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,