Milford Planning Board reopens MD’s Trash Removal site plan amid flooding and environmental concerns; hearing continued

The Milford Planning Board on June 3 agreed to rehear major site-plan application SP2025-01 from Choice Property Management LLC, doing business as MD’s Trash Removal, and continued the matter to June 17, 2025, to allow the applicant and an adjacent property owner to negotiate potential conditions.

The rehearing was required after the board said notice to abutters was insufficient under RSA 677:15 and the board’s rules, and the board first voted to vacate its April 15 approval before accepting the application for rehearing. The proposal covers a roughly 2-acre Phase 1 of a 9.916-acre lot on Old Wilton Road (Map 7, Lot 18) in the Integrated Commercial/Industrial 2 (ICI-2) and the West Elm Street gateway overlay districts.

Why it matters: Neighbors and a nearby business owner told the board they fear the project will worsen flooding, harm wetlands and hurt property values; the applicant’s engineers said the site plan includes stormwater measures and other mitigation and agreed to several conservation-commission conditions. The board paused final action to allow direct talks between the parties and to collect any additional materials before a decision.

Chad Brannen, civil engineer with Fieldstone Land Consultants, presented the Phase 1 plan for MD’s Trash Removal, saying the submission covers a 7,840-square-foot office/garage building (with four maintenance bays and one wash bay), an 8,400-square-foot covered canopy intended for fleet storage, and 29 parking spaces. Brannen said the site design locates operational activity to the south of the building, routes stormwater to infiltration areas and an on-site wet pond, and includes internal floor drains that would connect to municipal sewer or a holding tank. “The site plan package that we’ve submitted, in our opinion, does meet all of the local design standards as well as the zoning criteria,” Brannen said.

Opposition from a nearby owner and counsel centered on flooding and environmental permitting. Tom Hildreth, an attorney with McLane Middleton representing Hitchner Manufacturing (an abutter), urged denial or additional study and raised three technical concerns the abutter said require further review: that the plan uses the wrong flood delineation, that the project may trigger a New Hampshire Alteration of Terrain (AOT) permit if the Phase 2 concept is treated as reasonably foreseeable, and that the site may host threatened or endangered species that merit further state review. Hildreth described the use as “necessary but noxious,” saying the operation produces odors, diesel fumes and truck noise and that past operations across the road have generated complaints about blowing trash.

The applicant and its attorney disputed that the plan warrants denial on those grounds. Attorney Chris Swinarski said the plan complies with the planning board’s site-plan standards and that the project team has worked through town-engineer review. Brannen and the applicant said FEMA flood elevations were used to map the 100-year boundary and that the filling the plan proposes is small and within local requirements; they also said the plan responds to conservation commissions’ requests.

Conservation-commission conditions the applicant accepted in the hearing record include: delineating the wetland buffer with boulders or signs; adding native plantings around the wet pond and along the utility plan; adding detail about a wet-pond liner; using New Hampshire-native plantings on utility sheet UT-1; prohibiting outside, exposed trash storage (normal refuse will be covered or inside trucks or an enclosed dumpster); prohibiting washing the interior of vehicles or dumpsters outside unless managed through an industrial-discharge permit or a holding tank; using Green SnowPro–certified operators and avoiding routine chlorides unless in an extreme emergency. The applicant told the board it will provide oil/water separators and deep-sump catch basins, and that internal trench drains would tie to sewer if an industrial discharge permit allows; otherwise a holding tank would be used and pumped out.

Abutters and neighbors requested additional mitigation: a stockade fence along property edges, additional evergreen plantings and berming to screen sight and sound, and written company procedures limiting outdoor transfers and external washing. The applicant agreed to add a stockade fence on both sides of the property, to add five native street trees along Old Wilton Road (3-inch caliper), and to provide certain plans or certifications (for example, fire-apparatus turning diagrams) as conditions of any approval.

Board actions taken during the session: - The board vacated its prior April 15 approval so the application could be reheard (motion recorded; motion passed; one recusal/abstention recorded). - The board found the application complete and accepted it for rehearing. - The board voted that the application presented no potential regional impact under the regional review criteria. - The board continued consideration of SP2025-01 to the planning board’s next meeting, June 17, 2025, to allow the applicant and Hitchner to negotiate a list of conditions and to provide any additional materials.

What remains unresolved: The abutter asked the board to require an Alteration of Terrain (AOT) permit now on the grounds that Phase 2 shown on the plans might be pursued within 10 years; the applicant said there is no timetable for Phase 2 and offered to remove Phase 2 from the plan set if that reassured the board. Fish and Game and the Natural Heritage Bureau were consulted earlier in the review process; the applicant reported that a Fish and Game consultation was closed after the applicant said the later phase had been downsized and may not proceed. The board did not rule on those state-level permitting questions and left them to the state agencies or to future submissions.

The board’s June 17 session will be used to review any revised materials and to consider conditions agreed between the parties. If the board takes final action after that meeting it will be reflected in the minutes and any applicable permit conditions.

Votes at a glance - Motion to vacate the board’s April 15 approval for SP2025-01: mover (recorded) Jenna Lindell; second Peter Basilear; outcome: passed (board chair vote recorded as aye; one member indicated they would not vote/recused). - Motion to accept application as complete: mover recorded as Jenna Lindell; second Tim Finan; outcome: passed. - Motion of no potential regional impact: mover Janet Langdell; second Peter Basilear; outcome: passed. - Motion to continue SP2025-01 to 06/17/2025 for further negotiations and materials: mover (unspecified on record); second Janet Langdell; outcome: passed.

Contact and next steps: The board directed the applicant and Hitchner Manufacturing to meet and to report back at the June 17 meeting; the planning office will circulate any updated materials and any required plan revisions before that date.