area; identify the contractor’s proposed methods and onsite supervision; and confirm whether DEEP intends to perform inspections during sensitive phases. Commissioners said those documents will be needed for the city engineer and the agency’s third‑party reviewer to complete their reviews.

Formally, Commissioner Jim Connors moved to schedule a site inspection for Sept. 10 at 5:30 p.m., with structural engineer and, if possible, the soil scientist in attendance; Commissioner Matthew Connors seconded. The motion passed on roll call. Mary Rose said the city engineer’s report and third‑party reviews for other upcoming matters are expected to be delivered to the agency by Wednesday, Aug. 27.

The applicant told the agency she wished to proceed with the application rather than withdraw. The agency noted standard next steps: the applicant should provide the sequencing and erosion‑control details, the city engineer will provide a written review, and the agency will take additional questions at its next appropriate meeting and on the Sept. 10 site walk.

The application materials filed with the agency also show that Flanagan Survey (plan revisions dated June 10, 2025) submitted drawings tied to a DEEP license (license number 202407385SDFTW) that incorporated minor revisions to address zoning and the first‑floor elevation. The applicant said the property has been under project work and review for several years and that FEMA previously designated the property as needing elevation, which is the reason for pursuing a flood‑compliant rebuild.

No petition from abutters was reported to the agency at the time of the meeting, and the agency did not take a final permit action on Aug. 20; the scheduled site walk and forthcoming engineering and third‑party reports will inform any subsequent vote.

Copies of the application materials, and details on the Sept. 10 site walk and parking logistics, will be available from the Milford inland wetlands office as posted by staff.