Cluster homes in Milton!

Following is a heartfelt letter from Monica Chambers, who lives on Ebenezer Road.  Opposition to rezoning 745 Ebenezer Road to allow cluster homes (on 1/4 lots) is nearly unanimous.  Milton Council members often cite “local control” in justifying their votes in Council.  For example, every council member cited “local control” when voting to approve the gating of Crooked Creek.  So it is fair to ask Council:  Given the nearly universal opposition from local residents, why isn’t the principle of local control relevant to this and other rezonings.

April 20, 2016

City Council Members, Mayor, and City Manager,

My name is Monica Chambers and I live at 715 Ebenezer Road in Milton. I am one of the homeowners directly affected by the developer variance request for Ebenezer Road. I am writing to share some research I have done in regards to the proposed variance, that I cannot address just speaking at the council meeting on Monday. I am against the variance for several reasons and would like to address several of those reasons here.

I think it goes without saying that higher density zoning reduces the value of the homes around it, especially in a setting such as currently exists on Ebenezer Road with estate homes built on multiple acres. I truly believe the developer’s request for the variance is an end around to allow smaller lot sizes with higher density. I have attached a PDF with pictures of neighborhoods that Brightwater Homes has or is currently developing in the Milton/Roswell area. As you will see in not one of these developments have they maintained ANY greenspace. They have an incredibly high density in the two Roswell developments. The third development in Milton was developed on one acre lots and even in that neighborhood the homes are close together due to the unbuildable sloping of the lots. I have attached pictures to show the high density of the neighborhoods as well as the clear cutting of the lots before building. The suggestion that they are proposing the greenspace for anything more than economic gain on their part is absurd.

I have also done a tremendous amount of research on community septic systems. I now know more than I have ever wanted to know about septic tanks, drain fields, black water waste and all the health and environment issues that can arise from the failure of these types of systems. It is very clear that this system is being proposed again as an economic advantage for the developer and has no other purpose than to decrease the lot sizes and increase the density of the homes into the most favorable building lots of the property. I have attached some of the research I have done regarding the systems. In summation I have learned that community septic systems are good options when there is no other viable option in a VERY rural area (which Ebenezer Road is not) where there is a high level of regulation by the local government both in the building requirements of the system as well as the ongoing maintenance that is required to maintain the system and prevent catastrophic failures.

The first attachment labeled – Septic Research is slides taken from the States of Idaho and Maine. These are communities where due to no other viable option they have had to embrace community septic systems. There is a time and place where community septic systems should be used and in fact are a good option – rural areas with no other means of sewage disposal. It should never be the choice when the area is surrounded by other developments, homes, wells, etc. These states have had to adopt very stringent requirements for these systems and in most areas have government control of the systems similar to the Water Department. This is due to the high level of issues they were having with the systems and the huge negative impact the failure of these systems has had on the environment as well as the high financial impact of their failures and the cost related to fixing the systems. Without the proper oversight, which our state, counties and cities currently do not have, the systems will fail. It is not a question of if but when. I was able to find multiple lawsuits against developers and cities where the community septic system failed for a variety of reasons, poor soil quality, improper design, neglected maintenance, natural flooding, human error, etc. The second attachment labeled – Quotes, is quotes taken from various lawsuits, newspaper articles and even our own State of Georgia Health Department website.

My home is on a well for our water supply. My 4 neighbors whose homes surround the property are also on wells. The type of failures that are possible when 50 homes are dumping their sewage in a field behind my home is truly scary and possibly devastating to my home and more importantly could have major health consequences to me, my husband and our four children. The scariest part for me is how easily the failure could happen. It could be as simple as a home running their clothes washer too many times in a day when it has rained for several days straight. Or it could be a family who dumps food or grease down the sink, or washes harsh chemicals down their sink or flushes feminine products down the toilet. All of these items can cause one tank to fail and proceed to have a field of 50 homes sewage to flood – in my backyard. When failures happen to one home on a single septic system it can be contained it that one yard – when one home fails in a community septic system all 50 homes sewage will flood the fields. The smell, the ecological effects and the ground water damage can be catastrophic. This is not anything I believe the City of Milton nor its residents is willing to take the risk on just so a developer can make more money.

I realize we are one street in a big city but I ask you to ask yourself how you would feel if 50 homes were going to dump their sewage in your backyard? I keep thinking of the scene in the movie Erin Brokovich where she asks the electric company’s lawyers if they would like a glass of water from the well in Hinkley, CA that was contaminated. Would you like knowing the water you shower in and drink from comes from a well next to a 50 home leech field? If the risk is as low as the developer would lead you to believe, why did he offer to my husband to pay for us to attach to city water?

I do not oppose this parcel of land being developed. I do believe it can be done in a thoughtful manner that will benefit both the developer and the surrounding residents. I do believe the developer builds attractive homes that fit with the look of Ebenezer and Milton. I do NOT believe a community septic system should be allowed in this suburban setting. I also do NOT believe there is any reason why the developer should be allowed to build on lots at any less than the minimum requirement of 1 acre lots as required by law for the AG1 zoning.

The City of Milton was started because the residents of North Fulton wanted our interests and property rights and values protected. We voted for the City of Milton for you to do just that. Your job is to protect the taxpayers of Milton, not protect the wallets of developers. I only ask that you do your job and protect us, the taxpayers of Milton.

Sincerely,

Monica Chambers

Developers that want to open up marginal lands in Milton would have you believe that Milton’s Choice is binary:  So-called “conservation” subdivisions or AG-1 subdivisions.  However, the choice is really between “conservation” subdivisions and delayed/no development.

The proposed Ebenezer subdivision is a case in point.  The tract in question has been owned by developers/investors for over a decade.  So why haven’t they developed it?  Answer:  It is uneconomic to develop.  The same is true of many of the larger undeveloped tracts in Milton.  They are undevelopable for a number of reasons:  a high proportion of the land is unbuildable (e.g., lies in flood plain); some part of the land will not perc (will not support septic systems); the land is uneconomic to develop (i.e., too expensive to develop).  The Ebenezer property certainly has unbuildable land and uneconomic land.  The unbuildable land lies in a flood plain.  And we know that Brightwater does not want to build a bridge across a creek on the property because of the cost.  We also question whether some of the steeper parts of the property are economic to develop.

The truth is that the Ebenezer tract is only economic to develop if homes on crammed onto the more hospitable parts of the property.  The unbuildable or uneconomic (to develop) parts are claimed as “green space.”  Brightwater maximizes its profits while Milton citizens are left holding the bag:  cluster homes, higher density and dodgy community septic systems.  And don’t be fooled into thinking Brightwater is not going to clear cut the property.  With 50% lot coverage, it is a sure bet that nearly all the trees in the buildable area will come down.

It is our belief that Ebenezer would likely remain undeveloped for a time if Brightwater’s application is denied.  When it is finally developed, given the tract’s topography and natural features, we doubt it will support anywhere near 50 homes.

So the choice really is between high density cluster housing with community septic or delayed/no development.  It seems an easy choice to us.

Yesterday, the Milton Herald published an excellent article by David Damiani.  Following is the text of the article.  You can also click on this link to read the article at the Milton Herald website:  An Act of Courage and Conscience And if you want to show support for the Mayor’s action, you can go to the City of Milton’s Facebook page and register your approval.  Click here:  Like Mayor’s Veto on Facebook or you can paste the following URL into your browser:  https://www.facebook.com/thecityofmiltonga/posts/1057729310932635

Milton Citizens:

Congratulations!  We have exceeded 838 signatures on our petition.  Why is 838 important?  Because in December 2015, our anti-CSO petition obtained 838 signatures.  That feat took us 3 weeks to accomplish.  This time, we achieved 838 signatures in less than 3 days!  Milton is experiencing a Reawakening!  Citizens are saying to Council ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!  STOP THESE HARMFUL REZONINGS!   STOP THE MADNESS!

Citizens, we need to keep up the pressure.  Please see our Action Guide to find out what else you can do to stop these harmful rezonings.  Please continue to enlist your family, friends, and neighbors to sign our petition, write to Council, and speak on June 20th.

Following is a letter from Cleveland Slater, who has 24 years of experience in residential construction, commercial construction and mixed-use real estate development.  Mr. Slater has conducted a detailed analysis of Brightwater’s yield plan and found it significantly overestimates the number of homes that could be built under AG-1 rules.

Dear Mayor and City Council, 

Subject:  RZ16-02/VC16-01 – 745 Ebenezer Road by Brightwater Homes, LLC to Rezone from AG-1 (Agricultural) to CUP (Community Unit Plan) to develop 50 Single Family Homes

I live on Bethany Road in Milton in a home I designed and built in 1997.  I have a bachelor of science in building construction, master of science in management and a certificate in land development all from the Georgia Institute of Technology.  I have more than 24 years of experience in residential construction, commercial construction and mixed-use real estate development.

I am writing you to express concern about the yield plan that was submitted by the applicant for 745 Ebenezer Road.  The applicant’s yield plan shows the site will support the development of 50 homes.  I reviewed that data submitted by the applicant and determined the data submitted by the applicant supports a yield of only 38 homes. 

The Code of the City of Milton in Sec. 64-896 states the number of lots in a CUP development shall not exceed the number of lots that can be reasonably created within an AG-1 zoned development at the same site location. The following items shall be submitted to determine the lot yield for the subject property:

 (1) Indicate all bodies of water and the appropriate buffers;

 (2) Provide a level 3 soil analysis;

 (3) Provide a tree survey indicating specimen and heritage trees;

 (4) Indicate the configuration of lots and associated minimum building setbacks; and

 (5) Show approximate location of house footprint on each lot.

A Level III Soil Survey or Map is based on a comprehensive soils investigation of a given landscape. The purpose of the soil survey is to identify, delineate and interpret the suitability of the soil series found on the site as it pertains to use for on-site sewage management systems.  The level III soil maps submitted by the applicant identified significant areas where the soil is not suitable for conventional septic systems.

The yield plan submitted by the applicant identifies the location of a house with an absorption field of 325 lineal feet of high capacity chamber and a separate absorption field replacement area of 500 lineal feet of conventional drain field for each proposed lot.

The applicant submitted a yield plan prepared by one consultant and level III soil maps prepared by another consultant.  The yield plan and level III soil maps were not fully coordinated by the two consultants. Due to this lack of coordination, the yield plan does not represent the number of lots that can be reasonably created within an AG-1 zoned development.

I compared the yield plan submitted by the applicant to the level III soil maps by overlaying the drawings.  See attached overlay drawings (areas with unsuitable soils are shaded pink and stream buffers and setbacks are shaded blue).

I identified 25 lots where the yield plan shows the absorption field and/or absorption field replacement area partially or completely located in an area where the soil is not suitable for a conventional septic system.  Many of these 25 lots can be fixed by relocating the absorption field. However twelve lots do not have sufficient areas with suitable soil to accommodate the required absorption field and absorption field replacement area.  These lots were erroneously included in the yield plan and increase the yield of the site by more than 30 percent.  A 30 percent density bonus is an unjustifiable grant of special privilege to the applicant.

In addition I identified two more lots that do not meet the absorption field area requirements as drawn and appear difficult to correct.

The yield plan submitted by the applicant should be rejected and a new yield plan required that accurately depicts absorption fields in compliance with applicable rules and regulations.  Only after an accurate yield plan is submitted can one determine if the yield plan represents the number of lots reasonably achievable within an AG-1 zoned development.

I hope that you will vote to deny the rezoning request because most importantly the proposed development is not compatible with the rural character of Milton, is not appropriate in AG-1 zoned areas, and does nothing to guarantee more land will be preserved in a natural undisturbed state than traditional AG-1 zoning.

If however you find any merit in the rezoning request, the request should not be approved with 50 homes based upon a flawed yield plan.

If you would like to discuss my review of the yield plan, please call or email me.

Thank you for your hard work and service to our City.

Sincerely,

The Milton Coalition is a non-partisan group of concerned citizens advocating for clean, competent, and courageous government.

The Milton Coalition was formed in November 2015 to oppose the “conservation” subdivision ordinance (CSO).  We saw the CSO for what it was:  a gift to Special Interests that would accelerate development in Milton and actually hamper green space conservation in Milton.  The CSO and so-called “conservation” subdivisions are merely thinly disguised profit maximization schemes for developers.  Their intent is to open up marginal land in Milton to development.

The Milton Coalition was originally formed by eight concerned citizens, six of whom were neophytes to city government.  We have since added members to our core team, as well as brought in other volunteers.

While we continue to organize against the CSO, we have expanded our mission to include acting as citizens’ counterweight to the influence of Special Interests in our city government.  During the CSO debate, the battle lines were clearly drawn:  citizens on one side and Special Interests on the other.  Consider the December 7th City Council meeting when Council unanimously voted down the CSO.  The vast majority of speakers in favor of the CSO were not ordinary citizens, but rather Special Interests:  developers, builder lobbyists, community septic vendors, large landowners, consultants, and political advocates.  Most were not even Milton residents and most had/have much to gain from adoption of “conservation” subdivisions.

It became clear to us that someone in Milton needed to stand up for ordinary citizens.  Clearly, some of our elected officials have abandoned us.  Consider the following statement by one City Council member (in an e-mail dated November 16, 2015):

“You’ve mentioned that the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance is a ‘gift to developers’.  That is your opinion.  It is not mine, as I’ve been witness to developers at every meeting stand up and state that they are not in preference of the CSO.”

Of course, at the December 7th meeting, quite a few developers and their partners spoke in favor of the CSO; no developers spoke against CSO.  This surprised none of us, as the CSO was gradually revised over time to satisfy the builders.  The June version of the CSO was certainly a “gift to developers” as the requirement to conserve buildable land had been deleted.  It is at this time the developers embraced the CSO and two Council Members publicly endorsed it (in the Milton Herald)–long before the Planning Commission had finished its work or the public had weighed in on the issue.

The Milton Coalition is a voice for the ordinary citizen.  We are organizing on your behalf and representing your interests.  Our efforts to defeat the CSO have made us smarter.  We know how to get out our message and how to mobilize citizens.  However, we still need volunteers.  If you are interested in clean, competent, and courageous government, please reach out to us at miltoncoalition@outlook.com and let us know how you would like to help.

On Monday night March 21, the Milton Coalition addressed City Council.  Following are the remarks.  We are concerned that the voice of the ordinary citizen is being drowned out by the roar of Special Interests, who exercise outsized influence in Milton.  We are tired of being talked down to and talked at by certain Council members.  And we plan to vigorously oppose “conservation” subdivisions, which citizens have clearly stated they do not want.  Please contact us at miltoncoalition@outlook.com to join us in preserving the Milton we love.

This evening, I am here speaking on behalf of the Milton Coalition, which was formed in November to oppose the CSO.  Our mission is to advocate for clean, competent, and courageous government.  Behind me are members of the Milton Coalition.  We are ordinary citizens concerned about the current direction of our city.  Most of us have never had any involvement in city government.  However, the CSO and the process to draft it deeply troubled us and brought us together in opposition.

We saw the CSO for what it was.  A gift to developers.  A profit maximization scheme.  An avenue for introducing higher density housing into Milton.  A way to open up marginal land to development.  And the opposite of conservation.

We also saw a deeply flawed process.  An incompetent consultant.  An unstructured and non-transparent process.  Disrespect for staff and the Planning Commission.  And meddling from some Council members.

So the Milton Coalition was started.  We began from scratch.  We had no money, no e-mail lists, no organization.  Yet in 3 weeks, we were able to rally 835 citizens to sign a petition.  Over 100 supporters attended your December meeting, with 35 stepping to the mike.  And I would remind you that only 15 people spoke in support of the CSO and most—11 of the 15—were non-resident Special Interests, including developers, building lobbyists, land owners, community septic vendors, and consultants.  The image of citizens vs. Special Interests could not have been more stark.

Fortunately, enough of you realized the truth of the CSO and the forces behind it and the CSO was denied.  Presumably the CSO issue was put to bed.  Or so we thought.  However, Special Interests and their agents were undeterred and are now using (or misusing, in our opinion) rezoning and variances to achieve the CSO’s objectives.  And based on last week’s Council meeting, there seems to be a lot of support for conservation subdivisions on Council.  So my question to you tonight is: what has changed in the last 3 months to make you want to reconsider conservation subdivisions?  Why are we going to drag citizens into another fight on this issue?  How can you lament divisiveness on the one hand and support again raising this issue on the other hand?

The wisdom of this is lost on us.  So this evening we are here to tell you that the Milton Coalition never went away.  We are still here and we are not going away.  And we plan to vigorously oppose the Ebenezer development, should Council decide to reconsider conservation subdivisions.  Last night we met at my home to plan our campaign.  Fortunately, we are smarter and better organized.  We know how to mobilize citizens and that is precisely what we intend to do—if we have to.

This evening, we do want to issue a challenge to Council.  Rather than accusing us of disseminating misinformation and using scare tactics, why not pick up the phone and call us?  Why not invite us for coffee and meet with us?  Why not talk to us instead at us?  Tell us why we are mistaken or what we are exaggerating.  Better yet, we challenge Council to hold a moderated town hall meeting where we can have a civil discussion, or even debate, about land use and conservation subdivisions.  We invite you to come down from the dais and engage ordinary citizens, without any Special Interests in the room.  Let’s work together to build a better Milton, which starts with two-way communication.

Citizens of Milton:

Thank you for returning to the Milton Coalition blog.  Our intent is to publish posts every day.  Sometimes, there will be multiple posts, so be sure to read beyond the first post.  We could not be more pleased with the traffic to our blog.  Amazingly, we have had over 400 page views since we launched just a few days ago.  The civic pride of Milton is shining through.  So, so proud of the citizens of Milton!

We are also overjoyed with the signatures on our petition.  We are at 832 signatures today and are on our way to 838 signatures–the same number obtained on the anti-CSO petition.  So it has taken us less than 3 days to garner the same opposition to cluster homes and community septic that it took 3 weeks to garner in December 2015.  City Council, how many times do we have to do this?  How many petitions will it take?  How many citizens have to say NO to cluster housing and community septic before you listen to us?  Please listen to us!

Milton citizens, please continue to enlist your family, friends, and neighbors to sign our petition.  Let’s stop this insanity once and for all!