Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Milford wetlands hearing continues after experts dispute permeable-paver stormwater claims

5967910 · October 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

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 treat stormwater pollutants before they reach nearby wetlands and Stubby Plain Brook.

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…

Already have an account? Log in

Subscribe to keep reading

Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.

  • Unlimited articles
  • AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
  • Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
  • Follow topics and more locations
  • 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat
30-day money-back on paid plans