The Milford Inland Wetlands Agency on Oct. 15 closed public comment on a continued public hearing for IW-25003634 (34 Buick Avenue) but left deliberations open, after engineers, wetland scientists and neighbors debated whether the project's permeable-paver parking system and a proposed roadside biofiltration basin would actually treat stormwater pollutants before they reach nearby wetlands and Stubby Plain Brook.

The applicant team, represented at the hearing by attorney Kevin Crusading and engineer Robert Weway, presented revised design details and said the proposed systems meet the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) stormwater-quality manual requirements for retention. "This is not a complex system," said Robert Weway, professional engineer, describing the paver cells as a stone reservoir with perforated pipes and inspection ports. Weway also said the project's infiltration testing produced conservative design values: "for the 7 tests, there was an average infiltration rate of 14 inches per hour" while routing used 0.4 inches per hour, a difference he described as producing a conservative design.

Why it matters: Neighbors and outside experts told the agency the revised plan may not prevent pollutant loads from reaching the wetland. "Simply detaining the water quality volume...doesn't automatically mean that nonpoint source pollutants will be removed," said Joel Green, attorney for neighboring property owners, citing DEEP guidance and MS4 permit principles. LID expert Steve Trinkas, a licensed professional engineer, told the agency, "If you provide the volume, does it equate to treatment? No. It doesn't," arguing the paver/gravel reservoirs provide hydraulic transmission but limited pollutant attenuation unless pre-treatment and specific media are present.

What engineers and reviewers said
- Robert Weway (applicant's engineer) said the design is retention-based (infiltration to groundwater) rather than detention and that the paver joints and reservoir stone provide pollutant capture and require periodic maintenance. He described maintenance procedures in the submitted Operation & Maintenance plan, including weekly checks and semiannual vacuuming and restorative maintenance when infiltration declines.
- Matthew Popp, landscape architect and professional wetland scientist for the applicant, described the biofiltration basin design and planting plan, removal of invasive Norway maples, and a submitted invasive-species management plan that calls for two years of treatment where needed.
- Tom Reiger, senior ecologist with LandTech (third-party reviewer), reported his firm's engineering comments had been addressed and that the biofiltration and wetland mitigation materials were provided; he recommended the invasive-species plan be referenced in the construction sequencing so contractors follow it in the field.
- Opposing experts raised persistent doubts. Steve Trinkas said the gravel reservoir and paver layers are primarily conveyance media that do not reliably remove dissolved pollutants (nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorides) and that underground coarse media require robust pretreatment. William (Bill) Kenny (William Kenny Associates) said he continued to conclude the project would "adversely affect wetlands and the stream" because of constraints near the proposed 24-inch outlet pipe and construction access near the brook.

Public and maintenance concerns
Several public speakers and the applicant's reviewers discussed maintenance responsibilities and long-term performance. Weway said the biofiltration basin will lie in Buick Avenue right-of-way and that the city initially told the applicant the municipality would not accept private maintenance obligations in the right-of-way; the applicant said it is willing to assume responsibility but that the city attorney and public works director indicated private maintenance in the right-of-way may not be acceptable. Neighbors and consultants raised the risk that if no party maintains the bioretention area, sedimentation and reduced infiltration could cause overflow to Stubby Plain Brook over time.

Commission questions and next steps
Commissioners asked for clarity on maintenance, sequencing, and inspection. LandTech, the city staff reviewer, and applicant representatives recommended conditions and a clearly defined construction sequencing and monitoring plan. The agency closed the public hearing and will deliberate at a future meeting. Votes recorded on Oct. 15 were procedural:

Votes at a glance: The agency voted to close the public hearing on the Buick Avenue application (roll-call: Brian Black ' Aye; Jim Connors ' Aye; Matthew Connors ' Aye; Nick Ritchie ' Aye; Julie Valvo ' Aye; Buddy Field ' Aye; Bridal Magnan ' Aye). The agency also voted to resume deliberations at the next meeting (roll-call recorded as Aye unanimously).

What remains unresolved
Key outstanding issues flagged for deliberation and possible conditions: who will accept long-term maintenance responsibility for the biofiltration basins; a signed, site-specific maintenance and inspection regime (including who pays for restorative maintenance and infiltration testing and who performs it); finalization of paver overburden and anti-tracking pad details, and demonstration of outlet protection at the 24-inch pipe. Technical disagreement remains over whether the design meets DEEP pollutant-reduction expectations without additional or alternate pretreatment.

The agency closed public comment and will resume deliberations at its next scheduled meeting, with staff noting a 35-day decision window from the hearing close.

Provenance excerpts: "First up on the agenda is item 1. That's I W 25003634 Buick Avenue, Map 66, Block 825, Parcel 16" (applicant introduction) and "The public hearing is closed. ... We have 35 days from the close of the hearing to make a decision." (closing statement).