Milford wetlands agency keeps hearing open on 53‑unit 34 Buick Ave. after experts flag stormwater and erosion gaps

The Milford Inlands Wetlands Agency on Sept. 3 continued its public hearing on IW250036, a proposed 53‑unit development at 34 Buick Avenue, after outside and agency experts identified multiple technical gaps in the applicant''s stormwater and erosion controls that the board said must be resolved before a final decision.

"We are here to evaluate applications solely on the basis of their potential impact to the wetlands and water courses as defined under state law," Chair Brendan Magnan said at the start of the meeting, reminding participants that testimony must be wetlands‑focused. The proposal, submitted under Connecticut General Statute 8-30G, would add buildings, grading, stormwater measures and road improvements within 100 feet of a wetland and watercourse in the Indian River watershed.

Opponents'' attorneys and their technical consultants told the agency the application as filed is incomplete. "The application is defective, incomplete and non compliant with your inland wetlands regulations," attorney Joel Green said, summarizing reviews his clients had commissioned and urging the agency to deny the permit unless the applicant supplies additional engineering and ecological evidence.

Consultant Steve Trinkus, a professional engineer retained by the opponents, told the agency he found the applicant''s permeable‑paver design insufficient to provide water‑quality treatment. He said the cross‑section of the paver system is shown on a slope, not level, which invalidates the applicant''s storage calculations; soil test pits were not shown on the plans; and the distance between the paver base and seasonal groundwater appears short. "This system does not provide treatment," Trinkus said, adding that the CT stormwater manual calls for a three‑foot separation to groundwater in many cases.

Andrew Delach of William Kenney Associates, an ecologist for the opponents, told the agency the outlet control structure proposed near a headwall at Stubby Plain Brook lacks key design details and that sediment and erosion control plans do not demonstrate how construction impacts would be avoided. He said short‑term direct impacts to the brook and long‑term indirect impacts from increased impervious area are probable on the plans as presented.

The applicant''s team, represented by Kevin Kursaden and including local engineers and a wetlands scientist, said resumes and supporting documents are on file and that it will furnish a comprehensive, written reply to the peer reviews. "We would like to do a comprehensive written response to each point that is brought up," Kursaden said, and requested an extension to provide those materials.

Technical testimony in defense of permeable pavements came from Kevin Early, a geologist and industry technical representative for Old Castle, who described permeable interlocking concrete pavement as a recognized green stormwater best‑management practice and said properly designed systems can reduce total suspended solids and other pollutant loads. Early said joint openings and open‑graded aggregate can store and treat runoff, but he acknowledged that performance is site‑specific and depends on subgrade soils and maintenance.

Matthew Popp, a landscape architect and professional wetland scientist for the applicant, proposed a mitigation buffer on adjacent lawn area—about 5,300 square feet—to improve riparian shading and water‑quality conditions near the stream. Popp also reported seeing little or no surface flow during his site visit, which he said is consistent with a flashy urban stream that can be dry between storm events.

Agency consultants and commissioners focused questions on three central technical items: whether the paver system meets the separation distances and treatment expectations in the stormwater manual; whether paver cells include overflow or emergency bypass measures and where any overflow would discharge; and whether the applicant has evaluated effects from two nearby culverts and from widening Buick Avenue. LandTech''s coauthors, Tom Ryder and Rob Prior, told the board their August 27 report is on file and said they will provide follow‑up comments after they receive the applicant''s written responses.

Given the volume of technical comments, the agency voted to leave the public hearing open and granted the applicant a limited extension to Sept. 17, 2025, so the team can submit written responses and revised plans for review. The motion to keep the hearing open passed on a roll call vote.

Next steps: the applicant will submit a written, point‑by‑point response to the LandTech report and the independent consultant reviews (Trinkus and William Kenney Associates). The agency said it expects the city engineer and peer reviewers to evaluate those materials and provide additional letters before the application returns to the agency for deliberation.

The hearing extension was the evening''s principal action; the meeting then proceeded to routine items (a site walk scheduled for IW25041 at 1 Bayshore Drive and approval of prior minutes) before adjourning.

What remains unresolved

- The proposed permeable paver system: consultants contest whether the design as drawn provides required pollutant treatment and whether modeled storage volumes and infiltration assumptions are valid in sloped cross‑sections. - Outlet and headwall details: reviewers say the design lacks a specified outlet structure location, size and construction sequencing to avoid direct impacts to Stubby Plain Brook. - Erosion and sediment controls: reviewers called for clearer, plan‑level erosion controls, outlet protection, filter locations and construction phasing.

Documents and references on file at the agency include the applicant''s plans and resumes, the LanTech review (dated Aug. 27), the Stephen Trinkus review, and the William Kenney Associates report. Commissioners asked for the applicant''s infiltration test pit locations, any clogging/maintenance strategy for the pavers, and an explicit description of overflow provisions for extreme storms.

The agency left the hearing open to allow the applicant to address those items in writing and to give the agency''s peer reviewers time to respond. No final vote on the application was taken on Sept. 3.