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,

The Milton Coalition is a non-partisan group of concerned citizens advocating for clean, competent, and courageous government.

The Milton Coalition was formed in November 2015 to oppose the “conservation” subdivision ordinance (CSO).  We saw the CSO for what it was:  a gift to Special Interests that would accelerate development in Milton and actually hamper green space conservation in Milton.  The CSO and so-called “conservation” subdivisions are merely thinly disguised profit maximization schemes for developers.  Their intent is to open up marginal land in Milton to development.

The Milton Coalition was originally formed by eight concerned citizens, six of whom were neophytes to city government.  We have since added members to our core team, as well as brought in other volunteers.

While we continue to organize against the CSO, we have expanded our mission to include acting as citizens’ counterweight to the influence of Special Interests in our city government.  During the CSO debate, the battle lines were clearly drawn:  citizens on one side and Special Interests on the other.  Consider the December 7th City Council meeting when Council unanimously voted down the CSO.  The vast majority of speakers in favor of the CSO were not ordinary citizens, but rather Special Interests:  developers, builder lobbyists, community septic vendors, large landowners, consultants, and political advocates.  Most were not even Milton residents and most had/have much to gain from adoption of “conservation” subdivisions.

It became clear to us that someone in Milton needed to stand up for ordinary citizens.  Clearly, some of our elected officials have abandoned us.  Consider the following statement by one City Council member (in an e-mail dated November 16, 2015):

“You’ve mentioned that the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance is a ‘gift to developers’.  That is your opinion.  It is not mine, as I’ve been witness to developers at every meeting stand up and state that they are not in preference of the CSO.”

Of course, at the December 7th meeting, quite a few developers and their partners spoke in favor of the CSO; no developers spoke against CSO.  This surprised none of us, as the CSO was gradually revised over time to satisfy the builders.  The June version of the CSO was certainly a “gift to developers” as the requirement to conserve buildable land had been deleted.  It is at this time the developers embraced the CSO and two Council Members publicly endorsed it (in the Milton Herald)–long before the Planning Commission had finished its work or the public had weighed in on the issue.

The Milton Coalition is a voice for the ordinary citizen.  We are organizing on your behalf and representing your interests.  Our efforts to defeat the CSO have made us smarter.  We know how to get out our message and how to mobilize citizens.  However, we still need volunteers.  If you are interested in clean, competent, and courageous government, please reach out to us at miltoncoalition@outlook.com and let us know how you would like to help.

On Monday night March 21, the Milton Coalition addressed City Council.  Following are the remarks.  We are concerned that the voice of the ordinary citizen is being drowned out by the roar of Special Interests, who exercise outsized influence in Milton.  We are tired of being talked down to and talked at by certain Council members.  And we plan to vigorously oppose “conservation” subdivisions, which citizens have clearly stated they do not want.  Please contact us at miltoncoalition@outlook.com to join us in preserving the Milton we love.

This evening, I am here speaking on behalf of the Milton Coalition, which was formed in November to oppose the CSO.  Our mission is to advocate for clean, competent, and courageous government.  Behind me are members of the Milton Coalition.  We are ordinary citizens concerned about the current direction of our city.  Most of us have never had any involvement in city government.  However, the CSO and the process to draft it deeply troubled us and brought us together in opposition.

We saw the CSO for what it was.  A gift to developers.  A profit maximization scheme.  An avenue for introducing higher density housing into Milton.  A way to open up marginal land to development.  And the opposite of conservation.

We also saw a deeply flawed process.  An incompetent consultant.  An unstructured and non-transparent process.  Disrespect for staff and the Planning Commission.  And meddling from some Council members.

So the Milton Coalition was started.  We began from scratch.  We had no money, no e-mail lists, no organization.  Yet in 3 weeks, we were able to rally 835 citizens to sign a petition.  Over 100 supporters attended your December meeting, with 35 stepping to the mike.  And I would remind you that only 15 people spoke in support of the CSO and most—11 of the 15—were non-resident Special Interests, including developers, building lobbyists, land owners, community septic vendors, and consultants.  The image of citizens vs. Special Interests could not have been more stark.

Fortunately, enough of you realized the truth of the CSO and the forces behind it and the CSO was denied.  Presumably the CSO issue was put to bed.  Or so we thought.  However, Special Interests and their agents were undeterred and are now using (or misusing, in our opinion) rezoning and variances to achieve the CSO’s objectives.  And based on last week’s Council meeting, there seems to be a lot of support for conservation subdivisions on Council.  So my question to you tonight is: what has changed in the last 3 months to make you want to reconsider conservation subdivisions?  Why are we going to drag citizens into another fight on this issue?  How can you lament divisiveness on the one hand and support again raising this issue on the other hand?

The wisdom of this is lost on us.  So this evening we are here to tell you that the Milton Coalition never went away.  We are still here and we are not going away.  And we plan to vigorously oppose the Ebenezer development, should Council decide to reconsider conservation subdivisions.  Last night we met at my home to plan our campaign.  Fortunately, we are smarter and better organized.  We know how to mobilize citizens and that is precisely what we intend to do—if we have to.

This evening, we do want to issue a challenge to Council.  Rather than accusing us of disseminating misinformation and using scare tactics, why not pick up the phone and call us?  Why not invite us for coffee and meet with us?  Why not talk to us instead at us?  Tell us why we are mistaken or what we are exaggerating.  Better yet, we challenge Council to hold a moderated town hall meeting where we can have a civil discussion, or even debate, about land use and conservation subdivisions.  We invite you to come down from the dais and engage ordinary citizens, without any Special Interests in the room.  Let’s work together to build a better Milton, which starts with two-way communication.

Citizens of Milton:

Thank you for returning to the Milton Coalition blog.  Our intent is to publish posts every day.  Sometimes, there will be multiple posts, so be sure to read beyond the first post.  We could not be more pleased with the traffic to our blog.  Amazingly, we have had over 400 page views since we launched just a few days ago.  The civic pride of Milton is shining through.  So, so proud of the citizens of Milton!

We are also overjoyed with the signatures on our petition.  We are at 832 signatures today and are on our way to 838 signatures–the same number obtained on the anti-CSO petition.  So it has taken us less than 3 days to garner the same opposition to cluster homes and community septic that it took 3 weeks to garner in December 2015.  City Council, how many times do we have to do this?  How many petitions will it take?  How many citizens have to say NO to cluster housing and community septic before you listen to us?  Please listen to us!

Milton citizens, please continue to enlist your family, friends, and neighbors to sign our petition.  Let’s stop this insanity once and for all!