Following is a letter to City Council written by Tim Becker expressing opposition to the Brightwater Homes’ rezoning of 745 Ebenezer Road.

Council Members, Mayor, and City Manager:

In advance of the First Hearing on the proposed Ebenezer Road subdivision, I am writing to express my opposition to Brightwater’s rezoning application.  I would like this letter to be entered into the public record.

The proposed Ebenezer subdivision is merely a legacy of the CSO.  Charlie Bostwick of Brightwater Homes and our community planners have referred to the proposed development as a “conservation subdivision.”  And Mr. Bostwick has stated that he hoped to build the proposed subdivision under the CSO.

Having failed to get a CSO approved, developers are now seeking to use (abuse/misuse, in my opinion) rezoning and variances to achieve their goal of building cluster homes in un-sewered areas of Milton.  Community Development has described the CUP zoning as a “Burger King” zoning law—that is, “have it your way” with the personal pronoun referring to the developer.  Well, I do not want it the developer’s way in Milton.  Rather it should be the Citizen’s way.

That leads me to the first reason to reject the Ebenezer Road subdivision:  A vast majority of citizens do not want these sorts of cluster home subdivisions.  Over less than 3 weeks, more than 800 citizens signed a petition against the CSO.  More than 100 showed up at City Hall in opposition, with 35 actually stepping up to the microphone to speak against the CSO.  In doing so, citizens were expressing opposition to the ends of the CSO:  homes on less than 1 acre in AG-1 areas, higher density, community septic, accelerated development, and little/no actual conservation of buildable land.  Citizens oppose these ends regardless of the means:  CSO or rezoning/variances—it makes no difference to them.

And the notion floated by one Council member that the citizens have been duped by misinformation and therefore their opinions can be “discounted” is a view that I hope is not shared by other Council members.  This position shows a stunning contempt for the intelligence (or I guess, lack thereof) of Milton’s citizens.  I urge other Council members to flatly and publicly renounce this disrespect toward citizens.

While the vast majority of citizens do not want Ebenezer-style subdivisions, it is equally true that Special Interests, particularly developers, do want these cluster home subdivisions.  These Special Interests were out in full force on December 7^th, where they comprised a majority of the speakers that spoke in favor of the CSO.  Having morphed the CSO from a green ordinance into developer-friendly ordinance (similar to ordinances in Woodstock and Gwinnett that have facilitated rampant development), these Special Interests lined up at the microphone to support the CSO.  And they are similarly supportive of rezoning and variances to achieve the CSO’s goals.

The logic of their support is simple.  In Milton, the most attractive larger tracts of land have been picked over.  Many of the remaining large tracts are currently uneconomic to develop.  A cluster home subdivision allows a builder to find the “sweet spot” on a tract where the land is most hospitable for building.  This area is developed.  The remaining land—much of it unbuildable or else uneconomic to develop—is claimed as “green space.”  This “green space” often includes septic leaching fields, community amenities, etc.  “Green space” is nothing more than a cynical marketing ploy.

The worst part of these “conservation” cluster home subdivisions is that they are the antithesis of conservation.  Approval of such applications will actually accelerate the development of land, as marginal tracts are suddenly made attractive for development.  There is a reason that Lahkapani and 745 Ebenezer have not been developed . . . they are currently uneconomic to develop.  And there is a reason that Brightwater’s purchase of 745 Ebenezer is contingent on the granting of rezoning and a variance . . . it is uneconomic to otherwise develop.  Don’t you think that if BW could develop a profitable AG-1 subdivision, BW would have bought the land outright?  These sorts of rezoning contingencies should be a huge red flag to Council.

And further “goosing” the developer’s economics is the fact that a developer is able to achieve implicit density bonuses with a “conservation” subdivision.  In this case, BW staked out 50 AG-1 perced lots.  However, at the Planning Commission meeting, a Planning Commission member demonstrated that that only 41 lots were allowable, because part of the land would have to be accessed from a gravel road, requiring homes on >3 acre lots.  I doubt that 745 Ebenezer would support even 41 homes, as theoretical yield plans seldom yield the same number of homes as economic/marketable yield plans—hence nearly every one of these sorts of subdivisions will involve a significant density bonus.

The fact that BW is seeking approval for a 50-home subdivision when only a 41-home subdivision is possible under AG-1 would seem to explicitly violate our zoning laws and compel Council to reject outright the Ebenezer application.  And it would be patently unfair to allow BW to submit a revised application that staff and the PC have not evaluated.

There are many other reasons to reject the Ebenezer subdivision that I will not describe in this letter.  Some of these reasons for denial are included in staff’s evaluation of the Ebenezer application and in the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial.  I encourage you to watch the PC’s March 23^rd meeting video.  I also encourage you to visit a real “conservation” subdivision in Woodstock called Wood View.  Rather than relying on artist’s renderings of such developments, you owe it to the citizens of Milton to visit a real “conservation” subdivision.  I am confident such a visit will open up your eyes to the reality (vs. the propaganda) of “conservation” subdivisions.

In closing, I urge you to strongly and unequivocally deny the Ebenezer Road application for rezoning and a variance.  I urge you to send a clear message to developers that they need to operate within Milton’s current zoning rules.  Please let them know that Milton is not a Burger King:  they are not going to get it their way.  And in so doing, Council should also send a message to it citizens:  We are here to represent your interests and only your interests.

Thank you for considering my perspectives on this issue.  Please do not hesitate to individually contact me with questions or comments.

Thank you for your service,

Tim Becker

Milton Coalition

A non-partisan group of concerned citizens advocating for clean, competent, and courageous government

Citizens of Milton:

On Monday, May 24th at 6pm, the Milton Coalition publicly launched its petition against cluster housing in rural Milton.  The current proposed rezonings in Milton represent an existential threat to our community.

You might recall that citizens previously opined on this issue when 838 signed a petition against the CSO, which was pivotal in Council’s denial of the CSO.  However, some Council Members have argued that the current rezonings are somehow different or that citizen pressure had nothing to do with their vote.  It is our strong belief that current proposed rezonings are a misuse of Milton’s zoning laws meant to achieve the goals of the CSO on a piecemeal basis.  These rezonings are actually worse than the CSO in that they offer none of the protections and restrictions of the CSO.  Incredibly, on April 25th, Council actually accepted the builder’s conditions for a cluster home subdivision at 745 Ebenezer Road . . . yes, that’s right, the builder’s conditions + the builder’s site plan are THE ZONING for development.  (Thankfully, Mayor Lockwood vetoed the zoning approval, citing numerous and egregious procedural violations).

So here we are back with another petition.  This petition makes crystal clear what citizens demand.  It captures the main issues we have identified as critical to Milton’s rural identity.  And it makes very clear the consequences of continuing to deny the will of citizens:  WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT OF OFFICE!

Citizens, thank you for your concern for our City.  Please forward the petition (to your Milton family, neighbors, and friends.  Let’s send a message to our City Council that citizens matter!

Milton Coalition Petition Against Cluster Housing In Rural Milton

I oppose cluster housing in un-sewered areas of Milton. (Milton residents only)

In signing this petition, I am:

1. opposing any zoning changes, variances, or other schemes that result in homes on less than one acre in un-sewered areas.

2. opposing any zoning changes or variances that accelerate development.

3. opposing community septic.

4. opposing any and all sewer extensions beyond areas where sewer is already permitted.

5. calling for reforms needed to make the zoning process citizen-centric.

6. advocating for sensible enhancements to current AG-1 zoning to preserve Milton’s rural character.

7. expressing my dissatisfaction with the influence of Special Interests in Milton.

8. advocating for clean, competent, courageous and citizen-centric government.

9. pledging to vote in elections against any Council Member that does not uphold the principles of this petition.

Citizens of Milton:

On June 20, 2016, the Milton City Council will vote on whether to rezone 745 Ebenezer Road to allow cluster housing and community septic.  The Milton Coalition strongly opposes this rezoning.  The Milton Coalition opposes any rezoning that allows homes to be built on lots of less than 1 acre in un-sewered areas of Milton.  We ask citizens to take the following actions to express their opposition to the 745 Ebenezer Road rezoning and to cluster housing in Milton.

1.  Sign our petition.  Click on the following link:  Milton Coalition Petition

2.  Write to the City Manager and City Council to express your opposition.  Following are their e-mail addresses:

Interim City Manager:  steven.krokoff@cityofmiltonga.us

Mayor and City Council Members:  joe.lockwood@cityofmiltonga.us,karen.thurman@cityofmiltonga.us,matt.kunz@cityofmiltonga.us,bill.lusk@cityofmiltonga.us,burt.hewitt@cityofmiltonga.us,joe.longoria@cityofmiltonga.us,rick.mohrig@cityofmiltonga.us

3.  Come to the June 20, 2015 City Council meeting and express your opposition.  You will need to complete a speaker card when you arrive.  The meeting is at 13000 Deerfield Parkway and begins at 6pm.

4.  Enlist your family and friends to also oppose these rezonings and cluster housing.  Send them links to this blog and to the petition.

5.  Post our blog and petition to your social media.

Above is overhead photo of a Brightwater job site.  It is completely clear cut.

Brightwater Homes is the applicant for rezoning of 345 Ebenezer Road.  Brightwater bills itself as an environmental builder that is all about conservation, trees, green, etc.  And BW’s artist renderings certainly support this notion.  However, one local Milton resident took the time to compare and contrast Brightwater’s artist renderings of its site plans with actual satellite photos of the same subdivisions.  You be the judge as to whether Brightwater lives up to its green marketing.  Click on the attached link to view the comparison of artist renderings vs. actual satellite photos.

Brightwater Neighborhoods

“Conservation” subdivision proponents frequently cite Serenbe in South Fulton County as a template for what might be done in Milton.  However, Serenbe is 1100 acres and includes commercial and retail.  It is a standalone community that would be impossible to replicate in Milton.  Interestingly, “conservation” subdivision proponents conveniently never mention the many conservation subdivisions that litter the North Atlanta area.

Cobb County, Gwinnett County, Woodstock, etc. have all passed Conservation Subdivision Ordinances (CSO) quite similar to the CSO that was proposed for Milton.  These CSOs have opened up marginal land in these localities to development.  Cluster homes are crammed into the most economically attractive parts of these land tracts, while the remaining unbuildable/uneconomic land is claimed as greenspace.  Often, once approval is gained, many of these developments are not even marketed as environmentally friendly.

You do not have to drive far to see some of these developments.  Following are photographs taken of one nearby “conservation” subdivision.  You be the judge about whether this is the sort of building we would like to see in our un-sewered parts of Milton.  Do these developments preserve Milton’s look and feel?

We urge all citizens interested in the “conservation subdivision” debate to visit Wood View in Woodstock.  Wood View is Woodstock’s first “conservation subdivision.”  38% of Wood View is claimed as “open space” although most of this open space is in the flood plain, so is unbuildable land.

We have researched the setbacks and development standards for WV to allow for comparison with Brightwater’s application for 745 Ebenezer Road.  Following are the “proposed building setbacks and development standards for individual lots” (wording from BW application) for Wood View and Ebenezer: