Is it possible to achieve good outcomes with a corrupt process? That is the question citizens need to ask our Milton city government. Today, I sent a letter to the Milton City Manager about issues issues of conflict of interest, lack of transparency, exceeding authority, and cronyism in our government. See the letter below. In the letter, I reference the July 25th Planning Commission (PC) meeting, where the Planning Commission Chairman tells the developer at the podium that the Milton City Council regretted its decision to deny variances for the SE corner of Birmingham Crossroads. The chairman then proceeds to invite the applicant to discuss the matter further in a private meeting. That meeting did occur and shortly thereafter the developer again applied for a variance for the SE corner. At the City Council meeting on Monday night, four city council members changed their original votes and the variance was granted. Here is the video, so you can hear for yourself the conversation between the PC chairman and the developer, Tad Braswell.
Error
This video doesn’t exist
Unfortunately, the events described in this post and in my letter cause citizens to lose trust and confidence in our government. And we are seeing that in Milton. Many previously engaged citizens are disillusioned and are checking out. Citizens deserve better. Good governance is on the wane. Council members Bentley and Jamison both ran on a platform of good governance in the 2017 election. Will they now step forward to address these violations of the public trust? Will they (finally) deliver on their promises to reform our government and shift power back to citizens? If not now, when? How bad do things have to get to prompt action from our local government?
(Still) Advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric government
(I am copying City Council and the City Attorney on this email.)
On Monday night, I expressed concerns about the process followed for granting variances for the SE corner of Birmingham Crossroads. Previously, I have discussed with you concerns (different from the concerns that will be discussed herein) I had about the process followed for granting variances for the NW corner. I will address both the SE and NW corners in this email.
SE Corner of Birmingham Crossroads.
As you know, on July 25, 2018, the Planning Commission (PC) reviewed the preliminary plat for the SE corner for Birmingham Crossroads. In that meeting, the chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Paul Moore, who was calling into the meeting, stated that some council members regretted their previous (in April 2018) decision to reject the developer’s requested variances. Mr. Moore further requested to meet with the developer, Mr. Tad Braswell, to discuss this matter. I request that you, all council members, and the City Attorney watch the PC meeting. Cue to 1:20:45 in the video to hear the PC chairman’s comments; listen for 2 minutes.
The meeting requested by the PC Chair did, in fact, take place at City Hall. I do not know all people that attended, but I do know that the developer, the PC chairman, and another PC member attended. Furthermore, Mr. Moore told the other attending PC member, a friend of mine, that the Mr. Moore had concerns about the other PC member’s participation. The reason cited is that Mr. Moore did not want me, Tim Becker, to know about the meeting and what was discussed.
Steve, as you know, Mr. Braswell did come back to Council with a variance request, which was granted to him. Four council members changed their votes.
Steve, this meeting raises obvious (ethical) questions about the role of committee members and transparency. So I ask these questions:
Under whose authority and in what capacity was the PC chairman operating?
Who else attended this meeting?
Was staff there? If so, who?
How long was the meeting?
Who in our government knew about this meeting?
What was the content of this meeting?
Were notes kept from this meeting? If so, please provide them.
Why would the PC chairman not want me or other citizens to know about what was discussed?
Were conditions discussed that Mr. Braswell would need to agree to? Was Mr. Braswell coached on how to proceed with his new application?
Were there additional meetings or other communications between the PC chairman and Mr. Braswell? If so, many of the above questions pertain to these meetings and communications.
Were any city council members involved in these communications with Mr. Braswell? Did a city council member authorize or otherwise sanction this meeting? Which council members knew about this meeting?
Who informed the PC chairman that members of council regretted their decisions? Which council members were referenced? Is it appropriate for a member of the PC to discuss with a developer the stances of council members on zoning matters, particularly in public meeting (and even privately)?
NW Corner of Birmingham Crossroads.
Steve, you and I previously discussed the Planning Commission’s hearing on Curtis Mills’ application for a special use permit (and 9 concurrent variances) for the NW quadrant of Birmingham Crossroads. By his own admission, the PC chairman is a fan and frequent attendee of concerts at Matilda’s. He was aware that due to re-development, Matilda’s was soon to be homeless. The PC chairman devised a plan to find Matilda’s a new home in Milton. The PC chairman took Mr. Mills to a Matilda’s concert, introduced him to the Potters (the owners’ of Matilda’s) and suggested the idea that Matilda’s move to Mr. Mills’ land on the NW corner of Birmingham Crossroads. I first heard this story from Council Member Bentley. However, in March 2018, the PC chairman told me the same story, in the presence of 4 other people.
I have no problem with the Mr. Moore finding a home for his favorite music venue. And I supported the general notion of bringing Matilda’s to Milton, although not to the Crossroads. However, my concern is that the PC chairman did not recuse himself from hearing Mr. Mills’ application when it came before the PC. Furthermore, if you watch the PC hearing on the NW corner (and I suggest that you do), the PC chairman recommends concessions from the City (e.g., concerts on both Saturday and Friday nights) that were not even sought by the applicant. I would remind you of Milton’s city code Section 2.15 (a) – Prohibitions, part (1), which states that no appointed official shall knowingly:
“Engage in any business or transaction or have a financial or other personal interest, direct or indirect, which is incompatible with the proper discharge of official duties or which would tend to impair the independence of his or her judgment or action in the performance of official duties”
So for this matter, I have just one question:
Did the PC chairman have a direct or indirect personal interest in the granting of a special use permit for the NW corner that “would tend to impair the independence the independence of his judgment or action in the performance of official duties”?
(Note: Steve, you and I previously discussed this issue in another context. However, I assert this matter needs to be re-visited in light of Section 2.15 (a) of Milton’s City Code.)
Steve, to be clear, I am not looking to overturn either the decision on the SE or NW corners. What’s done is done. However, I assert the actions described above represent serious breaches of the public trust. Furthermore, I do believe the actions described herein are not conducive to concepts of good governance, including transparency. Citizens deserve better than this from our city government . . . much better. I request that you formally investigate both matters and provide a response back to me.
(Last 2 lines of Won’t Get Fooled Again by the Who)
November 10, 2018
Citizens:
After nearly five months of staying away, I attended this past Monday’s City Council meeting. I felt obligated to attend and speak. Following are videos of my remarks before Council.
Shifting Power Back to Citizens: Just Another Empty Campaign Promise?
On the anniversary of the 2017 election victory for good governance, I felt compelled to speak at Council. The central campaign theme of 2017 was shifting power back to citizens. Sadly, little has been done to actually shift power back to citizens. In fact, power in our city government seems to have been concentrated in just a few council members. You can listen to my remarks to Council in the following video.
Rigged Zoning Hearing
Instead of taking actions to shift power to citizens, our City Council has been bogged down with zoning hearings relating to the SE and NW corners of Birmingham Crossroads. A second hearing on the SE corner consumed vast amounts of staff resources that would have been better deployed to reforming our zoning processes. The Council hearing was a sham, as a deal had already been cut with the developer in a backroom, away from the prying eyes and ears of pesky citizens. As always, Council’s indulgence of developer requests means the agenda for Council is driven by the needs of developers, rather than citizens.
Error
This video doesn’t exist
Citizens, I understand that many of you are disillusioned by the recent actions of our city government, and you are disengaging. I feel the same way and have considerably dialed back my involvement. It is just too depressing. Same old, same old . . . Meet the new boss, same as the old boss . . .
(Still) Advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric government
The Zoning Modification for the SE corner was approved by Council 4-2. A number of us fought the good fight, but lost. Joe Longoria and Rick Mohrig voted against the ZM. Thanks Joe and Rick. Time permitting, I will provide more commentary on the hearing in the coming days.
Watching tonight’s proceedings confirmed what I have gradually been realizing over the last several months. We are not going to see fundamental change in our City government because of the 2017 election. Shifting power back to citizens was a nice campaign slogan, but not much more than that. I really don’t see reform of city processes that would shift power citizens.
I do think the new council members Jamison and Bentley will generally vote for the interests of citizens more than their predecessors. Both are hard workers. And I think both are providing and will provide excellent constituent services to citizens–i.e., be responsive to complaints and problems raised by citizens. However, I don’t see them pushing initiatives to improve our government. Their allegiance to Joe Lockwood is concerning, especially considering that Lockwood is the most pro-developer member of council. I get particularly worried about Lockwood’s influence when I hear his half-baked notions of governance (e.g., “citizens don’t care about process, they only care about outcomes”) parroted by other council members. It was very clear from tonight’s meeting that Lockwood is running the show unchallenged at City Hall, and that is not good for citizens or the City. Because of his rivalry with Lockwood, Bill Lusk served a useful function of acting as a check on Lockwood. Unfortunately, there are no longer any checks on Lockwood. My hope is that a council member will step forward to more forcefully challenge Lockwood. I am confident that such a council member would garner broad public support.
Advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric government,
Thanks for the emails that you have sent regarding the Zoning Modification for the SE corner. Nearly every citizen is asking the same question: Why is this issue again on Council’s agenda? The City’s official response is that a developer is free to come forward with a request for Zoning Modification and Council must hear it. And that is technically correct. However, there is always a back story in Milton. The real truth is that some in our City government have told the developer that Council regrets its previous decision to deny the Zoning Modification and that if the developer comes back with a similar proposal that Council will vote to approve. (In fact, one Planning Commissioner actually mentioned this in a Planning Commission meeting with the developer and then later met with the developer in a private meeting at City Hall.)
The proposal on tonight’s agenda is nearly identical to the previous proposal. The only difference is that staff is now recommending approval. To do so, staff asserts that its “professional judgment” can trump Milton’s 4-part test for granting variances. However, nowhere is Milton’s variance ordinance is such leeway provided to staff. And the City Attorney on April 23rd said as much in his comments. (See video of City Attorney’s advice to Council in my previous posts.) Nevertheless, it is a distinct possibility that the ZM will be approved tonight. I know of 2 council members that will switch their votes. Four votes are needed for approval. And it is interesting to note that even staff’s analysis for the 4-part test has changed from 6 months ago. This is ironic in that staff in its most recent analysis touts its training and expertise. Why would the analysis change from 6 months ago regarding the buffer? Why would highly trained staff with so much expertise change their analysis so dramatically? Clearly, there are folks at City Hall–likely one or more City Council members (and most likely Joe Lockwood)–that are cajoling City staff to give them a particular answer, again to provide cover for a vote reversal. This should concern all citizens. We need a Community Development department that is independent and objective–free from political influence. That is critical to ensure development in Milton is done the right and legal way.
Some council members are caving to the developer’s threats, which I believe are empty, to build 31 town homes on the site. The developer has had 3 years to build such homes, which he can build by right, but has not done so. I believe such a project does not meet the risk-return profile for his investors. In any case, I am fine with 31 town homes with a buffer and the commercial building on Birmingham Road vs. 25 single family detached homes with 10 feet between them and no buffer or commercial building on Birmingham Road.
Following is my letter to Council in opposition to the proposed Zoning Modification.
Please consider attending Council tonight to express your opposition to this Zoning Modification.
I am writing to express my opposition to the granting of a zoning modification for the southeast corner of Birmingham Crossroads. My focus is not on what should or should not get built on the SE corner, as such issues pale in comparison to the issues of 1) gutting and ignoring Milton’s 4-part variance test and 2) legislative fiat—the usurpation of Council’s powers by City staff to enact legislation without a proper public hearing.
Because the proposed plan is essentially the same plan that Council previously and unanimously denied (and in my opinion, a bit worse), the same arguments against the first plan apply to this revised plan. Given that the 2 plans are nearly identical, it would seem that any Council member that votes to approve the proposed plan has an obligation to citizens to explain why his/her vote has changed.
I would also point out that the developer has owned this property for 3 years. He claims that he loses $1000 for every day that he does not develop this property. By his reckoning, this property has already cost him over $1M in property taxes, insurance payments, mortgage payments, etc . . . and he has yet to move any dirt. By right, the developer could have built 33 town homes on this property, but has not done so. This strongly indicates that the developer and/or his investors know that town homes at this location do not fit their risk/return investment criteria. So it would seem that this developer’s threats to build townhouses are empty. That is why he keeps returning—this is the third time—to council for variances. Council needs to call his bluff once and for all.
This gets me to my main concern about this Zoning Modification. The only substantive change between tomorrow’s hearing and the April 23rd hearing is that staff has made a determination that it will ignore Milton’s variance ordinance to reverse its recommendation that Council deny this zoning modification. Staff now claims that it can ignore Milton’s 4-part variance test to achieve a better outcome (an inherently subjective determination) for the community. Staff contends that its expertise, training, and “professional judgment” trump the requirements of Milton’s variance ordinance. Unfortunately, Milton’s variance ordinance does not provide such authority to staff. Therefore, staff has violated Milton’s variance ordinance.
Staff is attempting to (radically) change Milton’s policy for granting variances. Staff’s unilateral actions to change Milton’s variance laws constitutes legislative fiat. Changing Milton’s variance ordinance can only be accomplished by Council and only through a public process that includes public hearings and opportunities for public input. And in fact, Milton’s City Attorney advised City Council at the April 23rd hearing on the SE corner that Milton’s strict variance test gives Council little flexibility. And he further advised Council that to give itself more flexibility, Council (not staff) would need to relax Milton’s variance criteria—i.e., Council would need to legislatively address the issue, including holding public hearings.And most importantly, the City Attorney explicitly states that Milton’s variance ordinance precludes granting variances to “make developments better” . . . just the opposite of what staff is now contending. I urge council members to visit my blog to watch the 4-minute video of the City Attorney’s advice to Council.
As with war, the first casualty of politics is truth. So Council, let’s be honest. Nothing has changed here. It is common knowledge that the developer has been advised by some in our City government that council regrets its April 23rd decision to deny the Zoning Modification for the SE corner. The developer has been further advised (again by some in our city government) that a majority of council will vote for his new proposed plan. (Of course, this collaboration with a developer raises all sorts of issues about ethics, transparency, etc. but those are topics for another day.) Understood in this light, staff’s epiphany about its right to apply its “professional judgment” to trump Milton’s variance ordinance is a transparent attempt to provide cover—the proverbial “fig leaf”–to those council members seeking to reverse their vote on this zoning modification. It will be interesting to hear how the City Attorney might square his support for staff’s ignoring Milton’s variance law with his advice from 6 months ago.
Council, I implore you to consider the implications of sanctioning such gross violations 1) of our variance ordinance and 2) of our process for enacting legislation. Council’s acceptance of these violations represents a serious violation of the public trust. It is the sort of action that alienates citizens and erodes public confidence. Milton’s citizens deserve better. If we are going to relax our variance criteria, let’s do it the right and legal way (the way recommended by the City Attorney on April 23rd ): through enacting an ordinance, including holding public hearings.
Council, I urge you to only consider application of Milton’s 4-part test for variances in your decision. Clearly, the requested variance does not meet the criteria of that test. And accordingly, this variance should be denied.
Thank you for considering my perspectives in this matter.
Advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric governance
First, I want to thank all of you that have come to the blog and have reached out to me over the last few days. Over 150 visitors have come to the blog and at least 2 dozen of you have reached out to me by email with messages of support. I appreciate your support. I urge you to reach out to our city council and request denial of the zoning modification for the SE corner of the Crossroads.
I remind citizens that the plan for the SE is virtually identical to the plan rejected by all 6 of the current council members. So when you communicate with council members, ask them directly what is different about this proposal that they would even consider voting to approve it. I suspect that the only answer you will hear is that staff is now recommending approval. However, staff’s rationale for reversing its previous recommendation for denial and ignoring Milton’s 4-part variance test is that their commitment “is to ultimately deliver the best possible development for the community” and to “deliver a high quality project for the community.” Unfortunately, this “commitment” is directly contradicted by the City Attorney when he advised Council on April 23rd on the SE corner. Listen to this short video clip:
So it should be clear to citizens that this argument that Milton can ignore its variance ordinance or somehow change it without enacting a new ordinance is just plain wrong. The City is obligated to apply the 4-part test and only the 4-part test. And the truth is that requested variance fails the 4-part test; therefore, the zoning modification should be denied.
I am also including in this post an email sent by Julie Bailey to citizens urging denial of the zoning modification. Julie was advocating for smart land use long before Milton was a city and long before any of the current members of Council even lived in Milton. Julie was a chief architect of the Birmingham Master Plan. No one is more of an authority on the Crossroads than Julie. She has more credibility on this issue than anyone in this community, bar none. And Julie has clearly stated that this variance is not justified and does not meet either the letter or the spirit of the law. Julie is an unsung hero in our community. Please read Julie’s letter and heed her call to contact City Council. Thank you.
November 4, 2018
Dear Milton Friends, Neighbors and Citizens:
Upcoming Zoning Modification – City Council Meeting, Monday, November 5, 2018 at 6:00 p.m.SE Quadrant of the Birmingham Crossroads – Zoning Modification requesting variances to build commercial and high-density housing.
This email is intended to inform you about the upcoming zoning issue at the Birmingham Crossroads in the City of Milton. This zoning modification is time sensitive as it goes to the Council Monday (tomorrow) night for a final vote. Your involvement is critical.
ZM18-02/ VC18-08 / Southeast quadrant of Birmingham Hwy and Birmingham Road / OHC Birmingham LLC 22.12 acres in 2/2, Land Lots 379, 380, 413, and 414: 1) Request to modify ZM14-06 Condition 2.a. to the revised site plan received on September 18, 2018. 2) Request to modify ZM14-03 – To delete Condition 6.c., the reference to the village green. 3) A Concurrent Variance to delete the 75- foot undisturbed buffer and 10-foot improvement setback along the south property line of the MIX zoning district adjacent to AG-1 – Sec. 64-1142 (a) (3.) b.
The developer is returning to the Mayor and Council with a plan for the SE Quadrant that is nearly the same as the plan denied by Council in the spring. This Zoning Modification includes variances that are not supported with required hardships. Specifically, the applicant wants to delete the required 75- foot buffer and 10-foot improvement setback 1) to accommodate more commercial development along Birmingham Highway than would otherwise be possible and 2) to allow him to build homes in the buffer area that he is seeking to eliminate. Despite staff’s original recommendation of denial, staff have changed the criteria by which they judge variances to now recommend approval. It is critical to note is thatthis recommended approval is in direct conflict with the direction the City Attorney gave to City Council and Staff at the April 23, 2018 zoning hearing when virtually the same zoning modification was unanimously denied.
The reasons found in staff’s analysis as a basis for approval are troubling as they are in direct conflict with the legal requirements that any variance approved meet the four criteria outlined by zoning policies and law. None of those four legal requirements are met by this zoning request. As such, the zoning modification should be denied.The 75- foot buffer and 10- foot improvement setbacks are requirements of the Birmingham Crossroads Overlay and Zoning Requirements for this quadrant of the Birmingham Crossroads. To allow variances to be approved when there is no demonstrated hardship sets a very dangerous legal precedent.
Use this link to read staff’s analysis and to see the developer’s application and variance requests.
Also, please use this link to the Milton Coalition blog to read more about concerns tied to the City of Milton effectively ignoring and/or diluting the legal requirements for a variance to be approved. Additionally, this link speaks to these changes being made without a legislative process and action that would require public hearings and public input.
Your input is critical. This is your community. Please play a part in protecting all the things that make Milton special. Please consider attending Monday night’s meeting and voicing your opinions. Please consider writing emails and letters to the Mayor and Council, the City Manager, the City Attorney and staff. Your voice makes all the difference. Please scroll down to find email addresses of all those you should contact regarding this and other zonings issues as well as other issues of concern to you, your families and neighbors.
Thank you for being involved. It matters.
My best,
Julie Zahner Bailey
City Hall address, 2006 Heritage Walk, Milton, GA 30004. The new building is located at the intersection of Branyan Trail & Lecoma Trace in downtown Crabapple.
Email City Staff, Mayor & City Council and Planning Commission members.
Contact information is found above.
Attend meetings on these important topics and plan to speak voicing your opinions and concerns.
Have your letter/or comments read into the record. See above emails for whom to contact about having your comments read into the record if you simply cannot be at a specific meeting.
Engage a friend/neighbor.
Express your opinions, and get involved.
Every voice, every person and every action makes a difference.
Buried in this week’s City Council packet (on pages 209 and 210), the Milton City government surreptitiously instituted a radical change to its policy for evaluating variances, essentially gutting the strict 4-part test for variances that had been previously applied.This change was effected to provide cover for city council members that are planning to vote to approve a zoning modification for the SE corner of Birmingham Crossroads, which all 6 council members previously voted to deny. The revised policy also allowed city staff to reverse its previous recommendation to deny the zoning modification for the SE corner. The new proposal for the SE corner is nearly identical to original proposal. (In fact, I believe it is worse, as the developer eliminates a commercial building to allow room for an additional home, although he does add also add a bit more greenspace.)
Following is the City Attorney’s advice to City Council about application of Milton’s variance ordinance to the SE corner of Birmingham Crossroads. The City Attorney clearly states that Milton’s variance ordinance applies, and that granting a zoning modification would violate the law. He further advises council to change the variance criteria if council requires more flexibility. However, he does NOT advise city staff to unilaterally change our variance policy to allow for the “professional judgment” of our city staff to circumvent or supersede Milton’s 4-part test for granting variances. This policy change is a clandestine act of legislative fiat by our city government that I believe to be illegal. Such changes need to be accomplished through an ordinance passed by City Council, thereby requiring public notification and public input.
Citizens, it is important that we stand up for the rule of law in Milton. This action is the sort that leads to corruption in government and cynicism about government. Please write to our City Council members and demand that this policy be rescinded and accomplished by local legislation, requiring public hearings and allowing public comment. Please consider attending Monday night’s city council meeting to express your opposition to this policy change. Thank you.
Following is an email that I sent to our City Council about the policy change. I think that most are likely unaware of the change. However, I suspect at least one council member, operating behind the scenes, is responsible for the change.
Dear City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney:
I am writing to express my dissatisfaction with fundamental changes made to the policy for granting variances in the City of Milton. The changes effectively gut the long-standing, strict 4-part test that Milton has appliedto the granting of variances—albeit somewhat inconsistently. The 4-part standard is replaced by a subjective and squishy standard that is ripe for manipulation and corruption. These policy changes were crafted in a back room at City Hall, with no opportunity for public review and comment.The new policy provides the basis for staff to reverse its recommendation to deny the zoning modification for the SE corner. The new policy is buried in staff’s analysis of the proposed zoning modification for the SE corner of Birmingham Crossroads, so I suppose meant to escape public attention. That is no way to implement and disseminate important government policy. Furthermore, I assert effecting such changes in our laws in this fashion is illegal. And let’s be honest. The new policy is a transparent effort to provide cover for City Council members that might plan to vote for approval of the Zoning Modification for the SE corner—a zoning modification that all 6 council members denied just 6 months ago. At that time, in the April 23rd hearing, the City Attorney was clear that the 4-part test for variances needed to be applied to the zoning modification. And more importantly, the City Attorney advised that, if the City wanted more discretion, it should consider revising the 4-part standard for variances through an ordinance, which would require formal public hearings. The City chose not to follow his advice, but rather chose to surreptitiously institute a new policy through a zoning modification. This new policy is a blatant end-run around Milton’s variance ordinance. Lastly, this shift in policy represents a major shift of power from citizens—who I assert are protected by strict application of the rule of law—to politicians. This shift of power is diametrically at odds with the sentiment expressed by voters in 2017 when we elected candidates for City Council running on a platform of “shifting power back to citizens.”
Council members, I urge you 1) to read closely the City’s rationale for the shift in policy and 2) to watch the City Attorney’s comments at the April 23rd council hearing about Milton’s variance ordinance.
The City’s rationale for the policy shift is obviously carefully crafted and seems reasonable . . . on the surface. However, I ask you 1) to look past the flowery language and think about the substance of the issue and 2) to consider the importance of the rule of law. In abandoning its long-held policy of applying a strict 4-part test, the City asserts that henceforth:
“. . . planning staff is to proactively apply their subject matter expertise and extensive training; ensure best planning practices are adhered to; and to interpret and apply long-range planning documents and local ordinances . . . thorough review and thoughtful analysis, not just exclusively applying the letter of the law, but also accounting for sound planning practices and using professional judgment to determine whether a modification and/or variance requested ultimately delivers a higher quality project for the community.”
In the phrase “not just applying the letter of the law,” the City is referring to the strict 4-part test for variances and asserting that a host of other factors, like “thoughtful analysis” and “professional judgment” will be applied. While such phrases sound good on the surface to an undiscerning citizen, the City is effectively stating that variance determinations henceforth will be subjective judgments about the “best possible development for the Milton community” . . . with such subjective judgments falling ultimately to Council. And of course, in the past, city council members’ judgments of “best possible development for the Milton community” have varied dramatically. Furthermore, the use of the phrase “exclusively applying the letter of the law” is deceptive. Our the City Attorney has asserted that Milton’s variance ordinance does allow for the exercise of judgment in the application of the 4 variance tests. However, that judgment needs to occur within the boundaries of the rule of law. These boundaries have been strictly drawn in Milton . . . to protect citizens from arbitrary application of the law. And that is a good thing. In adopting its new policy, Milton is essentially erasing all legal boundaries and essentially creating a “wild west scenario” for future variance proceedings—a highly variable, consuming, and politicized process vs. a consistent, streamlined legal process. Under such a policy, more than ever, everything depends on getting your guy/gal on Council . . . a very poor governance model.
I request Council view the video from the April 23rd where the City Attorney advises Council on Milton’s variance ordinance and its inappropriateness. In that meeting, the City Attorney is crystal clear about our ordinance. The City Attorney advises City Council that if more flexibility is required, then Council should consider changing the City’s variance criteria. He further states that granting a variance “simply to make developments better” would violate our zoning ordinances. So I cannot square the City’s current policy with the advice previously given by the City Attorney. Furthermore, I do not know how the City can apply any standard other than the original standard in this case; it would seem that this case would certainly be grandfathered under the original interpretation, especially considering that the developer’s current plan differs little in substance from the original plan submitted on April 23rd. While I am not in favor of the new policy, I am also not in favor of changing our city’s variance criteria. Rather the City needs to focus its efforts on improving its zoning laws and processes, including improving its capabilities and requiring increased staff accountability.
Implicit in the city’s new policy is the notion that good process and good outcomes are antithetical. Joe Lockwood goes further and asserts that “citizens do not care about process, they only care about outcomes.” That is a direct quote. I reject this notion. Joe’s belief is wrong, dangerous, and an insult to citizens, who are more intelligent than Joe implies. In fact, through my long experience in business, I know that good process not only results in good outcomes, it a guarantor of such outcomes. And I think most citizens (at least implicitly) understand that fair application of the rule of law is foundational to good governance.Citizens understand the importance of honoring the process, wherever it might take us.
Unfortunately, Milton’s has many deficiencies in its community development processes that have led to poor outcomes for citizens. And rather than fix its processes, Milton has decided to gut the variance process with the purported goal of achieving better outcomes; this makes no sense. And rather than shifting power to citizens, which was the main theme of the 2017 elections, the new policy concentrates power in city employees and ultimately in city council. Such lawlessness will certainly lead Milton to a worse place, as the proposed new policy will invite corruption and influence of Special Interests.
It is ironic that bad process actually resulted in the current request for a zoning modification for the SE corner of Birmingham Crossroads. It is widely known, but not publicly acknowledged, that staff’s failure to properly clean up the conditions of the 2014 rezoning actually required the City to fall back to the townhouse limit established by Fulton County. And the developer is now using this technicality to bully the City into approving a zoning modification. And what is the City’s response? Its response is to further rely on staff “to determine whether a modification and/or variance requested ultimately delivers a higher quality project for the community.” This adds to the irony as we all know that staff has made quite a few serious errors in the past, in addition to the SE corner error, that have resulted in poor outcomes for the City. Remember the fiasco at the corner of Thompson and Hopewell? And it is widely acknowledged that the form-based code for Crabapple has resulted in many poor outcomes (with more to come). So a policy that de-emphasizes our 4-test variance process in favor of increasing reliance on staff’s “subject matter expertise and extensive training” seems imprudent at best and reckless, at worst. I also worry that some staff do not maintain an arms-length relationship with developers. On multiple occasions, I have witnessed staff and developers celebrating victories achieved by those developers at Council . . . one celebration clearly visible in the lobby through the glass.
The problem for Milton is that so much time is wasted on indulging developers’ requests (for zoning modifications, etc.) and fixing staff’s mistakes that little time or resources are available for reforming our processes. We need to focus on improving our processes. This includes making our processes more citizen-centric. On many occasions, I have witnessed unhappy and dispirited citizens streaming out of zoning hearings, not because of the outcome but because they were not treated fairly. Nearly a year ago, discontented citizens voted overwhelmingly to “shift power back to citizens.” However, I have not witnessed any changes to our zoning hearings that are helpful to citizens . . . changes that shift power back to citizens. Nothing has been done, and there is much that can be done. For starters, let’s allow citizens another opportunity to speak after initial public comment. It is not fair that once initial comments are made, only the developer then has an opportunity to speak. And Council needs to stop Mayor Lockwood’s allowing developers to freely approach Council and speak without being called to the podium. At the Matilda’s hearing, once a motion had been made, Mayor Lockwood allowed the applicant to interrupt the proceedings to protest the motion, and his plea resulted in an amended motion that deleted a condition. We need to end double standards that disadvantage citizens. We need to level the playing field for citizens.
City Council, as you know, I have invested much time and effort in promoting good governance in our City. I am driven only by my love for this community, Milton, that I am proud to call my home. My greatest blessing has been getting to know so many fine citizens of Milton, many of whom I consider friends . . . and that includes several of you included on this email.Our citizens are what make Milton great. And they deserve great government–much better government than they now receive. Over the past year, I have witnessed our city government putting more and more distance between itself and citizens, and it saddens me. Citizens are disengaging. The city’s clandestine change in its variance policy is just the sort of action that alienates citizens. It is the sort of action that makes citizens cynical about government and causes them to disengage. Council, our citizens deserve better. Council needs to reject this policy change. And if we need changes in our land use processes, let’s do it in a way that honors our citizens and good governance . . . by changing our city ordinances through public hearings that allow citizen input.
Advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric government,
Milton Coalition 