September 3, 2017

This week’s Milton Herald ran a story about the aftermath of the Ebenezer rezoning that occurred 14 months ago.  Following is a link to the article:

Milton Herald: Ebenezer Saga Ends With No Fanfare

This article is a must-read for citizens who have an interest in land use.  Staff reporter Joe Parker captured the essence of the Ebenezer re-zoning, despite its complexities and Parker not being present at the rezoning hearings.

The Ebenezer rezoning provides a theory-to-practice case study of “conservation” subdivisions.  The theory postulated that the 65 acres on Ebenezer would support 55 homes under AG-1 zoning.  In fact, theoretical yield plans were created by Brightwater Homes that showed how an AG-1 zoned subdivision might be laid out.  These plans for the property ostensibly “proved” 55 homes, then 50 homes, and finally 48 homes were possible under existing AG-1 zoning.  Unfortunately, such theoretical yield plans do not consider the practical realities of development.  The fatal flaw of the Ebenezer yield plans was that they effectively ignored whether the property’s soils would support septic systems.  Brightwater’s second theoretical yield plan placed some septic fields partly/fully in soils that would not support septic—that is, the soils would not perc . . . a frequent issue in Milton that keeps housing density low.  This discrepancy was initially found by a layman on Ebenezer Road who overlaid the theoretical yield plan on the soils map for the property.  A local development professional was then engaged, who performed detailed analysis and confirmed that the yield plan was terribly flawed.  Of course, there were other issues that also cast doubt on whether the land would really support 48-55 homes—for example, steeply sloped land that seemed uneconomic to develop.  And there were further concerns about whether land covered with septic drip lines could really be considered “green space.”

It took a lot of work, but those of us who opposed the re-zoning persuaded enough Council Members that the Brightwater plans were flawed.  And now our arguments are being validated by the actual build-out of the subdivision:  21 homes on the most attractive 38 acres.  It is unlikely that the remaining 27 acres will support more than 8 additional homes.  In any case, the development of the remaining undeveloped land will be delayed.  And delayed development is conservation.  So the instead of 48 – 55 homes on 65 acres proposed by Brightwater, it seems existing zoning will likely support < 30 homes.  The denial of the Ebenezer rezoning was clearly a win for the community.  More importantly, the Ebenezer rezoning educated citizens about development schemes meant to bend and break the rules to achieve higher density housing than existing zoning allows.

Fortunately, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) developed in the wake of the Ebenezer rezoning erased all references to so-called “conservation” subdivisions.  The CLUP is a plan that, through citizen workshops, captures the aspirations of the community for land use.  The CLUP was approved by the 17-member committee that drafted it and then was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission.  However, the battle is still not over.  Two Council Members—Lusk and Kunz—have vowed to continue the promote rural cluster housing.  Accordingly, both Lusk and Kunz voted against CLUP.

Note:  I have driven out to the Ebenezer property several times.  Brightwater Homes has certainly made an effort to conserve as many trees as possible and are to be commended for that.

Tim Becker