September 8, 2017

Today, I want to thank Milton’s realtors for their support for smart land use over the past many months.  More than anyone else, realtors are the community’s experts on property values.  Every day, they deal with buy-sell transactions of property.  They see the numbers on home values.  They know what enhances a home’s value and what does not.  Realtors understand the critical importance of sense of place in supporting and increasing high property values in Milton.  They understand the threats to property values from poorly managed development.  And many of these realtors have “skin in the game” in that they live in Milton—i.e., their home values and quality of life are affected by the development decisions made in Milton.  Thankfully, many of these real estate agents have not been shy about expressing their concerns about land use in Milton.  I have identified nearly 3 dozen that have signed the Milton Coalition’s anti-CSO and/or Smart Land Use petitions.  Quite a few Milton realtors had advocated passionately for smart land use.

In many ways, real estate agents share diametrically opposed views to developers.  Most developers are transactional—i.e., narrowly focused on maximizing the profit of a specific development.  They tend not to take a broader market-based view.  They follow the money.  Once an area is built out and its market potential is exploited, these developers are off to the next lucrative market.  Most Milton developers do not live in Milton.  For those developers that do live in Milton, their development interests generally outweigh any personal interests they may have—that is, the value of their property pales in comparison to profits made from development.  Lastly, developers are not shy about spreading around money to ensure their interests are protected.  In Milton, it is amazing how much influence a large campaign contribution can buy.

This is not to say that there are not good developers in Milton.  There certainly are honest, decent developers that want to be good stewards of the land and the community.  They understand and are faithful to Milton’s sense of place.  These developers tend to be smaller developers that actually live in Milton.

Over the last 22 months, it has become clear to me that realtors’ interests are closely aligned with the interests of citizens.  They act as a counterweight to reckless development.  We are fortunate to have so many fine realtors that understand and want to protect the specialness of Milton:  the four-board fences, the gravel roads, the horse farms, and the tree-lined streets.  Milton’s specialness makes homes in Milton a good investment.  Accordingly, I’d like to give a big shout-out to Milton’s realtors.  Thanks for your support of smart land use and good governance.

Tim Becker

September 3, 2017

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

Milton Herald: Ebenezer Saga Ends With No Fanfare

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Becker

August 22, 2017

Ever wonder why Milton is so different from the surrounding areas—think Johns Creek, Alpharetta, Roswell and even Forsyth County—where builders are cramming homes onto every square inch of land?  The reason is simple . . . the vast majority of Milton does not have access to sewer.  Sewer exists only on the edges of Milton—i.e., in the Highway 9/Windward and the Crabapple areas.  In the interior of Milton, where sewer does not exist, each home has a septic system to clean its wastewater.  In Milton, such septic systems require 1) at least an acre of land and 2) soils that can adequately filter wastewater—i.e., land that “percs”, shorthand for “percolates.”  This second point is important, as some land in Milton does not “perc”—i.e., it is unsuitable for septic.  This requires lots even larger than an acre—sometimes a lot larger–that encompass soils suitable for filtering a home’s wastewater.  The lack of sewer is what makes Milton . . . Milton—that is, low density and more rural in its look and feel.

Unfortunately, assisted by some members of Council, sewer has been allowed to slowly “creep” further into Milton.  And any time sewer is allowed to creep, higher density follows in its shadow.  Higher density and sewer have an inextricable, ying-and-yang relationship.  And the ill effects of this higher density are congested roads, overcrowded schools, and diminished property values.  There are many concrete examples of this nexus of sewer creep and higher density.

Like what you see across from Cambridge High School?  That eyesore townhouse development is an example of sewer creep/high density . . . the builder was gifted 3 times more density than the existing zoning allowed.  Yesterday, I blogged about the Ebenezer rezoning, where a developer and some Council members advocated for a private (i.e., HOA maintained and operated) sewer system that would have resulted in much higher density on the subject 65 acres.  The soils on much of the Ebenezer parcel were unsuitable for septic . . . and that is why a private sewer system was needed.  Thankfully, after a long battle, the Ebenezer rezoning was denied by Council.  And now, with Ebenezer, we have a concrete case study that clearly demonstrates the existential threat to Milton of so-called “conservation” subdivisions, which are really just schemes for extending sewer and achieving higher density housing.

So why are ordinary citizens constantly fighting against sewer creep in Milton?  The reason is that developers hate septic and conversely love sewer.  Sewer Creep = Higher Density = Higher Developer Profits.  It is that simple.  And unfortunately, developers have a lot of power in our City.  They have time, money, expertise, highly paid attorneys, and connections.  Through liberal campaign contributions, lobbying, manipulation of zoning loopholes, and other unsavory tactics, developers are often able to buy/finagle/coerce their way to sewer extension and higher density.  This sewer creep has now been allowed by our City Council 4 times in the past 4 years—this, despite past pledges from every Council Member not to extend sewer.  This constant and never-ending battle against sewer creep requires ongoing vigilance and engagement from citizens to protect our beautiful community.

Tim Becker

August 21, 2017

Fourteen months have passed since the Ebenezer rezoning was rejected by City Council on June 20, 2016.  The vote was a watershed moment in Milton’s history.  You might recall that so many re-zoning opponents showed up that a holding tank was created for the overflow—the first time in our City’s history.  Ninety-nine opponents of the rezoning completed speaker cards—another record.  In less than 4 weeks, an on-line petition espousing 9 principles of smart land use and good governance amazingly garnered nearly 1800 signatures and over 600 impassioned comments.  The residents of Ebenezer Road unequivocally demonstrated nearly universal local opposition to the re-zoning.  Citizens clearly expressed their opposition to reckless development and its ill-effects, and prevailed in the battle over the Ebenezer re-zoning.

Many of you know the story of the Ebenezer rezoning’s defeat; you were part of it.  Thank you.  However, there is a comforting epilogue to the Ebenezer rezoning that is mostly unknown to citizens.  Specifically, the story since the rezoning validates the arguments made against the Ebenezer rezoning and, more generally, the arguments made against so-called “conservation” subdivisions.

You might recall that rezoning proponents asserted that, with or without the rezoning, the same number of homes (55 in the original proposal and 48 in the final proposal) would be built on the 65-acre Ebenezer property.  Well, that has turned out to be dramatically wrong.  It is doubtful whether even 30 homes will eventually be built on the 65 acres.  Brightwater Homes is currently developing a portion of the 65 acres  It purchased the most attractive 38 acres and is building 21 homes on 1+acre lots.  The remaining 27 acres of land are considerably less attractive for development, so likely will support just a few additional homes.  So instead of the 55 homes in the original Brightwater Homes proposal, the Ebenezer Road property will likely support no more than 30 homes on the 65 acres.  Much of the remaining un-built 27 acres could stay undeveloped (i.e., conserved) for many years to come.  Delayed development is conservation!  Following is Brightwater Homes’ original proposed “conservation” subdivision.  Much of the “conserved” land is unbuildable or uneconomic to build; it also includes “non-green” elements, such as the community septic system.  In retrospect it is clear that, with the denial of both the CSO and the Ebenezer rezoning, our community dodged a bullet.

So have “conservation” subdivision proponents admitted they were wrong?  Believe or not, they have not.  In fact, Mr. Kunz and others have doubled down on the notion of “conservation” subdivisions.  Just last Monday night, Mr. Kunz again promoted conservation subdivisions in a Council working session, continuing to assert that the community is “divided” about “conservation” subdivisions.  Of course, our post from 2 days ago showed where Mr. Kunz’s true allegiances lie . . . with developers, not citizens . . . and developers desperately want “conservation” subdivisions.

Now you know the rest of the story . . .

Tim Becker