Category: Smart Land Use

Birmingham Park, Crossroads Music Venue, Smart Land Use

Decibels and Precedent: You Shouldn’t Need Hearing Protection To Enjoy Your Backyard

Posted on by Milton Coalition

cartoon6142

June 2, 2018

 

Originally, I was an enthusiastic supporter of allowing a carefully conditioned music venue on the northwest corner of Birmingham Crossroads.  Now, I am a strong opponent of such a music venue.  A number of factors drove my thinking on this matter and my ultimate opposition.  In my first post in support of the original proposal, I indicated that the devil was in the details and that I would reserve judgment pending the revelation and analysis of those details.  And now that I know and have studied the details, I am confident that the developer’s proposal, which is wildly different from his original proposal, would be quite harmful to the community.  In this post, I want to focus on the Achilles Heel of the developer’s proposal:  the application of an 85 decibel (db) standard at the property line.  Quite simply, the precedent set by adopting this standard would be a disaster for Milton.  Homeowners would be subject to noise at more than 4 times the loudness currently allowed by law . . . noise so loud that it can damage hearing (if exposure is sustained) . . . noise so loud that OSHA requires hearing protection . . . noise so loud that it will agitate pets and horses, which are more sensitive to sound . . . noise so loud it does not allow property owners to enjoy their property and likely lowers their property values.

To fully understand the reasoning behind this requires a little bit of science.

First, every increase of 10 decibels represents a doubling in loudness.  So 75 db is twice as loud as 65 db.  And 85 db is 4 times as loud as 65 decibels.  So applying an 85 db standard for continuous noise, rather than a 60 db standard, is a really big deal.  Following is a chart that provides examples of sound/noise at various db levels.

typicalsoundlevelscr

file-20171005-21957-1lj82uk

Using a decibel meter, I captured a number of readings around my home:

Sound Source (at 3 feet unless otherwise noted)

 Decibel Level

Backyard Ambient

49.0

Microwave Oven

63.9

Electric Clothes Dryer

67.3

Heat Pump outside unit

73.4

Garbage Disposal (just water running through it)

 80.2

Electric Leaf Blower (normal running)

85.3

Cordless Stick Vacuum

85.3

 Cordless Electric Leaf Blower (turbo)

89.5
Cordless Hedge Trimmer (running, not cutting)

95.1

Cordless Electric Weed Wacker (running, not cutting)

95.5
Cordless Electric Chainsaw (running, not cutting)

96.7

So 60 db (e.g., a normal conversation) is fairly quiet.  85 db (e.g., a freight train at 100 feet traveling 45 mph or an electric leaf blower at 3 feet) is considered very loud to the point that sustained exposure can damage hearing.  Noise at the 75 db and above level is annoyingly loud to some humans; some animals find noise annoying loud at even lower decibel levels. No sane citizen would want such noise at or beyond their property line.

J5245

Second, the decibel level is inversely proportional to the distance from the source.  A doubling of the distance from the noise source results in a reduction of 6 db.  So 85 db at 50 feet is 79 db at 100 feet; 73 db at 200 feet; 67 db at 400 feet; and 61 db at 800 feet.   So applying the current proposed standard (of 85 db), music from this proposed music venue might not be reduced to the level of a normal conversation until it reaches more than 800 feet from the sound stage.  And it would not be reduced to ambient noise levels until 3200 feet from the sound source, meaning music would envelope most/all of Birmingham Park, which abuts the proposed venue.  Such a music venue is singularly incompatible with a passive park.

Note that 85 db at 200 feet is worse than 85 db at 50 feet.  This is important because a bigger venue, where the sound source is further from the property line, would cause higher noise levels over a larger  area.  85 db at 200 feet would be 79 db at 400 feet; 73 db at 800 feet; 67 db at 1600 feet; and 61 db at 3200 feet.  So residents near a music or other noise-making venue where the sound is 85 db at a property line 200 feet from the sound source, would clearly hear the music more than ½ mile away.  And neighbors within 600 feet of the property line would be exposed to annoyingly loud music.  Imagine music in quiet AG-1 areas of Milton that, at the property line, is as loud as a snow blower or a passing diesel truck or a blender.

Some might ask why I did not identify this issue earlier.  The answer is that the data had not been made available and staff had not decided on a standard.  At the Community Zoning Information Meeting (CZIM), the developer indicated that a noise variance might not even be needed.  Tests were to be conducted that would determine whether the variance would be required.  Well, the tests showed that the proposed facility failed miserably the requirement that continuous sound be ≤ 60 db; these results were presented at the Planning Commission meeting.  (I am a little suspicious of the measurements because continuous and peak measurements were both 75 db.  Peak should be significantly higher as music continually varies in loudness.  The requirement of 75 db for peak sound was barely met.)  Additionally, staff decided to apply the standard (85 db) for commercial noise in commercial areas; this standard was published in staff’s analysis for the Planning Commission.  If I had possessed the above information at the CZIM, I would have opposed the music venue proposal from the get-go

Applying commercial noise standards to this music venue is ridiculous.  The land in question is not zoned commercial.  It is AG-1.  Different (and more stringent) standards have been and need to be applied to uses in predominantly residential areas.  85 db in commercial areas in Crabapple and Milton might be acceptable.  However, areas away from commercial districts need to hew to a stricter (i.e., lower db) standard.  And that is why standards of 60 – 65 db for continuous sound and 75 db for peak sound are applied for festival and special event facility permits.  And in fact, a 60-65 db standard has previously been applied to Special Event facilities in Milton.  In the case of the Little River Farms special event facility, a 65 db standard was applied; actual measurements of sound were 40-45 db.  In the case of a Special Event facility on Hopewell Road, a standard of 60 db was applied; the applicant did not apply for a variance to this requirement.

So why can these other facilities meet the requirements and the Crossroads venue cannot?  The reason is that the subject property is severely limited by size, geometry, and features (e.g., a power line that runs through the property).  Thus, the sound source must be located close (50 feet) to a property line.  Bottom-line, the property is ill-suited to a music venue.  It is that simple.

Furthermore, applying a commercial standard of 85 db gives the proposed music venue the capacity to double their current volume from 75 db to 85 db in the future.  This would allow for much louder types of music, which means this venue could easily morph into a different kind of music venue–one less compatible with the Crossroads and community values.

loud-noise-facebook

So why does this all matter?  Well, legal precedent is a very big deal.  Approval of an 85 db standard at the property line means other music venues and special event facilities—both current and future–will expect similar treatment.  Furthermore, they will have a strong legal argument for obtaining such treatment.  Think about music in your backyard that is as loud as a blender or leaf blower.  Approval of this use permit and the associated noise variance represents a clear and present danger to our community.

Advocating for Smart Land Use (and common sense),

Tim Becker

Milton - Our Home, Smart Land Use

Matilda’s Crossroads Proposal Morphs at Planning Commission Meeting . . . Bait and Switch?

Posted on by Milton Coalition

ad vs. reality

May 25, 2018

Citizens, after the Planning Commission meeting on Wednesday and careful consideration, I can no longer support the use permit and variances requested for the northwest corner of Birmingham Crossroads.  Previously, I enthusiastically supported the developer’s proposal, subject to the imposition of certain conditions, including 3-year renewal (required by code) and submission of a parking plan.  However, at Wednesday’s Planning Commission meeting, the developer’s proposal morphed into a radically different project that could cause significant and permanent harm to our community.  The Planning Commission caved to all the developer’s demands and shockingly gave the developer even more than he was seeking.  I will be blogging more about the outcome of the Planning Commission meeting over the next few weeks.  However, following is a synopsis of the Planning Commission’s recommendations . . . details to follow in subsequent blog posts.  Fortunately, the Planning Commission’s recommendations are exactly that . . . recommendations.  City Council is the ultimate decision-maker.

  • Recommendation #1: Grant a use permit in perpetuity.  Following existing zoning laws, staff recommended renewal after 3 years as an essential protection for the community.  Even the developer indicated that he would be fine with a renewal period and indicated to me that he would accept 5 years.  The Planning Commission Chairman cited hardship as the reason for the perpetual use permit, an argument even the applicant did not make and which is prima facie  ridiculous.  A perpetual use permit provides citizens no recourse if the music venue has a negative impact on the community.  We are stuck with it forever.
  • Recommendation #2: Increase the attendance cap from 200 to 300 patrons.  This recommendation was based on an outlier (self-reported) of 275 patrons at one concert.  The typical Matilda’s audience is 100 to 200 patrons, with a median of 150 patrons.  So a 50% bonus was gifted based on an aberration in attendance.
  • Recommendation #3: No parking conditions should be imposed; no parking plan should be required.  Staff calculated that the venue could park around 108 vehicles.  The future restaurant (93 seats) at Wilbur and Rudy’s will likely require all of the gravel lot spots (44 in total) for customers and staff, leaving only 64 spots for 300+ concertgoers and venue staff.  Clearly, there would be a shortage of parking, necessitating illegal, overflow parking in the private parking lots east and south of the venue, with concert-goers navigating (on foot) an intersection that lacks even basic pedestrian safety measures.  And are the businesses on the northeast corner going to readily accept concertgoers jamming into parking lots reserved for their paying customers?  I doubt it!  And are the tenants in the office park on the southwest corner going to accept the liability for parkers?
  • Recommendation #4: Allow concerts on both Friday AND Saturday nights on the same weekend.  Staff had recommended limiting concerts to either Friday OR Saturday night.  The applicant did not even ask for this concession; rather it was freely gifted to him by the Commission.
  • Recommendation #5: Extend the concert season by 1 month.  Matilda’s concert season has been presented as extending from May to October, with a concert sometimes occurring in very late April and/or very early November, weather permitting.  The Planning Commission recommended a season extending from April 1st to October 31st.
  • Recommendation #6:  Cap concerts at 6 per month.  Combined with the 7-month season, this implies up to 42 concerts per year.  Contrast this with 26-27 concerts that would result from Matilda’s normal 6-month season combined with staff’s recommendation to limit concerts to one per weekend.  Or better yet, contrast it with the developer’s statement that a normal concert season entails around 20 concerts.  So the Planning Commission effectively provided the developer with a 100% bonus in the number of concerts.
  • Recommendation #7: Do not tie the variances to the use permit.  The variances, such as reduction of the buffer, increase the value of the property.  These variances are needed for the music venue.  Accordingly, they should be tied to the use permit and expire when the use permit expires.  To do otherwise unjustly enriches the developer at the expense of the community.  Furthermore, it creates legal precedent that might disadvantage the City in future legal actions.
  • Recommendation #8: Delete ceding of (400 square feet of) right-of-way at intersection for (desperately needed) intersection improvements.  The Commission Chairman asserted this was a taking.  However, ceding such ROW is a relatively common practice:  consideration for the granting of a use permit—a kind of “favor” from the City government.
  • Recommendation #9: Do not conduct a traffic study.  Clearly, Matilda’s will have a significant impact on local traffic.  Nevertheless, a traffic study was not recommended.  Rather, the City’s stance is that a traffic study might be conducted if problems arise—i.e., the City would rather be reactive than proactive in anticipating and solving potential traffic issues.  No surprise here . . . we are perpetually and woefully behind in making improvements to our roads.
  • Recommendation #10: Do not study pedestrian safety or otherwise improve pedestrian safety at the intersection.  The Crossroads is currently not safely configured for patrons that might traverse the intersection to/from overflow parking, to get food at the Northeast corner, etc.  There are no crosswalks, pedestrian signage, or other pedestrian safety features.  The City should conduct a study to identify needed pedestrian safety improvements to the Crossroads intersection and implement resulting recommendations.
  • Recommendation #11.  Apply City’s noise ordinance (rather than the more restrictive festival ordinance) to Matilda’s.  The noise ordinance allows noise from a commercial area at a maximum of 85 decibels at the property line.  Compare this to the 83 decibels generated at a distance of 100 feet by a freight train travelling at 45 mph.  Continuous exposure to noise at just 85 decibels over an 8 hour period can cause possible permanent hearing damage.  So it is fair to say that the City’s noise ordinance is probably not the best standard to apply to this venue, which would be located in the most rural and quietest area of Milton.

The recommendations of the Planning Commission could result in a nearly 5 times increase in concertgoers compared to Matilda’s current attendance.   On peak nights, it is certain that some restaurant/Matilda’s patrons would have to park elsewhere . . . along the road and in private parking lots.  And worst of all, a perpetual use permit means we will be forever stuck with this situation and whatever unintended consequences (e.g., a pedestrian fatality) might result from these recommendations.  And forever is a long time.  

The proposal to move Matilda’s to the Crossroads was originally presented to the Community as altruistically preserving a quaint and quirky, mom-and-pop music venue that was soon to be homeless.  The parameters of Alpharetta Matilda’s (e.g., number of concerts, season length) would be replicated in Milton.  The developer stated that his proposal is not about the money.  I bought into this idea.  However, the many and significant concessions made to the developer by the Planning Commission have made me increasingly question the intent of this project.  It seems Matilda’s is morphing from a hip and intimate music venue to a significant commercial music venture that is mostly about money.  A bait-and-switch of sorts.  And that is why I am now in opposition to the developer’s proposal.  Perhaps, it is still possible to create a cool and laid-back music venue at the Crossroads that provides strong protections for the community.  However, I am increasingly skeptical about achieving such an outcome.  Citizens, please keep engaged on this issue.  Done wrong, this project could inflict major and irrevocable harm to our beloved Crossroads.

In the past, I have been effusive in my praise for the Planning Commission.  Traditionally, the Planning Commission has been diligent in protecting our community.  You could always count on the Planning Commission to further strengthen and to supplement the conditions of staff, particularly on commercial developments.  Unfortunately, in this matter of the northwest corner, the Planning Commission severely diluted staff’s recommendations and significantly reduced protections for the community.  Why did the Planning Commission make a 180 degree course reversal on Matilda’s?  Well, like so much that happens in our City government, there’s a back story . . . and it ain’t pretty.  Stay tuned.  🙂

Advocating For Citizens,

Tim Becker

Good Governance, Milton City Council, Smart Land Use

Birmingham Crossroads Variance Denied: Utopia Lost?

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Utopia Vs Dystopia

April 24, 2018

Last night, the Birmingham Crossroads variance was denied.  This was absolutely the right decision.  It was a victory for citizens.  I am quite sure that the variance would have been approved if citizens had not protested so loudly and had not shown up in numbers to express their opposition.

A false choice was presented last night between Utopian and Dystopian futures for the Southeast corner of Birmingham Crossroads . . . both futures conveniently created by the applicant. 

Utopia and Dystopia

The Utopian vision was the developer’s proposal to build a wonderland without a buffer.  His vision was colorized.  There were beautiful artist renderings–mostly in rich and verdant greens.  There was a quaint village feel . . . you could almost taste the front porch lemonade and see forest sprites peeking from behind the bushes and trees.

The Dystopian vision (of the parcel with a buffer) was drab . . . painted in black, grays, and white.  No beautiful artist renderings . . . just a sterile, two-dimensional site plan.  The buffer was merely a white rectangle . . . a featureless no man’s land.  No quaint village, but rather dreary proletarian housing.  This was the developer’s “threat plan” . . . what he asserts he will build if denied his variance.

The contrast was stark.  It might have hoodwinked some Council members, but citizens were not fooled for a second.  Grizzled veterans from previous zoning battles once again streamed into City Hall to let Council know unequivocally that we were not buying what Oak Hall was selling.  With some obvious reluctance (from some council members), Council sent the developer and his attorney packing.

The denial of the variance certainly cheered citizens.  However, the biggest victory was for good governance.  The rule of law in Milton was upheld.  The importance of this victory cannot be overstated.  You see, before the meeting, Mayor Lockwood has asserted “Average citizens does not care about process.  They only care about outcomes.”  He further asserts that process was only important to a very small group of citizens, like me, that follow city government.  I will never accept this notion.  Never.   Last night citizens strongly asserted that they do care about process . . . about the rule of law . . . about fairness . . . about transparency . . . about honesty . . . about competence.  These are all elements of a good process.  And I think citizens believe–at least instinctively–that a good process will lead to good outcomes.

Generally (but sometimes reluctantly) I have supported Mayor Lockwood.  However, I find Mayor Lockwood’s opinions about “average” citizens troubling and just plain wrong.  Of course, on any given issue, Mayor Lockwood has a more informed opinion than an “average” citizen, but that does not mean Mayor Lockwood is right about any particular issue.  And more importantly, I assert that the collective wisdom of citizens always trumps the wisdom of 7 council members.  Always. 

Mayor Lockwood protests that council members are not monkeys and that if it were so easy, a computer would make all of the decisions for the city.  What he is implying is that we expect elected officials to exercise judgment.  And I wholeheartedly agree with him.  However, that judgment must be exercised within the boundaries of the rule of law.  So yes, process, which includes adherence to the rule of law, is important.  In fact, process and the rule of law ensure that citizen prerogatives are protected and advanced, as it keeps politicians in check.  Process and rule of law devolve power to the people and away from politicians, much to the chagrin of most politicians.  So yes, we expect good judgment from elected officials, but also respect for the rule of law.

Last night’s denial of the variance also produced other victories for citizens.  Citizens once again faced down a developer who had been effective in his intimidation of Council.  A strong message was sent to developers that threats will not work in Milton and, in fact, might actually backfire on developers.

With the denial of the variance, Council also avoided setting a dangerous legal precedent–i.e. that buffers and setbacks are malleable.  Variance approval would have prompted other developers to demand equal treatment, and buffers and setbacks all over Milton would have been vulnerable.

Thanks

Thanks to citizens that showed up and spoke up at this hearing and the previous hearing, including Julie Bailey, Cleveland Slater, Bill Bailey, Joan Wunderle, Daniel Fernandez, David Damiani, Sharon Mays, Kurt Nolte, Vince Taylor, Joe Whitley, Tony Outeda, and Heather Creran.  Thanks also to Arnie Moore and Diane Maloney, who showed up to speak but were not permitted because of a technicality.  Thanks also to the many citizens that showed up to support the speakers.  Lastly, thanks to all of you that visit this blog.  Over the last 48 hours, the blog has logged nearly 900 visitors and over 1,100 hits.  Please consider subscribing to the blog to receive posts by email as they are published.  Informed and engaged citizens are key to good governance.

Advocating to clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric government,

Tim Becker

Good Governance, Milton City Council, Smart Land Use

Citizens, Please Stand Up for the Rule of Law at Tonight’s City Council Meeting

Posted on by Milton Coalition

19f0c701ce4abc910b423c9c54b2a3a2

April 23, 2018

First, thank you for your outpouring of support.  In the last 24 hours, over 650 Milton citizens have come to the Milton Coalition blog for information.  There has also been an uptick in folks signing the Milton Coalition petitions for smart land use . . . 20 new signatures and counting.  And I know many of you have written letters to Council and have forwarded my call-to-action email to friends and neighbors.  Thank you.

Please consider coming to tonight’s meeting and speaking.  It is important for Council to hear directly from citizens at Council meetings, and it does make a difference.  Tonight’s council meeting begins at 6 pm and is at City Hall.  You will need to complete and turn in a speaker card, which takes only a minute.

Following are some insights on the tonight’s Crossroads variance hearing.

Outpouring of Citizen Opposition.

My understanding is that Council has received an onslaught of letters in opposition to tonight’s variance request.  So that means that Council will deny the request, right?  The answer is absolutely NOT.  In the past, I have heard various self-serving and ridiculous responses from Council members for disregarding citizen letters.  And I believe that right now a majority of council is leaning toward approving the variance.  Nevertheless, letters do matter, so keep sending them.  Every little bit counts.  And speaking at council matters even more and is critical to beating back this variance request.

It will be interesting to note if any Council Members even mention the overwhelming citizen opposition.  They certainly should.  The November 2017 election was predicated on “shifting power back to citizens.”  What does it say about our Council if they vote to approve the variance in the face of such strong citizen opposition?  Reference to citizen opposition is one (of many) indicators of how Council might vote . . . a positive indicator.

Legal Precedent

Several readers reminded me of the importance of legal precedence with this variance.  Legal precedence is one of the most important reasons for denying this request.  These sorts of decisions have a tendency to ripple throughout our community.  Entirely eliminating the buffer and setback is a really big deal.  Other developers will certainly demand equal treatment.  And of course, granting this variance would put developers in a better position to win future legal battles against citizens.   Think about that undeveloped land near you and the buffers and setback being reduced or even eliminated . . . 

Be aware that tonight a Council Member may ask the City Attorney if a variance approval will set a legal precedent.  This is a cynical ploy to tamp down citizen opposition.  The City Attorney always states that each zoning case stands alone and does not set precedent.  However, remember that the City Attorney’s job is to protect the City.  The City Attorney cannot be recorded to say that a zoning decision sets precedent, as that would hurt the City in future lawsuits.

Creative Math

In making these decisions, each Council member has to go through a calculus of sorts.  There are upsides and downsides.  Pros and cons.  However, in this case, even under the worst case scenario, I do not understand how any Council Member could vote for this variance.  So what is the worst case?  The developer builds 30 homes instead of 25 and the separation between houses goes from 10 feet to 0 feet.  So to get this result for citizens, what is the cost?  The downside?  The cons?  Well, since you asked . . .

  1. A loss of citizen confidence and trust in government, resulting from rejecting overwhelming citizen opposition.
  2. Encouragement of corruption and loss of confidence in government resulting from a disregard for the rule of law.  Variances require a finding a hardship.
  3. A dangerous legal precedent is established–i.e., buffers and setbacks can be more easily reduced or eliminated.
  4. Encouragement of other developers to threaten Council to bend the rules for their benefit.  In approving this variance, council would continue a long history of indulging developers that has resulted in vast amounts of staff and Council time being spent on ridiculous developer proposals.  This vicious cycle needs to be ended once and for all.  A line must be drawn in the sand.
  5. Loss of over 1 acre of greenspace at the same time the City is buying greenspace.  That makes absolutely no sense.
  6. A chance to create an even better development with a buffer.  Council is overlooking the possibility that the developer might actually come back with a better proposal that includes the buffer.

And remember that the worst case scenario is a threat and likely a bluff, as we have witnessed many times in the past.  Folks,  the bottom line is that the calculus for approval just does not pencil out.

Striking A Good Deal For Citizens?

Beware.  If it seems the variance is going to be approved, you will see conditions added to approval of the variance.  This is standard practice in these proceedings.  It is meant to make citizens and Council members feel better about the outcome.  However, the addition of conditions is mostly political theater and meant to provide cover for an unpopular vote.  You must understand that developers view these proceedings as a negotiation from Day 1.  Accordingly, they generally submit proposals that they know are prima facie unacceptable.  This creates negotiating “head room” while allowing Council to save face.  Additionally, over the past 2+ years, I have noticed that Council is a terrible negotiator.  (I say this as someone who has taught classes and written articles on negotiation.)  Council consistently makes rookie mistakes, like negotiating with themselves and laying all their cards on the table.  It can be painful to watch.  But make no mistake about it . . . approval of a variance with conditions would be the classic Pyrrhic victory.  Council needs to stand strong and deny this variance.

Please consider speaking at tonight’s council meeting.  Let’s once again face down developers that are seeking to bend and break our rules through coercing Council.  Let’s stand up for the rule of law.  Let’s make it clear to Council that citizens are in charge.  As always, thank you for your strong support for good governance in Milton.

Advocating For Smart Land Use,

Tim Becker

gg

Good Governance, Milton City Council, Smart Land Use

Birmingham Crossroads Variance Application: Rule of Law vs. Jungle Law

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Wilbur and Rudy's

Gradually, I have concluded that the Birmingham Crossroads variance request for the SE corner is more important than any issue that has come before Council since I become involved in November 2015 . . . more important than even the CSO and the subsequent Ebenezer rezonings.  I say this because the Crossroads variance request concerns the essential role of City government.  It involves fundamental issues of rule of law and due process.  Council members must decide whether (or not) they take seriously their oath of office, which requires them to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the laws of Milton.  And this includes long-established laws and practices for granting variances.  Yes, it is that simple . . . and yes, it is that important.

oath of office

Some council members have asserted that citizens do not care about process—that is, how government works; rather they assert that citizens care only about outcomes.  Such sentiments are not only wrong; they are dangerous.  Essentially, such politicians are asserting that the ends justify the means.  If our city processes do not lead to the “right” outcomes (according to a subjective determination by these politicians), then it is fine (for City Council) to disregard or subvert government processes.  Of course, this is a recipe for chaos and manipulation.  And, in fact, we have witnessed such chaos and manipulation in Milton over the past few years.  Furthermore, this failure to respect the rule of law concentrates power in politicians, not the people.  Council meetings become cage matches or a Night at the Improv.  Every issue gets duked out at Council, with governance becoming essentially an exercise in subterfuge and improvisation.  And this disrespect for process has created an environment that allowed certain politicians—some still sitting on Council—to advance (mostly in the shadows) the interests of Special Interests (primarily developers).

The variance process is relatively straightforward.  It is intended for minor deviations from zoning laws.  The American Planning Association provides the following examples:  “a house will be a foot too close to a lot line or a few feet too tall, or the lot does not quite meet the minimum size for the zoning district, or a commercial business has one or two parking spaces fewer than the zoning ordinance requires.”  Entirely eliminating a 75-foot buffer (over an acre of greenspace) is not minor.  (Note:  It is disconcerting that Council would even consider reducing greenspace in Milton, given that 82% of voters approved the Greenspace Bond in 2016.  It is also worth noting that this is the second reduction in greenspace at the Crossroads, as Council previously approved a reduction of the village green in the Publix shopping center to allow construction of an interior roadway and additional parking.)

The standards for variances have not changed in 100 years and are unambiguous.  An applicant must prove that enforcement of zoning regulations would cause “undue hardship” to the applicant.  In the Crossroads case, the applicable zoning regulation is a requirement for a 75-foot wide buffer (and additional 10 foot setback) between the mixed use parcel and the AG-1 parcel that comprise the proposed development.  In its recommendation for denial of the variance, city staff made a compelling case that the required buffer does not represent a hardship in developing the property.  Furthermore, the applicant’s attorney even admitted that the buffer did not represent a hardship in developing the property.  You read that correctly . . . even the applicant admits to no hardship.  Confusing, huh?  So Council determined on its own that there was a hardship?  No, the truth is that Council did not even consider, even for a moment, the central and dispositive question of hardship.  The word “hardship” was never uttered.  Staff’s analysis of hardship was never considered . . . or even acknowledged.  The comments of several citizens similarly fell on deaf ears.  There was a total lack of any sort of process . . . not even a nod to good governance.  No rule of law, but rather Milton’s version of jungle law.

So what did Council discuss instead (of hardship) and why did Council eventually defer the matter of the variance?  Well, the applicant’s zoning attorney threatened that if the variance was denied, the developer would cram town homes onto the site . . . adding “and it won’t look pretty.”  So Council reprimanded him for making threats, right?  WRONG.  No one on council uttered a peep in defense of the citizens.  Rather, Council engaged a long and convoluted discussion of hypotheticals about what might get built if the variance is denied.  The applicant baited Council with his threats and Council eagerly took the bait.  Council proceeded to air Milton’s legal dirty laundry before an applicant that has threatened to sue the City if the variance is not approved.  Council sure gave him plenty of good material for his lawsuit.  Council asked staff for its opinion of what might get built and heard several and conflicting answers to this question.  Mayor Lockwood, who is responsible for the running of Council meetings, allowed yet another Council meeting spiral out of control . . . reminiscent of the first Ebenezer hearing.  Council eventually realized it had entered a legal quagmire and voted to defer its decision on the variance.  However, by this time, the damage had already been done.  It was a sorry display.  Most importantly, the issue of what might get built, while interesting, is not relevant in adjudication of a variance application . . . period.

Are you getting the picture?  A complete and utter lack of process resulted in a long and painful hearing that damaged the City’s future legal position in this matter, with Council opting to kick the can down the road.

Had Council followed good governance processes, Council deliberations would have lasted less than 5 minutes.  Here is how council’s last hearing should have gone down.  Council Member asks “Is there a hardship?”  No says staff.  And even the applicant admits this fact . . . no hardship, no variance . . . . motion for denial . . . denial approved.  Case closed.  (BTW, some citizens have been discussing suing the City; I cannot imagine a court upholding a variance approval without a finding of hardship.)

Bluffing

So putting aside the issue of process, should citizens be concerned about what might get built at the Crossroads?  I do not think so.  Ultimately, what the developer will build if the variance is denied is unknown and unknowable.  Currently, Oak Hall is seeking eliminate the buffer and build 25 single family detached (with only 10 feet of separation) homes.  If the variance is denied, the builder has asserted that he will build 30 townhomes and has submitted a drawing that some Council members are calling the “threat plan.”  However, threatening to build higher density and/or ugly houses is a common tactic, but usually a bluff.  Remember the Ebenezer rezoning when the developer submitted a plan for 48 homes on 65 acres; he also threatened to drain the pond and cram in 55 homes.  However, he is currently building 21 homes on (the most attractive) 38 acres; it is doubtful that the remaining 27 acres will support more than an additional 9 homes, for a total of 30 homes (vs. the threatened 48 homes).  We’ve seen the “idle threat” tactic also used with the Reserve at Providence and the Hamby Road sewer extension.

What actually gets built is ultimately a function of marketability, financing, and other factors—many known only to the developer.  So comparing the current application to some hypothetical “threat plan” is a false choice, reminiscent of the dishonest assertion that the development across from CHS was a choice between a church and 27 townhome units (when, in fact, the land was zoned AG-1 and should have been built out as an AG-1 development for a maximum of 8 homes).  And is there really much of a difference between townhomes and detached homes separated by 10 feet?  Both will look out-of-place at the Crossroads.  And wouldn’t it be better to shield whatever gets built with a tree buffer?  The point is that whatever gets built will likely not be appreciably worse than what is currently proposed . . . and it might actually look better provided that we don’t cave to the developer’s threats.  And a buffer will ensure that anything unsightly will be mostly hidden from view.  Council needs to call the developer’s bluff and send him packing.  (BTW, Oak Hall is the same developer that obtained rezoning and variances for the first high density “conservation” subdivision in Woodstock and then promptly flipped the property to Pulte, which built exactly the sort of development that you would expect from Pulte.)

the-rule-of-law-web

I urge citizens to write to their City Council members.  Demand that they uphold the rule of law and deny this variance.  Please also consider attending Monday’s Council meeting to demand that Council do their darn job, stand up for citizens, and stop indulging the threats of developers.  Your voice matters and needs to be heard loud and clear.  It is time that Council draw a firm line in the sand and stop these nonsense applications for zoning changes that consume vast amounts of staff and Council time . . . time better spent on adopting good governance practices and processes that will achieve better outcomes for citizens.

Lastly, I am not naive to the fact that bad process resulted in the bad outcomes that Council is dealing with.  Legacy members of Council bear some responsibility for the difficult issues at the Crossroads.  However, the solution is NOT to continue to apply bad process to correct these past bad outcomes.  Such an approach only perpetuates the cycle of poor decision-making and leads to even worse outcomes.  The solution is to follow the process wherever it takes us.  And if we believe the outcome is suboptimal, then we need to fix the process.  That is how the rule of law works.  If you don’t like the law and its outcomes, then you change the law.  You don’t subvert or manipulate the process to achieve outcomes.  That model ultimately plays into the hands of developers, who have much more time, resources, and expertise to manipulate a bad process.  Council members that don’t understand or believe this are naive . . . and I suspect are being played by other Council members with strong ties to the development industry.

Advocating For The Rule of Law,

Tim Becker

Calvin

Smart Land Use

Birmingham Crossroads: Developer’s Case for Variance Approval Is Absurd

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Wilbur and Rudy's

March 19, 2018

Following is a (slightly) modified letter that I sent to Council regarding a request for a variance to entirely eliminate the required 75-foot buffer between 2 properties that Oak Hall Companies is seeking to develop at the Southeast corner of the Birmingham Crossroads.  It is just one more example (as if we needed another) of Special Interests coming to Council to fix their mistakes.  I am convinced that developers have become so accustomed to getting such relief from Council that they forgo all but the most basic due diligence.  It is a classic case of moral hazard (i.e., lack of incentive to guard against risk where one is protected from its consequences).  Please consider attending tonight and speaking against granting this variance.  It should be interesting to see if any Council Members fall for the developer’s cock-and-bull case for approval.

**********************************************************************************

City Council:

I am writing to urge you to vote against the variance (to eliminate the buffer) being sought for Birmingham Crossroads.  I have spent considerable time studying this issue.  I believe that tonight’s vote is a key test of whether Council truly understands the results of the 2017 elections (or whether we are back to business as usual in Milton).

This variance request is a relatively simple matter.  Once again (as with the recent Cambridge, Ebenezer, and multiple Hopewell rezonings), a developer is coming to Council asking that the rules be broken so he can increase his profits.  Once again, a developer is asking for more density than he is allowed under existing zoning laws.  Once again, a developer has not done his due diligence before buying a property and now is coming to Council to fix his mistakes.  This is a zero sum game.  The developer increases his profits and citizens pay the cost in terms of increased traffic, more crowded schools and amenities, and lowered property values.  It is crony “capitalism”:  concentrated benefits for special interests that get socialized across Milton’s hapless citizens.

The developer is arguing that both Fulton County and Milton approved site plans that do not include the 75-foot buffer between the north and south parcels, that approval of the site plans was tacit approval of the proposed variance, and that subject variance request is a mere formality.  This argument is laughable.  The developer conveniently does not mention that a condition of approval for the previous rezonings was that all applicable zoning laws must be followed.  Furthermore, our zoning laws state that rezoning site plans are subject to modification to bring them into conformance with our zoning laws.  That is, our zoning laws supersede rezoning site plans.  (The American Planning Association supports this contention; see below discussion.)

My understanding is that the developer submitted a new “improved” site plan on Friday afternoon.  Council, as you know, late submission of documentation is an often-used (and dishonest) tactic of developers.  We saw it most recently with the Hamby Road sewer extension.  We saw it with the Ebenezer Road and Hopewell rezonings.  Submitting a plan (or other documentation) at the last minute is unfair to our staff, but, more importantly, it is unfair to citizens.  It is an abuse of our process.  A zoning hearing is a quasi-judicial proceeding, meaning that it follows “courtlike” protocols.  A fundamental legal protocol is discovery.  Submission of a plan so late that citizens do not have a reasonable opportunity to analyze the plan denies citizens due process.  It is unconstitutional according to both the Georgia and U.S. Constitutions.  The developer has owned this land for 2 years.  He has had plenty of time to submit a compliant plan well in advance of this proceeding.  Furthermore, the developer has threatened that he will cram 33 townhouses on this property if his variance is not approved.   Denying citizens the opportunity to review a developer’s site plan is reason enough to deny this request for a variance.  Threats from a developer are reason enough to deny this request.  These actions demonstrate that the developer is not acting in good faith.  Dishonest tactics and veiled threats should not be rewarded by this Council.

I would also remind Council that staff has recommended denial.  I would assume that staff is confident that they would prevail in any lawsuit filed by the developer, who has threatened that he will sue if not granted a variance.  I assume that case law is on our side.

I would also remind Council about the purpose and process for variances.  According to the American Planning Association (APA), variances are meant for minor discrepancies, such as “a house will be one foot too close to a lot line or a few feet too tall . . . or a commercial business has one or two parking spaces fewer than the zoning ordinance allows.”  In this case, the developer is not addressing a minor discrepancy; the developer is essentially requesting a major deviation from our zoning laws—laws that he should have consulted before buying the subject properties.  Furthermore, the applicant is required 1) to show “undue hardship”, (2) the hardship is “caused by the size and shape or the property or some other factor that the applicant (or his or her predecessor) did not cause, (3) approving the variance “would not create significant negative impacts on the surrounding area.”  In this case, the developer does not remotely satisfy even one of the three criteria.  The APA states “buying a property without knowledge of zoning restrictions is also not ‘undue hardship’ because that could have been prevented by the applicant’s checking the zoning before the purchase.”  So the developer’s lack of due diligence is not considered a hardship and at the CZIM the developer did not claim any other hardship.  The APPA further states that “while consistency with the adopted plans is sometimes a criterion for variance approval, often it is not.”  This means that zoning laws generally supersede site plans.  So it is clear to me that the developer is abusing our variance process.  It is clear that there is no hardship, just incompetence.  And it is clear that our zoning laws, not the rezoning site plan, govern this matter.

I have often heard Council cite local control and preferences as critical to its decision-making.  For example, local control was the main reason cited for abandoning the roads in Crooked Creek.  It is clear that citizens that live near the Crossroads want denial of this variance request.  Some will speak tonight.  Many years ago, the Birmingham Hopewell Alliance worked hard to ensure that a master plan was approved by all parties that would ensure the Crossroads was developed to a high standard.  I hope that tonight you will respect and honor the work of the BHA and deny this request.

So given that this developer cannot make a decent case for approval of this variance, why did he nevertheless apply for a variance?  The reason is that Milton has a long history of granting developers whatever they want, only to leave citizens holding the bag.  The result has been a steady stream of ridiculous requests from developers that has kept Council preoccupied priorities of developers rather than the priorities of citizens.  Fortunately, we recently had an election that (once again) clarified the desires of citizens.  The 2017 election confirmed citizens’ sentiments as expressed in multiple city surveys, citizen petitions, and the overwhelming passage of the greenspace bond.  Citizens have been very clear that we want our zoning laws upheld.  That is not too much to ask.  In fact, upholding our zoning laws is your duty and obligation as our elected representatives.  Please deny this variance request.

Thank you for considering my perspectives.  Please feel free to call me to discuss.

Respectfully,

Tim Becker

shutterstock_363192542-700x467

Smart Land Use

Key Question For Birmingham Crossroads Developer: What Benefit Will Requested Variances Provide to Citizens?

Posted on by Milton Coalition

February 26, 2018

An important Community Zoning Information Meeting (CZIM) is being held at Community Place (right next to City Hall) at 7 pm on Tuesday, February 27th.  This CZIM concerns the development of the southeast quadrant of Birmingham Crossroads.  The developer is seeking 2 zoning modifications with 2 concurrent variances.  This means that the developer is seeking waivers for 2 of our zoning rules.  Such zoning requests almost always involve a developer seeking higher density than existing zoning rules allow and thus improving the profitability of his project.  In this case, the developer is seeking relief from two zoning rules:

  1. The Birmingham Crossroads master plan requires that the village green be 13,000 square feet.  The developer wants to reduce its size by 900 feet to 12,100 feet.
  2. The developer’s project combines land that is within the footprint of the Birmingham master plan with land that is outside of (and to the south of) the master plan footprint (and zoned AG-1).  The builder is requesting to entirely eliminate the required 75-foot buffer between these 2 parcels.

Generally, I am opposed to any waivers to our zoning code, unless they result in a clear and demonstrable benefit to the public, evidenced by strong public support for such variances.  I have read the developer’s proposal and it does not provide any discussion of such public benefit.  Rather, the developer claims that the current zoning represents a financial hardship that is preventing him from developing his properties.  At the CZIM, the developer should explain why the zoning modifications will benefit the public.  That is, how will the modifications result in a better development for the community (and not just increased profits for his company)?

Some background might be useful in understanding this request.

  • Many years ago, commercial developers submitted proposals for developing Birmingham Crossroads.  Nearby residents organized to fight what they believed were proposals to over-commercialize the Crossroads community, which was then in unincorporated North Fulton County.  Leading the resistance was the Birmingham-Hopewell Alliance.  A compromise was eventually reached creating a master plan that confined commercial/high density development to a 27-acre footprint.  Included were a number of stipulations (e.g., village greens) that were intended to ensure the development would respect the rural character of the surrounding area.
  • In 2014, a rezoning was approved that eliminated a 10,000 square foot daycare facility and allowed a combination of detached single family homes and town homes (vs. just town homes).
  • A rezoning by the current developer was requested in 2016.  That rezoning would have eliminated most of the commercial square footage.  All of the required commercial space along Birmingham Highway would have been replaced with townhouses.  A number of nearby residents, myself included, opposed the rezoning, which was denied 6-1 (with only Mayor Lockwood voting to approve).
  • A zoning modification for the Publix shopping center was approved (4-3) in 2017 that eliminated some of the village green to allow construction of an interior road and additional parking spots.  A number of residents spoke, myself included, spoke against approval.
  • In January 2018, the Design Review Board approved demolition of existing structures in the southeast quadrant in anticipation of the property being developed.

I am keeping an open mind about the developer’s proposal.  However, I am not buying his hardship argument.  I believe he can profitably develop the parcel, without the variances.  Accordingly, the developer will need to make a case that the requested variances allow him to build a better development that will demonstrably benefit the community.  Otherwise, he should abide by the current zoning regulations.

Tim Becker

Former Councilman Bill Lusk, Milton City Council, Smart Land Use

Hamby Sewer Extension Denied! Another Win For the Community!

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Sewer Creep

February 22, 2018

Last night, citizens witnessed the first tangible benefits of the new composition of Council resulting from the addition of Laura Bentley and Peyton Jamison.  The extension of sewer on the south side of Hamby Road was denied.  I am quite sure that this extension would have been approved in December–before Bentley and Jamison were elected to Council.  Bentley made the motion to deny; Jamison seconded the motion.   Council denied the extension.  It was a beautiful moment for citizens.

I believe the sewer extension would have been approved in December under the previous council.  And in fact, Laura Bentley’s opponent in the election, Mr. Bill Lusk, was lobbying for approval of this sewer extension, even before the facts were known.  Last night’s vote was 6-0, but don’t be fooled by that.  I believe both Councilmen Kunz and Mohrig would have voted for this sewer extension in December.  I base this opinion on their previous voting records, their questions and comments last night, and my experience with both council members.  And Kunz’s video (discussed below) provides clues to his true views on this matter.  Having said that, I think any rational person, perhaps including Mr. Kunz and Mohrig, would have had a difficult time voting for this extension, considering that citizens and City staff blew gaping holes in the developer’s plan last night.

Three of us spoke last night in opposition to the sewer extension.  Thanks to Cleveland Slater and Julie Bailey for their impassioned and fact-driven arguments.  We are truly blessed to have citizens that invest copious amounts of time to understand these complex issues and advocate for their fellow citizens.  Both Cleveland and Julie do so motivated by nothing more than a love for their community.  Following are videos of both citizens.  (I am intentionally leaving out my video as I cannot hold a candle to these two.)

By the way, it takes a lot of courage to address Council.  A lunatic fringe in Milton, supported by current (Kunz) and former council members, have used various bullying tactics to abridge the exercise of basic political freedoms in Milton . . . but alas, to no avail.

Warning!  The Hamby Road sewer issue is not fully resolved.  Council only denied the request to extend sewer to the portion of the Hamby Road development where the developer acknowledged he did not have a right to sewer.  The issue of whether he is entitled to sewer on the 18-acre parcel that is/was part of the Manor must still be decided.  The City Attorney is currently analyzing this issue.  However, it should be noted that our same City Attorney advised Council 10 years ago when Council passed a motion to ban sewer in all unplatted areas of the Manor.

Now to Councilman Kunz’s video.

Kunz’s video demonstrates that Mr. Kunz either lacks a basic command of the facts or else he is showing his long-held bias towards sewer . . . or probably both.  Mr. Kunz contends that sewer is “already allowed” in one area (18 acres) south of Hamby.  This is 100% false.  Whether sewer is “already allowed” is the question that the City Attorney is researching and the question the City (perhaps Council) must ultimately answer.  Later Kunz actually refers to this 18-acre area as “sewered.”  Again, this is 100% false.  No part of the south area of Hamby is sewered.  NONE.  Period.

Mr. Kunz justified his no vote by stating that he was “confused” about the issue.  And he characterizes staff’s objections to the developer’s site plan as “questions.”  This is a disingenuous description of staff’s comments, which were generally definitive and specific.  Staff was clear that the developer’s 10-lot and 8-lot proposals were higher density than existing zoning laws would allow.  My sense is that the developer could legally only build 5 homes on the site, so half the number of homes he claimed were possible.  Furthermore, the marketability of some of these lots/homes would be questionable.  (BTW, I applaud Mr. Kunz’s for publishing these post-Council wrap-up videos, but he has an obligation to not misstate the basic facts, especially in his position as an elected official.)

Lusk PhotoLastly, former Councilman Bill Lusk was a no-show at last night’s council meeting.  Mr. Lusk’s opinion is that Milton’s development should be “left to the professionals.”  Because of their professional degrees, licenses, and certifications, Mr. Lusk believes these so-called professionals are beyond reproach.  Well, last night, we saw a “professionally prepared” site plan (once again) thoroughly discredited by a few lowly citizens.  And we saw a new city council that expertly sorted through the issues, squarely deciding in favor of citizens and against reckless development . . . proof that elections matter.

Tim Becker

Former Councilman Bill Lusk, Smart Land Use

Sewer Creep To The South Side of Hamby Road?

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Sewer

February 20, 2018

Tomorrow (Wednesday) night, City Council will consider extension of sewer to the south side of Hamby Road.  As many readers know, extension of sewer has been a contentious issue in Milton.  All sitting Council members have vowed at one time or another not to extend sewer.  And yet sewer has been extended 4 times in the last 4 years, most recently with the approval of a rezoning on Hopewell Road just south of the Vickery Crest subdivision.

Milton’s sewer map governs where sewer can and cannot go.  There should be no exceptions made.  The confinement of sewer to a small area of Milton has spared Milton the uncontrolled, high density development that we observe in neighboring cities.  Milton’s lower density development is a key driver of Milton’s rural character and charm.  Please consider attending tomorrow night’s City Council meeting and speaking against the extension of sewer in Milton.  Following is a letter that I sent to City Council  this afternoon that provides a more in-depth perspective on this Hamby Road sewer extension.

Following is a link to a previous blog post on sewer creep in Milton:

Sewer Creep = Higher Density = Higher Developer Profits

Thanks for your continuing engagement on civic matters in Milton.  Your voice matters!

**********************************************************************************

Dear Mayor and City Council:

I am writing to express my concerns about the extension of sewer to the south side of Hamby Road.  This issue needs to be divided into two parts:

  1. Extension of sewer to lots that are wholly within the footprint of original Manor parcel.
  2. Extension of sewer to lots that are partly or wholly outside of the footprint of the original Manor parcel.

With regards to the first part of this issue, in 2008, our City Council was quite clear in its decision not to allow extension of sewer to the south side of Hamby:

Sewer service shall be prohibited for any new lots that are platted or acquired as a part of an expansion of the Manor subdivision within the City of Milton occurring after the date this motion is approved.

Accordingly, the only question that must be answered is whether there are other decisions, agreements, etc. that conflict with this City Council decision.  And if they conflict with the 2008 decision, do they supersede the 2008 Council decision?  This requires an opinion from our City Attorney, who (I assume) advised the City in 2008 and (I assume) would have steered Council away from a decision that was superseded by other agreements.

(As a side note, I am not completely comfortable with Jarrard and Davis advising the City of Milton on this issue.  Jarrard and Davis’s representation of both Forsyth County and Milton represents a real and substantive conflict of interest.  And it is this substantive conflict of interest that originally prompted us to seek outside counsel in this matter.  I have supported previous waivers of conflict of interest for J&D because the waivers involved relatively minor matters and the described conflicts of interest struck me as tenuous.)

With regards to the second part of this issue (extending sewer to lots partly or wholly outside of the footprint of the original Manor parcel), no legal issues are involved; extension of sewer would be purely at the discretion of Council.  Council should deny this request for any or all of the following reasons:

  • Citizens have been very clear in their opposition to any and all extensions of sewer.  Over 1900 voters signed a petition against such extensions, pledging to vote against any City Council member that votes for such extensions.  This citizen opposition has been expressed in countless letters to Council and comments before Council.  In the most recent election, the anti-sewer candidate garnered 71+% of the vote against her pro-sewer opponent.
  • Higher density housing and further sewer extension inevitably follow in the wake of these decisions to extend sewer.
  • Each extension of sewer sets a precedent for further sewer extension.  The four sewer extensions that have been approved over the past 4 years have weakened the city’s position in future lawsuits that might filed against the City by developers.
  • The Manor sewer system has a checkered past—both technically and financially.  Why would we allow it to service any more homes?  The Manor sewer’s issues prompted Forsyth County to assume ownership and operation of the system.  The former HOA manager of this system has testified before Council to the many technical issues he experienced.  Forsyth County has banned such private sewer systems, partly citing technical issues.  In a May 2017 incident, over 9000 gallons of raw sewage were released from the Manor sewer system into Chicken Creek, causing issues downstream (e.g., algae blooms in King Lake).
  • My opinion is that this request for sewer is little more than a profit maximization scheme.  The developer clearly has purchased (at a significant discount) a clearly marginal tract of land with many restrictions placed upon it—token recompense for the many sins committed in the development of the Manor.  He is now coming to Council with a scheme to mitigate those restrictions and thereby increase his profits.

Thank you for considering my perspectives.

Respectfully,

Tim Becker

Postscript:  Former City Councilman Bill Lusk has been lobbying City Council to approve the Hamby Road sewer extension.  Mr. Lusk (along with current Councilman Matt Kunz) voted for every previous sewer extension (and also every residential rezoning to higher density that has passed in Council).  Mr. Lusk’s overwhelming defeat in the 2017 election is already paying dividends to the citizens of Milton.

Lusk Photo

Smart Land Use

Staff Presents Land-use Solutions the Community Can Unite Behind

Posted on by Milton Coalition

20171114 Work Session Agenda

November 14, 2017

Last night’s City Council working session was the best that I have attended in the last two years . . . and I have attended nearly every one.  City staff covered three important initiatives that really have the potential to significantly impact smart land use and preserve and honor Milton’s rural character.  Here is a run-down of the 3 topics covered.

Tree Preservation Ordinance.  The need to refashion this ordinance was originally broached with the City in March 2016 by the Milton Coalition.  A tree ordinance committee was appointed and a consultant hired.  The committee has been working hard for many months.  It has taken a considerable time to write the ordinance.  However, based on what I heard last night, it was well worth the wait.  The Tree Ordinance Committee has created a new ordinance from scratch that captures the aspirations of the community for preserving the rural look-and-feel of our community.  The goal is reach and maintain a tree canopy of 60%–a fairly aggressive and admirable benchmark for tree preservation.  The goal is to obtain Council approval of the ordinance by the end of the year.

Transfer of Development Rights Bank.  So far, Milton’s Transfer of Development Rights program has had very limited impact.  Currently, the program requires a willing buyer to find (with some assistance from our City) a willing seller.  However, to date, there have been only a few transactions, and little land has been conserved.  To facilitate TDR transactions, the concept of a TDR bank was discussed, wherein the city would buy and “bank” TDRs and later sell these TDRs to buyers.  Such a bank would provide more “liquidity” in the TDR market, thereby leading to more transactions and increased conservation of greenspace.  Two experts from the University of Georgia’s Carl Vinson School of Government presented their ideas on TDR banks and answered Council’s questions.  City staff was given the green light to continue exploring establishment of a TDR bank.

Large Lot Incentives.  A few months ago, staff presented some high level ideas (i.e., 5 bullet points on 1 slide) about incenting larger lots in Milton.  City Council directed staff to further analyze these ideas.  Last night, Carter Lucas, the City Engineer, presented his analysis, which was impressive.  Clearly, staff has done considerable work to not only detail the original five ideas, but to also identify and flesh out additional large lot incentives.  If structured correctly, these large lot incentives could be a game changer for land conservation in Milton.  City Council directed staff to continue forward with their development of a program to incent large lots.  At a previous meeting, Scott Reese, a development professional, provided some good ideas for incenting large lot sizes.  Following is the video of his remarks.

Last night’s meeting underscored a point that many of us have been making for months . . .  the City needs to focus on land-use solutions that the community can rally around . . . and there are many, as last night’s meeting demonstrated.  Unfortunately, for many months, the city’s land use efforts have been mired in debate over conservation subdivisions (and other developer-driven issues, like rezonings).  Despite overwhelming citizen opposition to conservation subdivisions, a few council members aggressively pushed the concept and thereby slowed progress on other more practical (and less controversial) land-use solutions.  It took an election and replacement of some council members to get the City back on track and implementing solutions that the community can unite behind.  Yes, elections do have consequences; they clarify issues, highlight citizens’ priorities, and provide direction to our government.

Staff is to be commended for their fine work on the tree ordinance, TDR bank, and large lot incentives.  The staff working on these initiatives are Kathy Field, Mark Law, Michele McIntosh-Ross, and Carter Lucas.  A big shout-out to the four of them.  Kudos also to City Manager Steve Krokoff, who clearly understands citizens’ concerns about over-development in Milton and is aggressively seeking solutions to address the problem.  And starting in January, it looks like Mr. Krokoff will have a more supportive Council backing him.  I encourage citizens to watch last night’s working session discussion.  Below is a link to the video.  I also encourage citizens to attend Council meetings.  We need to support our staff and elected representatives.  Only three citizens were in attendance last night; we need many more citizens to show up and engage to keep the positive momentum going.

November 13, 2017 City Council Working Session

Advocating For Smart Land Use,

Tim Becker