Citizens:

It is important that citizens continue to sign the Petition urging Council to protect our gravel roads.  This means a strict interpretation of the three-acre lot minimum along gravel roads that includes not only lots accessed from a gravel road, but lots adjacent to a gravel road.  Council Member Kunz has already stated that legally landowners are entitled to one-acre lots due to precedent.  (This is actually false.  See earlier post on this issue.)  However, Council member Kunz and Lusk have already supported 1-acre lot minimums along gravel roads in the 745 Ebenezer Road rezoning.  And they will certainly support 1-acre lots along Lackey Road, when a rezoning application is ultimately brought forward for parcels along that road.  The application will certainly be disguised in “conservation” language, but obviously one-acre lots (vs. three-acre) lots are not conservatory, except in the Orwellian world that Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz inhabit, where language is manipulated as a means to an end.

In the next few months, Council will be adopting clarifying language for three-acre minimum lots along gravel road.  Accordingly, citizens need to continue to stay engaged.  Following is the Wood Road petition.  Please sign and urge your friends and neighbors to sign.  Thank you.  Click on the following link to get to the petition.

Wood Road Petition

Following are some photos taken from the 27-unit townhouse development across from Cambridge High School.  This development is Exhibit A in how terribly wrong we can get rezoning in Milton.  Sewer was extended and density was increased by 3 times.  The rezoning approval motion was made by Bill Lusk and seconded by Matt Kunz.  (Don’t let anyone tell you that the person that makes the first and second motions on important issues does not matter; it does.)  At the time, Council Member Kunz even bragged to the Milton Herald about the townhouses:

“We approved the subdivision with an additional 25 feet of buffer space not required by Agricultural-1 (AG-1) regulations, making it a total of 75 feet of space, and also capped the sewer.  About half of the land will now be left as undeveloped, natural land.”

And don’t let anyone tell you that the choice was between a church and townhouses.  This is false.  This property was zoned AG-1 and should have been developed AG-1.  An AG-1 development would have yielded no more than 9 homes and would have better fit the look and feel of the area.  And as we have seen so many times, in approving this development, Council disregarded the recommendations of the Planning Commission, which voted 7-0 to deny this abomination.

This is just more evidence–as if you needed more–that Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz are the most pro-development members of Council.

Where is the supposed 75-foot buffer?