Contractor proposes new MD's Trash Removal facility on Old Wilton Road; commission and staff press for stormwater and buffer protections

Chad Brannon, a civil engineer with Fieldstone Line Consultants, told the Milford Conservation Commission that MD’s Trash Removal proposes to build a new operations facility on a 9.916-acre parcel on Old Wilton Road.

Brannon said the site has an existing conservation easement covering about 4.15 acres, leaving the upland frontage for development. The company proposes a 7,840-square-foot building parallel to Old Wilton Road, four enclosed maintenance bays, and an approximately 8,400-square-foot covered parking canopy for fleet parking. Brannon said the design routes all paved-area runoff into an on-site stormwater management system and that the building’s interior drains to contained plumbing so floor washings would not discharge to pavement.

The nut graf: Commissioners and staff focused on stormwater treatment, buffers adjacent to conserved land, and limiting operations on site after commissioners and members of the public raised concerns about typical waste-processing operations at facilities of this kind.

Brannon emphasized that the proposal does not include open trash sorting or processing on-site. “There’s going to be no open trash, no sorting, nothing like that, at this facility,” he said, adding that trucks would normally offload material at nearby transfer stations rather than at the site. He also described measures included in the plan: internal drains, a water-quality tank for bay drainage, oil-water separators for canopy drainage, and a lined wet-pond with infiltration where soils allow.

Commission members pressed for technical clarifications. Commissioners asked about the liner and testing requirements for the wet pond; Brannon said the pond would be lined with clay/silt per DES guidance and that test pits and construction testing would demonstrate the seasonal high-water table and sealing. He also described options for whether a bay wash would require an industrial waste permit and said the applicants expect to coordinate with wastewater and DES on whether a permit is necessary.

On other operational matters, Brannon said there are no plans to include on-site fueling. He said truck cleaning of internal, contaminated compartments is done at transfer facilities, not at company yards, and that the proposal anticipates exterior washing and vehicle maintenance consistent with municipal and state permitting. He described the canopy area as covered parking that would reduce sheet flow beneath vehicles and said foreseen oil/water separators and catch-basin structures would reduce the risk of hydrocarbon releases reaching receiving waters.

Commissioners and attendees asked about a range of site controls: limiting tree removal, protecting the adjacent conservation area, adding vegetation at pond margins to capture nutrients, and making the buffer visible (flagging, boulders or posts) so snowplow and maintenance crews do not push material into conserved areas. Brannon said the design includes screening and a stockade fence adjacent to a residential property and that the project team would add notes to plans documenting liner construction, water-quality tank capacity and other clarifications requested by staff.

Brannon said the plan shows an optional “phase 2” in the upland that could require future wetland permitting and mitigation if pursued, and that phase 1 is a complete build that would allow MD’s to vacate its existing facility without relying on phase 2. He said the owners are considering whether future needs would make phase 2 necessary.

Commission members said they would forward comments to the planning board and suggested conditions they would like the planning board to consider, including clear wording on liners and testing, buffer marking, snow-management standards (SnowPro or equivalent), and that any future fueling, large-volume wash bays or changes in use return for additional review. Brannon said the team will present the project to the planning board next week and continue coordination with town staff and DES.

Ending: The commission did not take a formal binding vote on the site plan at the meeting; staff and commissioners said they would draft written comments and suggested conditions for submission to the planning board ahead of that board’s review.