Seen the latest AJC article on Milton?  Milton is the fastest-growing city in Milton.  Of course, you knew that already based on all the traffic congestion around the city.  And the overcrowded schools.  And the crumbling infrastructure.  Click here to read the article.  “Growth Friendly” Milton

In this AJC article, Milton is described as a “growth-friendly” city.  Of course, “growth-friendly” is just a euphemism for “developer-friendly.”  So it begs the the following questions:

• Why are we considering rezonings that allow higher density and cluster homes in rural Milton?  Do we really need to cram more people into Milton?
• Why are we even considering rezoning for properties that are uneconomic to develop under current zoning laws?  Do we really need to put even more money into developers’ pockets?
• Why would we consider any scheme that would accelerate already out-of-control development?
• Why have we wasted so much time on “conservation” cluster home subdivisions?
• Why haven’t we toughened our existing zoning (e.g., AG-1) laws?  Or our tree ordinance?
• Why isn’t anyone looking to reform our current rezoning process to make it less developer-friendly?  Why do Council members continue to argue with citizens about this issue despite the obvious and mounting evidence of a broken rezoning process?

Milton needs to be erecting some sensible speed bumps to development.  The reality is that sensible solutions have been held hostage to a singular focus on one solution:  “conservation” cluster homes, which ironically accelerate development.  For more than 18 months, AG-1 zoning enhancements have languished while our City government obsessed over the CSO (“Conservation” Subdivision Ordinance) and now the 745 Ebenezer Road rezoning.  The CSO was voted down 7-0 by Council in December 2015, but immediately metastasized into rezonings that are an end-run around current zoning to accomplish the goals of the CSO.

Why has this occurred?  Well, blame 2 City Council members, special interests, and a few misguided “environmentalists.”  The City Council members are Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz.  You might recall that Mr. Lusk wanted to put the CSO back on Council’s agenda the very night it was voted down.  Mr. Lusk is notorious for the soft-ball questions he asks of developers before Council.  And Mr. Kunz is a full-throated advocate of cluster homes.  He has even argued for density bonuses for developers building cluster home subdivisions (see November 30, 2015 letter he wrote in the Milton Herald Kunz Promotes Density Bonus for Developers).  He has brazenly negotiated for developers in Council meetings.

The Special Interests are developers, some owners of large tracts of marginal land, and septic system vendors.  They show up at every meeting to support “conservation” cluster home ordinances and rezonings.  It is the same old story at every City Council meeting on this issue:  Special Interests on one side and citizens on the other side.

And then there is the small cadre of misguided “environmentalists,” who do not speak for the environmental community, much less the broader cross-section of Milton citizens.  Their motives for vigorously pushing developer-promoted conservation solutions to the exclusion of all other solutions are unclear.

Mister Lusk/Kunz, the Special Interests, and the misguided “environmentalists” have done little or nothing to promote AG-1 zoning enhancements that might have retarded/stopped the rampant development in Milton.  Why?  AG-1 is their whipping boy.  Improvements to AG-1 would dilute their number 1 argument for “conservation” cluster housing.

Fortunately, the Milton Coalition and others are putting forth sensible solutions that the community can unite behind.  For example, we recently suggested changes to toughen Milton’s tree ordinance, after comparing it to Alpharetta’s tree ordinance.  The reality is that the current penalties for tree cutting are so lame that developers can pay the fines just based on the profits from the trees harvested.

And finally, a robust set of AG-1 enhancements has been formulated and will soon be considered by Council.  CSO proponents will no longer have AG-1 to kick around any more.

Being the fastest growing city in Fulton County is clearly a dubious honor for our city. The AJC article is correct in its assessment that Milton citizens are engaged.  And you have been vigorously engaging on this issue of cluster housing in rural Milton.  Please continue to engage.  Citizens, with your help, we can put our fine city back on the right path of sensible conservation solutions that unite the community.  A first step is to sign our petition.  Click on the following link:  Milton Coalition Petition Against Cluster Housing  And see our Action Guide for more actions you can take.  Click here:  Citizen Action Guide  Many thanks!

Conservation subdivisions are again being considered in Milton.  Not even 6 months have passed since City Council voted unanimously to deny the Conservation Subdivision Ordinance (CSO) due to overwhelming public opposition.  You might recall that over 800 citizens signed a petition.  The CSO’s demise was sealed when over 100 citizens packed City Council chambers to passionately express their opposition.

So why is the CSO back?  Blame Special Interests and their City Council allies.  Developers in particular have been working overtime to bend and break the rules.  They have the time, money, knowledge, connections, and paid attorneys to pursue their agenda.  This time, developers are using rezoning and variances to achieve the CSO’s goals.  This is a flagrant abuse of Milton’s laws.

So why are developers so passionate about “conservation” subdivisions?  Well, as with so many issues, one need only “follow the money.”  The reality is that large buildable tracts in Milton are disappearing.  Increasingly developers are eyeing unprofitable tracts and schemes for profitably developing these tracts.  “Conservation” subdivisions are one strategy they have successfully used in other localities.  With a “conservation” subdivision, a builder crams homes onto the most hospitable area of a tract.  This increases revenues and lowers costs, thereby making a “conservation” subdivision profitable.  The remaining land—much of it unbuildable or uneconomic to develop—is claimed as “green space.”  Environmentalism is cynically used as a public relations ruse.

If the rezoning and variances needed for a “conservation” subdivision are approved, citizens can expect a raft of similar rezoning applications—a land and development rush in an already overheated housing market.  The result will be higher land prices, traffic congestion, pollution, overcrowded schools, and stressed infrastructure.  It is a sad irony that “conservation” subdivisions are actually the antithesis of conservation.

Once and for all, City Council needs to definitively reject “conservation” subdivisions.  Nobody likes a rigged game.  And citizens are tired of being jerked around on this issue.  City Council is going to again consider this matter on June 20^th at Council Chambers on Deerfield Parkway.  It is critical that citizens attend this meeting to express their opposition to the Special Interests and their schemes to subvert Milton’s zoning code to maximize their profits.  Citizens, the time is now to show up, stand up, and speak up for clean, competent, and courageous government in Milton.

Following is a letter to City Council written by Tim Becker expressing opposition to the Brightwater Homes’ rezoning of 745 Ebenezer Road.

Council Members, Mayor, and City Manager:

In advance of the First Hearing on the proposed Ebenezer Road subdivision, I am writing to express my opposition to Brightwater’s rezoning application.  I would like this letter to be entered into the public record.

The proposed Ebenezer subdivision is merely a legacy of the CSO.  Charlie Bostwick of Brightwater Homes and our community planners have referred to the proposed development as a “conservation subdivision.”  And Mr. Bostwick has stated that he hoped to build the proposed subdivision under the CSO.

Having failed to get a CSO approved, developers are now seeking to use (abuse/misuse, in my opinion) rezoning and variances to achieve their goal of building cluster homes in un-sewered areas of Milton.  Community Development has described the CUP zoning as a “Burger King” zoning law—that is, “have it your way” with the personal pronoun referring to the developer.  Well, I do not want it the developer’s way in Milton.  Rather it should be the Citizen’s way.

That leads me to the first reason to reject the Ebenezer Road subdivision:  A vast majority of citizens do not want these sorts of cluster home subdivisions.  Over less than 3 weeks, more than 800 citizens signed a petition against the CSO.  More than 100 showed up at City Hall in opposition, with 35 actually stepping up to the microphone to speak against the CSO.  In doing so, citizens were expressing opposition to the ends of the CSO:  homes on less than 1 acre in AG-1 areas, higher density, community septic, accelerated development, and little/no actual conservation of buildable land.  Citizens oppose these ends regardless of the means:  CSO or rezoning/variances—it makes no difference to them.

And the notion floated by one Council member that the citizens have been duped by misinformation and therefore their opinions can be “discounted” is a view that I hope is not shared by other Council members.  This position shows a stunning contempt for the intelligence (or I guess, lack thereof) of Milton’s citizens.  I urge other Council members to flatly and publicly renounce this disrespect toward citizens.

While the vast majority of citizens do not want Ebenezer-style subdivisions, it is equally true that Special Interests, particularly developers, do want these cluster home subdivisions.  These Special Interests were out in full force on December 7^th, where they comprised a majority of the speakers that spoke in favor of the CSO.  Having morphed the CSO from a green ordinance into developer-friendly ordinance (similar to ordinances in Woodstock and Gwinnett that have facilitated rampant development), these Special Interests lined up at the microphone to support the CSO.  And they are similarly supportive of rezoning and variances to achieve the CSO’s goals.

The logic of their support is simple.  In Milton, the most attractive larger tracts of land have been picked over.  Many of the remaining large tracts are currently uneconomic to develop.  A cluster home subdivision allows a builder to find the “sweet spot” on a tract where the land is most hospitable for building.  This area is developed.  The remaining land—much of it unbuildable or else uneconomic to develop—is claimed as “green space.”  This “green space” often includes septic leaching fields, community amenities, etc.  “Green space” is nothing more than a cynical marketing ploy.

The worst part of these “conservation” cluster home subdivisions is that they are the antithesis of conservation.  Approval of such applications will actually accelerate the development of land, as marginal tracts are suddenly made attractive for development.  There is a reason that Lahkapani and 745 Ebenezer have not been developed . . . they are currently uneconomic to develop.  And there is a reason that Brightwater’s purchase of 745 Ebenezer is contingent on the granting of rezoning and a variance . . . it is uneconomic to otherwise develop.  Don’t you think that if BW could develop a profitable AG-1 subdivision, BW would have bought the land outright?  These sorts of rezoning contingencies should be a huge red flag to Council.

And further “goosing” the developer’s economics is the fact that a developer is able to achieve implicit density bonuses with a “conservation” subdivision.  In this case, BW staked out 50 AG-1 perced lots.  However, at the Planning Commission meeting, a Planning Commission member demonstrated that that only 41 lots were allowable, because part of the land would have to be accessed from a gravel road, requiring homes on >3 acre lots.  I doubt that 745 Ebenezer would support even 41 homes, as theoretical yield plans seldom yield the same number of homes as economic/marketable yield plans—hence nearly every one of these sorts of subdivisions will involve a significant density bonus.

The fact that BW is seeking approval for a 50-home subdivision when only a 41-home subdivision is possible under AG-1 would seem to explicitly violate our zoning laws and compel Council to reject outright the Ebenezer application.  And it would be patently unfair to allow BW to submit a revised application that staff and the PC have not evaluated.

There are many other reasons to reject the Ebenezer subdivision that I will not describe in this letter.  Some of these reasons for denial are included in staff’s evaluation of the Ebenezer application and in the Planning Commission’s recommendation for denial.  I encourage you to watch the PC’s March 23^rd meeting video.  I also encourage you to visit a real “conservation” subdivision in Woodstock called Wood View.  Rather than relying on artist’s renderings of such developments, you owe it to the citizens of Milton to visit a real “conservation” subdivision.  I am confident such a visit will open up your eyes to the reality (vs. the propaganda) of “conservation” subdivisions.

In closing, I urge you to strongly and unequivocally deny the Ebenezer Road application for rezoning and a variance.  I urge you to send a clear message to developers that they need to operate within Milton’s current zoning rules.  Please let them know that Milton is not a Burger King:  they are not going to get it their way.  And in so doing, Council should also send a message to it citizens:  We are here to represent your interests and only your interests.

Thank you for considering my perspectives on this issue.  Please do not hesitate to individually contact me with questions or comments.

Thank you for your service,

Tim Becker

Milton Coalition

A non-partisan group of concerned citizens advocating for clean, competent, and courageous government

Citizens of Milton:

On Monday, May 24th at 6pm, the Milton Coalition publicly launched its petition against cluster housing in rural Milton.  The current proposed rezonings in Milton represent an existential threat to our community.

You might recall that citizens previously opined on this issue when 838 signed a petition against the CSO, which was pivotal in Council’s denial of the CSO.  However, some Council Members have argued that the current rezonings are somehow different or that citizen pressure had nothing to do with their vote.  It is our strong belief that current proposed rezonings are a misuse of Milton’s zoning laws meant to achieve the goals of the CSO on a piecemeal basis.  These rezonings are actually worse than the CSO in that they offer none of the protections and restrictions of the CSO.  Incredibly, on April 25th, Council actually accepted the builder’s conditions for a cluster home subdivision at 745 Ebenezer Road . . . yes, that’s right, the builder’s conditions + the builder’s site plan are THE ZONING for development.  (Thankfully, Mayor Lockwood vetoed the zoning approval, citing numerous and egregious procedural violations).

So here we are back with another petition.  This petition makes crystal clear what citizens demand.  It captures the main issues we have identified as critical to Milton’s rural identity.  And it makes very clear the consequences of continuing to deny the will of citizens:  WE WILL VOTE YOU OUT OF OFFICE!

Citizens, thank you for your concern for our City.  Please forward the petition (to your Milton family, neighbors, and friends.  Let’s send a message to our City Council that citizens matter!

Milton Coalition Petition Against Cluster Housing In Rural Milton

I oppose cluster housing in un-sewered areas of Milton. (Milton residents only)

In signing this petition, I am:

1. opposing any zoning changes, variances, or other schemes that result in homes on less than one acre in un-sewered areas.

2. opposing any zoning changes or variances that accelerate development.

3. opposing community septic.

4. opposing any and all sewer extensions beyond areas where sewer is already permitted.

5. calling for reforms needed to make the zoning process citizen-centric.

6. advocating for sensible enhancements to current AG-1 zoning to preserve Milton’s rural character.

7. expressing my dissatisfaction with the influence of Special Interests in Milton.

8. advocating for clean, competent, courageous and citizen-centric government.

9. pledging to vote in elections against any Council Member that does not uphold the principles of this petition.

Citizens of Milton:

On June 20, 2016, the Milton City Council will vote on whether to rezone 745 Ebenezer Road to allow cluster housing and community septic.  The Milton Coalition strongly opposes this rezoning.  The Milton Coalition opposes any rezoning that allows homes to be built on lots of less than 1 acre in un-sewered areas of Milton.  We ask citizens to take the following actions to express their opposition to the 745 Ebenezer Road rezoning and to cluster housing in Milton.

1.  Sign our petition.  Click on the following link:  Milton Coalition Petition

2.  Write to the City Manager and City Council to express your opposition.  Following are their e-mail addresses:

Interim City Manager:  steven.krokoff@cityofmiltonga.us

Mayor and City Council Members:  joe.lockwood@cityofmiltonga.us,karen.thurman@cityofmiltonga.us,matt.kunz@cityofmiltonga.us,bill.lusk@cityofmiltonga.us,burt.hewitt@cityofmiltonga.us,joe.longoria@cityofmiltonga.us,rick.mohrig@cityofmiltonga.us

3.  Come to the June 20, 2015 City Council meeting and express your opposition.  You will need to complete a speaker card when you arrive.  The meeting is at 13000 Deerfield Parkway and begins at 6pm.

4.  Enlist your family and friends to also oppose these rezonings and cluster housing.  Send them links to this blog and to the petition.

5.  Post our blog and petition to your social media.

Above is overhead photo of a Brightwater job site.  It is completely clear cut.

Brightwater Homes is the applicant for rezoning of 345 Ebenezer Road.  Brightwater bills itself as an environmental builder that is all about conservation, trees, green, etc.  And BW’s artist renderings certainly support this notion.  However, one local Milton resident took the time to compare and contrast Brightwater’s artist renderings of its site plans with actual satellite photos of the same subdivisions.  You be the judge as to whether Brightwater lives up to its green marketing.  Click on the attached link to view the comparison of artist renderings vs. actual satellite photos.

Brightwater Neighborhoods

“Conservation” subdivision proponents frequently cite Serenbe in South Fulton County as a template for what might be done in Milton.  However, Serenbe is 1100 acres and includes commercial and retail.  It is a standalone community that would be impossible to replicate in Milton.  Interestingly, “conservation” subdivision proponents conveniently never mention the many conservation subdivisions that litter the North Atlanta area.

Cobb County, Gwinnett County, Woodstock, etc. have all passed Conservation Subdivision Ordinances (CSO) quite similar to the CSO that was proposed for Milton.  These CSOs have opened up marginal land in these localities to development.  Cluster homes are crammed into the most economically attractive parts of these land tracts, while the remaining unbuildable/uneconomic land is claimed as greenspace.  Often, once approval is gained, many of these developments are not even marketed as environmentally friendly.

You do not have to drive far to see some of these developments.  Following are photographs taken of one nearby “conservation” subdivision.  You be the judge about whether this is the sort of building we would like to see in our un-sewered parts of Milton.  Do these developments preserve Milton’s look and feel?

We urge all citizens interested in the “conservation subdivision” debate to visit Wood View in Woodstock.  Wood View is Woodstock’s first “conservation subdivision.”  38% of Wood View is claimed as “open space” although most of this open space is in the flood plain, so is unbuildable land.

We have researched the setbacks and development standards for WV to allow for comparison with Brightwater’s application for 745 Ebenezer Road.  Following are the “proposed building setbacks and development standards for individual lots” (wording from BW application) for Wood View and Ebenezer:

Cluster homes in Milton!

Following is a heartfelt letter from Monica Chambers, who lives on Ebenezer Road.  Opposition to rezoning 745 Ebenezer Road to allow cluster homes (on 1/4 lots) is nearly unanimous.  Milton Council members often cite “local control” in justifying their votes in Council.  For example, every council member cited “local control” when voting to approve the gating of Crooked Creek.  So it is fair to ask Council:  Given the nearly universal opposition from local residents, why isn’t the principle of local control relevant to this and other rezonings.

April 20, 2016

City Council Members, Mayor, and City Manager,

My name is Monica Chambers and I live at 715 Ebenezer Road in Milton. I am one of the homeowners directly affected by the developer variance request for Ebenezer Road. I am writing to share some research I have done in regards to the proposed variance, that I cannot address just speaking at the council meeting on Monday. I am against the variance for several reasons and would like to address several of those reasons here.

I think it goes without saying that higher density zoning reduces the value of the homes around it, especially in a setting such as currently exists on Ebenezer Road with estate homes built on multiple acres. I truly believe the developer’s request for the variance is an end around to allow smaller lot sizes with higher density. I have attached a PDF with pictures of neighborhoods that Brightwater Homes has or is currently developing in the Milton/Roswell area. As you will see in not one of these developments have they maintained ANY greenspace. They have an incredibly high density in the two Roswell developments. The third development in Milton was developed on one acre lots and even in that neighborhood the homes are close together due to the unbuildable sloping of the lots. I have attached pictures to show the high density of the neighborhoods as well as the clear cutting of the lots before building. The suggestion that they are proposing the greenspace for anything more than economic gain on their part is absurd.

I have also done a tremendous amount of research on community septic systems. I now know more than I have ever wanted to know about septic tanks, drain fields, black water waste and all the health and environment issues that can arise from the failure of these types of systems. It is very clear that this system is being proposed again as an economic advantage for the developer and has no other purpose than to decrease the lot sizes and increase the density of the homes into the most favorable building lots of the property. I have attached some of the research I have done regarding the systems. In summation I have learned that community septic systems are good options when there is no other viable option in a VERY rural area (which Ebenezer Road is not) where there is a high level of regulation by the local government both in the building requirements of the system as well as the ongoing maintenance that is required to maintain the system and prevent catastrophic failures.

The first attachment labeled – Septic Research is slides taken from the States of Idaho and Maine. These are communities where due to no other viable option they have had to embrace community septic systems. There is a time and place where community septic systems should be used and in fact are a good option – rural areas with no other means of sewage disposal. It should never be the choice when the area is surrounded by other developments, homes, wells, etc. These states have had to adopt very stringent requirements for these systems and in most areas have government control of the systems similar to the Water Department. This is due to the high level of issues they were having with the systems and the huge negative impact the failure of these systems has had on the environment as well as the high financial impact of their failures and the cost related to fixing the systems. Without the proper oversight, which our state, counties and cities currently do not have, the systems will fail. It is not a question of if but when. I was able to find multiple lawsuits against developers and cities where the community septic system failed for a variety of reasons, poor soil quality, improper design, neglected maintenance, natural flooding, human error, etc. The second attachment labeled – Quotes, is quotes taken from various lawsuits, newspaper articles and even our own State of Georgia Health Department website.

My home is on a well for our water supply. My 4 neighbors whose homes surround the property are also on wells. The type of failures that are possible when 50 homes are dumping their sewage in a field behind my home is truly scary and possibly devastating to my home and more importantly could have major health consequences to me, my husband and our four children. The scariest part for me is how easily the failure could happen. It could be as simple as a home running their clothes washer too many times in a day when it has rained for several days straight. Or it could be a family who dumps food or grease down the sink, or washes harsh chemicals down their sink or flushes feminine products down the toilet. All of these items can cause one tank to fail and proceed to have a field of 50 homes sewage to flood – in my backyard. When failures happen to one home on a single septic system it can be contained it that one yard – when one home fails in a community septic system all 50 homes sewage will flood the fields. The smell, the ecological effects and the ground water damage can be catastrophic. This is not anything I believe the City of Milton nor its residents is willing to take the risk on just so a developer can make more money.

I realize we are one street in a big city but I ask you to ask yourself how you would feel if 50 homes were going to dump their sewage in your backyard? I keep thinking of the scene in the movie Erin Brokovich where she asks the electric company’s lawyers if they would like a glass of water from the well in Hinkley, CA that was contaminated. Would you like knowing the water you shower in and drink from comes from a well next to a 50 home leech field? If the risk is as low as the developer would lead you to believe, why did he offer to my husband to pay for us to attach to city water?

I do not oppose this parcel of land being developed. I do believe it can be done in a thoughtful manner that will benefit both the developer and the surrounding residents. I do believe the developer builds attractive homes that fit with the look of Ebenezer and Milton. I do NOT believe a community septic system should be allowed in this suburban setting. I also do NOT believe there is any reason why the developer should be allowed to build on lots at any less than the minimum requirement of 1 acre lots as required by law for the AG1 zoning.

The City of Milton was started because the residents of North Fulton wanted our interests and property rights and values protected. We voted for the City of Milton for you to do just that. Your job is to protect the taxpayers of Milton, not protect the wallets of developers. I only ask that you do your job and protect us, the taxpayers of Milton.

Sincerely,

Monica Chambers