Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CC - 12/07/2015 - MINS 12 07 15 REG (Migrated from Optiview)Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7 , 20 15 at 6 :00 pm Page I of25 Thi s summary is provided as a convenience and service to the public, media, and staff It is not the intent to transcribe proceedings verbatim. Any reproduction of this summary must include this notice. Public comments are noted and heard by Council, but not quoted. This document includes limited presentation by Council and invited speakers in summary form. This is an official record of the Milton City Council Meeting proceedings. Official Meetings are audio and video recorded. The Regular Meeting of the Mayor and Council of the City of Milton was held on December 7, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Mayor Joe Lockwood presiding. INVOCATION Father Matthew VanSmoorenburg, L.C.-St. Brendan, The Navigator Catholic Church, Cumming, Georgia. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Joe Lockwood called the meeting to order. ROLLCALL Councilmembers Present: Councilmember Thurman, Councilmember Kunz, Councilmember Lusk , Councilmember Hewitt, Councilmember Longoria and Councilmember Mohrig. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (Led by Mayor J oe Lockw ood) APPROVAL OF MEETING AGENDA (Agenda Item No. 15-300) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve the Meeting Agenda with the following changes: • Move Unfinished Business Agenda Item No. 15-308 , Consideration of a Resolution Appointing Members to the City of Milton Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee by Appointing Members from District 1/Post 1, District 1/Post 2 , District 2 , Post 1, District 3/Post 1 and District 3/Post 2 after Reports and Presentations . • Add an Executive Session to discuss Personnel. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion . The motion passed unanimously (7-0). PUBLIC COMMENT Margaret Lootens, 3515 Peacock Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am here regarding a lack of response by the city. I was at home watching Channel2 Action News and there was a story about the Secretary of State and the breach that they had and how some of the fellow Re g ular Meeting of the Milton Ci ty Council Monday, December 7, 2 015 at 6 :00pm Page 2 of25 Republicans in this state were not satisfied with the response of the Secretary of State in regards to their data breach. Well , I was not satisfied with my city 's response to a similar data breach but I can 't say that there has been any response at all. As you know, I enjoy reading papers and especially local newspapers and I want to make it perfectl y clear that the content of the emails is irrelevant to me. I am talking about the release of this information. This is what concerns me because there should have been a limited number of people who had access to this set of emails . As I understand it , it would have been the City Attorney , the City Manager, and you as Council. I am somewhat concerned as to how this was released . Do we have a hacker? Do we have somebody who is fishing for information? Is it a citizen? An outsider? Given all the other lack of responses that I have had in my terrible and difficult time trying to get information from the city when I needed it , which includes the budget when I was here during the budget meeting , our city manager said that the budget would be available at the city hall finance counter. I went to look at it and there wasn 't a copy there. So , I am extremely concerned about what is really going on here. It reminds me of the pentagon papers only this is the reverse. We have a government releasing consultant secrets instead of consultants releasing government secrets. I don 't know what is going on but I would like the city to do an investigation on this. I think this is serious enough that the city should hire someone who is an outside professional to deal with this because it concerns me greatly that so much of the information at the city is so well guarded whenever I try to get an y information about zoning , trash ordinance , meet with the Police Chief, etc. I have roadblocks thrown in my way left and right and somehow this very sensitive information got out. CONSENT AGENDA 1. Approval of the Financial Statements for the Period Ending October, 2015. (Agenda Item No. 15-301) (Bernadett e Ha rvill, Finan ce Manager) 2. Appro val of a Contract Agreement between the City of Milton and Overhead Door Company of Atlanta, a Division of D.H. Pace Co. for the Installation of a Security Grille at Northwestern Middle School. (Agenda Item No. 15-302) (Jim Cr egge, Parks & Recreation Dir ector) 3. Approval of a Resolution and Contract for Acquisition of Right of Way by and Between the Georgia Department of Transportation and the City of Milton for Project PI 0011675 Crabapple S treetscape. RESOLUTION NO. 15-12-354 (Agenda Item No.15-303) (C arter Lucas, Assistant City Ma n ager) 4. Approval of an Amendment to the OpenGov , Inc. Contract to Add the Full Suite of Web-Based Financial Transparency Services. (Agenda Item No. 15-304) (S ta cey In glis, Ass istant C ity Man ager) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Re g ular Meeting of th e Milton City Council Monday, December 7 , 2 0 15 at 6 :00 pm Pa ge 3 of 2 5 REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Recognition and Presentation of Milton "Five" Year Anniversary Service Award Pins. (Pr esent ed by Mayo r J oe Lockwood) FIRST PRESENTATION 1. Consideration of RZlS-25 -13201 Deerfield Parkway by Inwood Holdings , LLC to Rezone from T-5 Limited to A (Medium Density) Apartments for the Existing 356 Unit Apartment Development (North Park Apartments). (Agenda Item No. 15-305) (Kathleen Fi eld, Co mmunity Developm ent Dir ector) 2. Consideration ofRZlS-26 -To Create a New U se Permit for Alternative Housing for Seniors in AG-1 and Single Family Residential Districts . (Agenda Item No. 15-306) (Kathleen Fi eld, Co mmunity Developm ent Director) 3. Consideration ofRZlS-27 -To amend the Signs , Article XVI of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 64). (Agenda Item No. 15-307) (Kathle en Fi eld, Co mmunity Developm ent Dir ector) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz mo ved to approve the First Presentation Items. Councilmember Lusk seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). PUBLIC HEARING (No n e) ZONING (No ne) UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Consideration of an Ordinance to Create a Conservation Subdivision -Chapter 50, Article V of the City Code of Milton . (Agenda Item No. 15-183) (Fir st Pr esentatio n at July 6, 20 15 Regular Co un cil Mee ting) (Discussed at July /3 , 2015 C ity Co un cil Wo rk Sess ion) (Di scussed at A ugus t 20, 2015 Sp ec ial Ca lled Work Sess ion) (Discuss ed at Augus t 2 0, 2 015 Regu lar City Co uncil Meetin g and Deferr ed to Septemb er 2 1, 2015 Regular City Co un cil Meeting) (Pos tp oned at the Sep tem ber 14, 2 015 Sp ec ial Ca lled Mee ting) (Publish ed on S eptember 2 1, 2 015 Regular City Co un cil Meetin g Agenda but n ot discussed) (Kathleen Fi eld, Co mmunity Developm ent Dir ector) ----------------------------------------------------------------~~-- Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6 :00pm Page 4 of25 Kathleen Field Mr. Mayor and members of City Council , just to clarify, we are working off of a draft dated August 25 , 2015. This draft before you includes comments that were made at the August 20 , 2015 Special Called Work Session as well as comments generated from our legal review. I am prepared to provide a brief overview of the ordinance , however , in light of the fact that we have had two council Work Sessions on this item , at your determination , I am prepared to waive that overview and begin to answer questions. PUBLIC COMMENT Charles Fisher, 388 Taylor Glen Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 Did not want to speak but IN SUPPORT. Ann Mosier, 15130 North Valleyfield Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Did not want to speak but IN OPPOSITION. Jack Lindon, 14810 East Bluff Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am a strong supporter of the CSO. This is one of the few ways we have to conserve our horse fields , greenspace , and view sheds without spending millions of dollars in taxpayer money to buy up land we all love. First, I have a few suggestions for amendments to the CSO draft. I suggest that you simply change the wording in Section 50-139 from the CSO being the preferred mode of development to a permitted mode of development to put to rest any notions that this ordinance is mandatory. You may also want to look at Part C of that same section which is confusing on this issue. I would like to see that the minimum allowed lot size be increased from the current one quarter acre minimum. And , I would like to see an increase to the undisturbed buffers around the perimeters of the subdivisions , particularly , along the roadway for the view shed . I have been very disheartened by the bitter nature of the debate on this issue. I certainly didn 't expect that our honest attempts to provide input into ways our community could be developed would turn into such a divisive debate . The process has provided me with a chance to talk to many people with differing points of view and to modify my thoughts and positions on this important issue . I have learned a great deal from this process and I am grateful for all the discussions I have had. I want to thank the city council and all of city staff who have worked so hard on this issue for their willingness to listen to suggestions that I and other members of MGG have provided. Many people have had that same opportunity and you have waded through many of these different points of few. You should be commended for your patience and understanding. As difficult as this process has been , it has been a true example of the democratic process in action. Bernard Wolfe, 1000 Lackey Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I believe a CSO should address concerns of landowners , developers , homebuilders , citizens and municipality. Creativity should rule in conservation development and should be oriented toward custom built builders and developers rather than those that find the fix , clear, and build model of development. The project should be considered from the perspective of the entire property rather than individual lots as sections within that community. Guidelines and regulations should be confined to basics. Leave the creative details to the developer and builder within the design constraints of Milton 's theme. Where feasible , the community should have a tried and proven , easy to maintain, environmentally benign , community waste water system , and allow smaller lots including diversity . This is not to increase diversity , it is to increase and preserve the natural area so the bigger the lot , and especially if there is septic in it , the less natural areas you are going to have. Homes must have diversity in size , style , and amenities to promote the neighborhood and rural theme. A properly done CSO is cheaper to develop , Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 5 of 2 5 the homes sell twice as fast , and they command a 25-30% premium for initial sale and resale. Again , it will address the concerns of everyone . Charlie Bostwick, 5115 Long Island Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30327 I am with Brightwater Homes. We are a home builder and are also environmentalists and we love what we do in the City of Milton and would like to take it the next step in creating better sustainable projects. We are in support of the CSO because it gives us the opportunity to do what is right. If we develop this as it is with AG-1 , we cannot do these things. If your ordinance is passed tonight, we can. In front of you is an example of what meets the CSO as it is currently written. We can preserve the rural feel of existing roads with open space including pasture , garden , and orchard by grouping the homes in hamlets in the woods rather than along the existing road. We can maintain wide lots with large homes. We will build $700 ,000 to $800 ,000 homes. We can create bigger buffers from neighboring properties and over two miles of walking trails. Walking trails are a lifetime amenity that have been shown to be more popular than tennis courts. Empty nesters and young families will appreciate this and live a healthier life. We can preserve well over 50% of the land and use huge undisturbed natural corridors. We can use environmentally friendly development methods. We can build homes further from sensitive streams. We can create a place for families to thrive where they can enjoy the outdoors, streams, trails, gardens , and pastures with horses. That is what belongs in Milton. We can 't do that with AG-1. We can give lake access to the entire neighborhood not just the big homes that border it. We can all be proud of what we have done for our citizens , children , environment, and aesthetics. Rose Prestianni, 105 Providence Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004 I don't think that the plan before you is appropriate for the city. When we fought so hard to create the city that we love , we said that we did not want to be a sewer city . The perception for many of us is that it introduces sewer systems . They may be smaller but nonetheless ; sewer. This seems to violate some of the founding principles on which we built the city. It seems to have the potential for a long term negative effect; maybe environmental and even legal and financial. Your own Planning Commission unanimously rejected this concept as it is currently written. I think it allows a small number of people to benefit. It seems to fit the 80 /20 rule; 20% of people will greatly benefit and the majority of the citizens will not benefit from putting in a plan of this nature. Even the plan as it is written seems very vague in areas allowing for greens space hard surfaces , buildings , waste water treatment to be a part of green space. It reads as if it is not appropriate or environmentally safe. I oppose the CSO. Tom Kuehn, 105 Providence Oaks Pointe, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am in opposition of the CSO as it is currently written. This has been batted around for several months on both sides. Earlier , I received correspondence from my councilmember who said they may be agreeable to a CSO but not necessarily this particular plan. I am here tonight to ask you to reject the CSO as it is currently written and then recreate it so it will work for everyone. Carol Lane, 14890 East Bluff Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 My husband , Dale , and I were born in Atlanta. We moved to Milton in 1992. We see Milton as a diamond in the rough . The rough is the surrounding areas outside of Milton where the density is such that homes are built on 'l4 acre lots ; this is due to sewer. Milton is the diamond because of AG-1. There is more undeveloped land due to septic which requires soil and percolation tests. Because of the required tests, not all one acre lots are buildable. The CSO would not require these tests , thus increasing density. There is the introduction of private community sewer which increases density . AG-1 and septic has served our community well. Please deny CSO. ------------------------------------ Re g ular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 6 of25 Don Willis, 13475 Birmingham Highway, Milton, Georgia 30004 My wife , Marilyn , and I have lived in Milton for 46 years. We have 7.72 acres that we want to subdivide and give to our 5 grown grandchildren to build a home if they desire. I don 't see why I have to give the government , or anyone else , part of my land for any reason. The existing AG-1 allows for plenty of greenspace on each acre after a home is built. I haven 't seen too many homes that cover a full acre . Also , the beauty of riding up Birmingham Highway and see the homes , especially at Christmastime, not to have them blocked by unnecessary buffers and setbacks. Please vote "NO" on the CSO and any changes to AG-1. Art Adams, 3047 Oakside Circle, Milton, Georgia 30004 For 35 years , I was a consultant and environmental engineer. I did large water projects, Fairfax County Water Authority outside of Washington , D.C., was my client from 1966 until I retired in 2001. Also , the Tampa Wastewater Plant which produced drinking water and their sewage plant and the City of St. Petersburg which has the best reuse system in the country. I am in favor of this ordinance. I would like to dispute the fact that it talks about higher density. The way I read the ordinance in Section 50-140 ; Section D, basically , the developer lays out his property as if there were no ordinance and if the property will only hold ten buildable lots , then no matter how big his property is , he can still only have 10 buildable lots. So , the CSO does not increase density or the number of homes that can be built on a piece of property. Also , I am reall y in favor of some type of community sewer system. Septic tanks are absolutely the worst thing you can do for the environment. They basically produce about 60 % of the pollutants that get removed from the septic tank and the other 40% goes into the drinking water or into the aquifer. A community septic system will give you better treatment and provide an opportunity for reuse which I think in this area where we are trying to preserve water supply is a good thing. When you build the sewer lines , you can also build a re-use line and whatever comes out of your wastewater plant you can use for re-use. Arnold Moore, 395 Canterbury Lake, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am concerned about the CSO as it is written because I believe it increases density. We will end up with a number of subdivisions with ~ acre lots , perhaps 1/3 acre lots if you change the designation , which will be offset by land that is essentially unbuildable today. I don 't think we are conserving anything because what is not going to be built is going to be covered with septic systems or it is going to be unbuildable and would have been conserved without this ordinance. I am a registered professional engineer in the state of Georgia. I don 't believe I have seen any plans for community septic systems and how they are going to work whether or not they will perk correctly. I have heard people indicate that we might have to reduce the perk requirements which is absolutely insane. I am concerned about the risks that Milton will undertake in terms of health of their citizens and in terms of financial responsibility and legal problems that will arise with these sewage systems. Barbara Slate, 13545 Providence Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am firmly against the CSO and we hope that you will vote "NO ". Joe Lamp'l, 2330 Saddlesprings Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am in support of the approval of the CSO. I recognize the rights of property owners and developers . It is imperative that we act now to protect the balance between those rights and those of Milton citizens. Milton 's Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 2011 , was de veloped after broad concern by citizens over protecting Milton 's rural character. Nearly 3,000 citizens responded to surveys that were mailed to every household. Per that response , number one on the list of goals for Milton 's future was open space Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6 :00pm Page 7 of25 preservation. New development should be designed to minimize the amount of land consumed from development and environmental protection from the negative impact of development. This CSO was a planned created for these very reasons . We have seen it evolve and mature with plenty of input from all sides. It incorporates the best ideas from that and other successful CSO 's around the country plus a proven formula that not only works but is forward thinking; exactly what Milton desperately needs right now. Any remaining issues the plan needs are fixable and the technology and human resources for that exists . But, what we can't fix is the continued loss of open space , view sheds, and environmental degradation for the sake of squeezing as many homes on as many lots as possible. People buy differences not similarities and we know why Milton is different and that is what we love about it. But, if we fail to be proactive , we won't be different for very long . We have heard it before. The definition of lunacy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Only in this case it is worse . It is now or never. There are no do-overs once it is gone . There are no re-boots or control-alt- delete. If we don 't put pro-active measures and a solid plan in place right now, it will be too late to address this again next time. There won't be any rural Milton left to preserve. We need this plan as a way to give property owners , developers , and buyers an option that works for them and the citizens of Milton who care about preserving our greatest asset. Lisa Cauley, 14680 Freemanville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 The goal of this community was to slow development. The CSO will not slow development. The CSO forces developers to place half the land they purchase into conservation. To get the same yield, the CSO allows higher density up to four homes per acre. Typical conservation subdivisions are on sewer. Since we don 't have sewer in Milton, the CSO wants to use community septic systems. Packaged septic systems are not fail proof and have a reputation of failure. Septic systems place nitrates in the soil and potable water. Fulton County requires one septic system per acre for this reason. Packaged septic systems allow a developer to circumvent perk testing and enables environmentally sensitive land to be developed that a developer would not consider otherwise. Community septic systems leave Milton vulnerable to sewer expansion as a solution to septic maintenance issues and failures. Density bonuses for conservation subdivisions are incentives to developers and builders. This is attractive to developers not wanting to go through re-zoning processes or to seek variances. CSO are typically done with sewer and not septic. The CSO accelerates development since any developer will build a conservation subdivision in order to maximize their profit margins. This CSO is a trade-off to conserve green space for increased density behind a tree line and future soil and water contamination. With proposed AG-1 enhancements, the city intends to take up to 100 feet of setback from frontage instead of protecting my neighbors , the decrease in the setbacks on the property line are detrimental. The CSO paints a nice picture for people driving down our roads , but the people who live here and pay taxes are the ones that will be affected negatively by the decreased setbacks. This mathematical wash is not a wash for surrounding neighbors . This will cause a chain reaction and make other large landowners want to sell their land and leave Milton. Laura Rencher, 1060 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am speaking on behalf of Preserve Rural Milton. I want to thank the Mayor, Council , and Staff on their work on this ordinance. I know it has been extremely arduous and I am very disappointed at how divisive it has been for the community and I wish that was not the case. I hope that we are going to be able to heal from this situation. Preserve Rural Milton has been and continues to support conservation subdivisions as one of the many tools needed to preserve the rural character of the city as well as to help address environmental problems associated with rampant development and open sprawl. Many other communities across the country have used CSO 's successfully to address the loss of open space, tree canopy , and wildlife habitats in their city . Our survey in the spring resulted in 500 responses and Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 8 of25 indicated that a strong majority also want the city to prioritize land conservation. We are not just a few loud people who want the city to make changes in development patterns. We had over 1,600 people sign our first petition in January 2014 which addressed the need for changes in zoning and development regulations . At this point, we have almost 1,500 followers on Facebook, the city has 3,800. We receive financial donations regularly to support our efforts . For too long , the politicians and community have believed that retaining AG-1 zoning with no public sewer has protected us from loss of rural character. Using AG-1 zoning has protected Milton somewhat from higher density zoning but it has not helped us retain the mission of the charter which is to preserve the rural character and small town lifestyle. It is has also not helped us maintain an y sort of balance between development and retention of rural character as stated in the comprehensive land use plan . The predictable outcome of retaining AG-1 zoning with little additional development regulations to land use is one acre lots throughout the city. Subdivisions and infill development are eating up land at the rate of hundreds of acres per year. Alfred Soldavina, 15395 Thompson Way, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am a 12 year resident of Milton and I am very happy to be here. This ordinance is a disaster. The traffic that has been created in Milton in just the 12 years that I have lived here is choking the roads alread y and making life unbearable for many people. This ordinance will increase density and development and cause more traffic and disruption to our way of life. It will create more pollution . It offers nothing of value to the present citizens of Milton. I have nothing good to say about it. I've been around a long time and have lived in several states ; West Virginia, New Jersey . I have seen all kinds of evolvements. You have a planning committee and the y have rejected this three times. Why are you even considering it? James Touchton, 5901-C Peachtree Dunwoody Road, Atlanta, Georgia 30004 I am with the Council for Quality Growth. We support the CSO with fewer revisions that are in front of you tonight but we think the revisions are needed in order to clarify what the CSO is mandatory to all residential developments over twenty acres or just those developments in the AG-R1-R2. The ordinance 's use of "shall " be the preferred method of subdivisions is vague and indefinite. Vague legislation gives rise of procedural due process claims because individuals do not have fair notice of whether they are in the scope of the legislation. We also recommend that section 50-139 C-D regarding use requirements be removed from the ordinance before adopting to clarify the conservation subdivisions are encouraged but voluntary option for residential subdivisions. Further, there is an inconsistency with inclusion of all residential zoning districts within the ordinance specifically R4 , R4A , R5 , and R5A currently allow a base density of less than .25 units per acre which conflict with the CSO allotted design standards in section 50-145A. We ask that your clearly specify that the lot yield for conservation subdivisions in a way that encourages developers to choose this option. Section 50-140D does not sufficiently specify lot yield for the proposed subdivision. The council also recommends including additional incentives for parks and recreation impact fee credit for conservation subdivisions as additional green spaces provided onsite in conservation subdivision developments. The per home impact on the city 's park system will be greatly diminished. This incentive will encourage preservation of open green space and de velopment of community trails while providing an offset of additional costs required to make this investment in green infrastructure and community waste water systems. Marty Lock, 14140 Freemanville Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I would like to express my concern over the current CSO . I believe it is a bad idea for our city based on several issues. Allowing homes on 'l'4 acre lots in rural areas of our city will create a density that none of us want. The septic system supporting these developments have been known to fail in our neighboring communities and then become a burden on the city and its taxpayers. Nobody wants that. Allowing Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7 , 2015 at 6 :00pm Page 9 of25 non-potable and non-buildable property to be included in the formula to determine the number of homes that can be built on a piece of property is wrong on all fronts. If you can 't put a home on it in the current environment, you should not be able to consider it buildable in the CSO formula either. The Planning Commission members , who you selected and approved , have studied and evaluated this ordinance in detail. They have voted unanimously three times to deny this ordinance. Listen to their advice and deny it as well. Stacy O'Neil, 5566 Benton Woods Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 I have lived in this community for 30 years , way before it became Milton and what it looks like today. I used to ride horses on a pasture at the comer of Bethany and Providence. We have had family picnics at Eaves Lake in the area and mulling around in Cooper Sandy Creek. I want to remind everyone that there is only 15% left of undeveloped land in Milton so that is not very much land that we are talking about. We are looking for options and creativity to preserve the look that Milton has; the rural look. You have a horse on your logo and there is really not much pasture left and if you continue to build with the AG-1 zoning regulations the way they are , you are going to have more subdivisions that look like White Columns , no offense , The Manor , big estate lots , less diversity; there is nothing rural about these places. Looking at the situation from a conservation stance and protecting the environment, there is nothing worse for our environment than septic systems. So , I would like to voice my vote in favor of the CSO . I appreciate the different opinions that have been expressed tonight but I think a lot of people have been misinformed about community septic and what we are actually talking about here. James Roy Wells, 330 Houze Way, Roswell, Georgia 30004 I am in favor of the conservation subdivision as it is written now. My daughter said it all. I can't add anymore to what she said or what the other people have said in favor of the CSO. You know all the ends and outs of what this is all about. You know the right thing to do to preserve Milton and keep its rural look , protect the environment, and have diversity in the subdivisions. I own 80 acres at the comer of Bethany and Providence and it is perfect for a conservation subdivision. Kurt A. Nolte, 825 Dockbridge Way, Milton, Georgia 30004 We have lived at our address for about 17 years and one of the reasons we picked Milton was the quality of life. I think that the number one issue that threatens our quality of life is density . Everything I have read about the CSO , I have determined that it will increase density. I think it is fairly clear that the vast majority of residents in the city are against the CSO. It has been established as a resource for you to use for land use. The Planning Commission has unanimously rejected it three times already. I think the views of the citizens and the Planning Commission should take precedence. Barbara Taylor, 1940 Drummond Pond Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Why would you want to forever change the character of Milton? Usually , the answer is for profit. The CSO is a change in the zoning of Milton to add a higher density of structures in our community without going through the proper channels. The Planning Commission recommended denial of this. I don't understand why you are not listening to them. You cannot build structures on land that will not sustain the structure. Without the perk test , this is a disaster waiting to happen. Often developments such as this , increases erosion, exacerbates flooding when it happens , the natural land balance has been eradicated under the guise of conservation. We do not want sewer lines. When you introduce sewer lines , you introduce ponds and swells. Where are those going to be ; in my next door neighbor's yard? Are they going to be visible from the next door neighbor 's property and thus lowering the property value? Or, from the road and ruining the rural landscape forever? And , what about the impact of building four houses per acre on adjacent properties? Who is going to pay for the drainage that this ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:00 pm Page 10 of25 causes when the run off comes into my land. Someone just built a swimming pool two houses up from me and it has cost me thousands of dollars in landscape materials just to maintain the water run off; and I am two houses down. That is a swimming pool and we are talking about houses. The impact is huge and environmental impact studies should be done. When the sewers fail , who is going to pay? The HOA costs could be staggering. Right now , the way it is written in 22 pages, the HOA is responsible for this. It could be tens ofthousands of dollars per homeowner. Scott Sawyer, 787 Quarterpath Lane, Milton, Georgia 30004 I would like to voice my opposition to the CSO. I think it opens up unperkable , unbuildable land for additional development on top of the AG-1 standards we already have. It is actually going to increase development; not decrease it. I would like to ask you not to vote for the CSO or any amendments. Mark Holmes, 13900 Hagood Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 What is the long term vision for conservation in Milton? The CSO will increase density; it will crowd our schools and parks , and increase traffic and pollution. Where are the new schools going to be built for the additional kids that will move here? Land that developers are not interested in now , will now be sought after because they will be able to build more homes than the law allows today. How is that for conservation? Laws can be changed at any time. Look at what you are doing here tonight. Have you thought about ten or twenty years from now? The only land that is going to be left is the conserved land. Developers will see that and will make offers on it. Different special interests groups will come to city hall and go after that land. This can happen. Laws will and can be changed just like you are doing now. Sandra Faires, 2065 Country Ridge Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 Country Ridge Subdivision opposes the CSO . I take full responsibility ; how many times have we all heard that? It is the view of our subdivision that the CSO benefits a small group of landowners with some unbuildable land and for-profit homebuilders who will profit and then leave us. It is our opinion that 38 ,000 Milton residents should have a vote in this; not just the 3 ,000 who may have answered a survey. A CSO of this magnitude should have a vote and not just the decision of a small committee. Will the committee take full responsibility when a community septic system fails including financial responsibility? The vote should be "NO" tonight and "NO" forever on this CSO. The raising of hands a few moments ago against the CSO , should tell you that the majority needs to speak . Diane McDonald, 15390 Thompson Way, Milton, Georgia 30004 My husband and I have lived in Milton for about 12 years and we love being here. We are in opposition to the CSO . I trust the Planning Commission and I would hope that you would take their advice. I believe the Planning Commission has Milton 's best interest in mind more than the people who would benefit economically from the CSO. Richard Velloff, 15750 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004 I oppose the CSO for the vast majority of the reasons that other people have stated tonight. It appears that all the supporters of the CSO have an economic interest in it being passed; homebuilders , developers , and landowners that are looking to maximize profits at the expense of existing Milton residents. Your job is to represent Milton residents not future Milton residents. It is your responsibility to look out for the economic interest of the current residents and your constituents and not for others and future people. I am against the CSO for a vast number of reasons but I wanted to highlight what seems to be the conflict of interest between existing residents and homebuilders and developers which seem to be the vast majority of the supporters. r--===~=-------------------------------------------------~-------------. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 20 15 at 6:00 pm Page II of25 Heather Creran, 325 Taylor Glen, Milton, Georgia 30004 I think there is one thing we can all agree on is that the vast maJonty of Milton residents and councilmembers do not support the CSO as it is written. Beyond that, the roads diverge very quickly and dramatically. I am here to introduce the Milton coalition against the CSO. We are a passionate group of Milton citizens that consists of long-time residents who own acreage to newbies, like my husband and I who have only lived here for seven years in the Taylor Glen subdivision. We are in complete agreement that the CSO are not good for Milton. Tonight, rather than come to the podium and repeat the same things , each of us are going to talk about a specific topic. We emailed nine topics to the city council this morning and asked that they address them in their discussions tonight. The nine topics are: Do the majority of Milton citizens want the CSO? Did the Planning Commission arrive at the wrong decision when they unanimously rejected the CSO three times? Were the consultant's recommendations sound and objective and are you concerned that they had doubts about the feasibility of a CSO for Milton? Is this a gift to special interests? Do you believe the CSO will create a higher density than would occur under current zoning? Do you believe that introduction of private sewer systems violates a pledge made by city councilmembers not to extend sewer into Milton? Are you confident that we have a well-written ordinance? What is your long-term vision for land use in Milton? How is this conservation if the CSO facilitates the development of properties that could not be developed today? Does any of the content of the released emails concern the councilmembers? I want to thank all of you for taking the time to meet with my husband , Tony , and myself during the past two weeks. We enjoyed meeting with all of you except for one. Please vote "NO". Tim Becker, 15625 Canterbury Chase, Milton, Georgia 30004 The most important reason that the CSO should be denied is that the citizens do not want it. It is that simple. When we started the Milton coalition three weeks ago, we had nothing. No organization, no money, no website, no followers, and no email list. One of the first actions that we took was to create a simple flyer that we have distributed to thousands of citizens. I personally walked 21 miles in two days distributing 530 flyers to homes in nine subdivisions . Along the way , I engaged at least two dozen citizens and surprisingly, I found that quite a few people knew about the CSO. And, more surprisingly, I found that none liked it. After my walk, I continued to engage citizens and have yet to actually find, until tonight, a person that supports a CSO. Our coalition realized that we had found our top reason for denying the CSO; citizens do not want it. We have not created opposition to the CSO; we have channeled existing opposition. We have provided citizens multiple and simple means for expressing their opposition. This included creating a petition. We only went public with our petition nine days ago and as of just a few minutes ago, we had 810 concerned citizens that had signed it. That occurred within nine days. We are a coalition that did not exist three weeks ago. You need to pay attention to this. I want each councilmember tonight to confirm that they have engaged citizens about this issue. If you have truly engaged citizens, then you know what I know. Citizens do not want the CSO. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7 , 20 I 5 at 6 :00 pm Page 12 of25 David Damiani, 935 Post Oak Close, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am a business owner. I am a Chief Financial Officer. I am a Risk Manager. What I am not , is a knowledge expert on conservation subdivisions. Nor, as I presume , any of you are. So , how do you handle a situation like that? You do like I do when you own a business. You engage third party knowledgeable experts. You outsource , you delegate , you ask informed people to make decisions on your behalf. You did that , and I applaud you. You hired consultants. You hired a third party , independent , non-partisan consultant. You engaged a Planning Commission of volunteers. They came back with a recommendation ; three times unanimously . You have already heard all this tonight. I'm not going to list everything again that has already been said. I stand against the CSO for all the reasons that all the people here have already outlined tonight. My fellow citizen stood up here tonight and said there is an economic interest on the developer 's part. I don 't have an economic interest other than preserving the value of my home which I suspect will go up either way. Let's not kid ourselves. We are all for conserving but we all have a different way of going about it. Half the room states that a CSO will make things better; the other half says it won 't. I don 't know what the answer is. I am going to defer the answer to the folks that know more than I do . Those individuals are the consultants you hired and the Planning Commission. I was one of those people who responded to the question on the survey that asked , "Do you want to preserve land in Milton?" I answered, "yes" because of course I want to preserve land in Milton as does everyone. The question did not ask , "Do you want a Conservation Subdivision Ordinance to be passed in Milton?' I thought Preserve Rural Milton was the real deal until I started doing my homework. To quote from the person who is considered to be the grandfather of all CSO 's, "Maybe you should just accept that the stars are not properly aligned in Milton. Conservation Designs are always the most difficult in communities where one acre parcels are allowed." Tony Outeda, 325 Taylor Glen Drive, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am part of the Milton coalition against the CSO. My concern is that this is a gift to special interests; big landowners and developers . Before we leave tonight , I would like you to put me at ease about that. If a landowner can make more money if this is passed than the way the law is written today , then that needs explaining. Laura Bentley, 2500 Bethany Church Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 We oppose the CSO because it will result in higher density , housing , and introduces private sewer via community septic. Case in point; Thompson Road , a 70 acre parcel under the CSO yields a density of one home per acre plus a 10% bonus which is 77 homes on 35 acres. Contract this yield under AG-1; the 70 acres under AG-1 yielded 30 homes due to rigorous perk testing. This is a real example brought forth and discussed by the Planning Commission and City Staff last spring. Forty-seven extra homes unnecessarily added to our already overcrowded roadways , parks and schools. The CSO green space is private; not for the entire community. And , there is no guarantee that there will ever be horses grazing there. The CSO is attractive to landowners with parcels that are not currently desirable for build out. Flood plains and difficult topography becomes greenspace with a density bonus to the developer so he can profit. This is an unnecessary incentive that will absolutely accelerate the development of land that is currently greenspace. Landowners with 10-20 acres could knit their parcels together and cash out on the CSO. Horse farms are the heart and soul of Milton. Scraping the highly protected AG-1 standards on which we based our investment is a total game changer. Community waste water treatment systems are an experiment for which Milton citizens should not be liable. Systems fail and when they do , HOA historically, are not prepared to deal with the required maintenance and replacement costs. CSO community septic will extend sewer into Milton 's most treasured areas which will open the door to commercial development as well. Please deny the CSO . Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 13 of25 Cleveland Slater, 13670 Bethany Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am opposed to the CSO for a number of reasons. As you make your decision tonight, I ask you to consider if you are confident that we have a well-defined ordinance. Do we have an ordinance that accomplishes its stated goal? Good people have worked for more than a year to develop a CSO that is appropriate for our unique city. However, tonight you have before you an ordinance that I do not believe that the majority of the council favors as it is currently written. I anticipate a number of amendments to the ordinance will be introduced tonight in an effort to try to make enough changes to find support for some type of CSO. I am very concerned that after more than a year of effort, it will be impossible to re-write an ordinance tonight in just a few hours that will not have significant unintended consequences for the city. Some people claim that the CSO is optional but it requires a use permit that, if granted , will allow the development of a subdivision under the existing AG-1 standards. If a use permit is required , it is not optional. Nobody knows where we will end tonight on the issue of a density neutral ordinance. If an amendment is added to include bonus lots, the ordinance will certainly not be density neutral. I am concerned that the CSO will be used by developers only on land where a CSO will yield more homes than could be developed under traditional AG-1 standards. Getting more lots is the only incentive a developer has to follow the more expensive CSO design and permitting process. If the CSO is used as a means to develop less developer-friendly land, we have created a tool that will accelerate the rate of development in Milton. Fulton County requires one acre home sites and does not permit the type of community septic systems required for a conservation subdivision. It will require Georgia EPD permits at 10,000 gallon systems , 34 houses are required to generate the capacity needs for EPD permit. We will not have local ability to regulate the permits issued by the Georgia EPD. Before you vote tonight, please ask yourself if you are confident that we have a well-drafted ordinance that accomplishes state requirements. Daniel Ben-David, 85 Arabian Ave., Milton, Georgia 30004 I am opposed to the CSO as it currently stands. I think the Planning Commission has recommended three times not to pass it and I don 't see why there should be a fourth time. I think there was some deception on the part of the way it was presented originally because I liked the idea when I first heard it. Then, when I started looking at the details , I realized that there was going to be more problems, costs, congestion, density, and traffic . Our infrastructure is not capable of handling this process as it stands now. I urge you to examine it closely and follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Pamela Jackson, 2105 Bethany Way, Milton, Georgia 30004 I live on Bethany Way and also own acreage down Hopewell Road , as well as, Haygood Road. I am absolutely opposed to this. I think the gentleman that said it is a disaster, said it very well. I grew up on a farm down on Clairmont Road and across the street was Old Sam 's Farm, which I know most of you know Old Sam's Farm. We used to play and ride over there. It is now called Century Plaza. On my family farm down there resides a hotel now. The density this is going to create is another situation just like that. We moved out here in 1969 in order to get away from that and to live on a farm again. I live on a farm. I have roughly 20 acres at the comer of Hopewell and Bethany Way where the traffic is absolutely horrible and there is no way if I sold that property we could fit maybe 100 more homes right there and have that many more people coming through that intersection. So what I would ask is please do not do this. This is not good for our community. This is not what we want. I am one of the horse farms and I want to keep it. I want to stay here and I want Milton to remain the way it is and not to have it changed into something the people do not want. We do not want this. Please vote no. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 14 of25 Matthew Mitchell, 1750 Providence Farms Lane, Milton, Georgia 30004 I will be brief. I sent an email this afternoon. I apologize it was late and I know there was plenty of time to get to it. I will read part of that email and just note I did include four pages of comments. I think four pages tell there is a lot to do with this ordinance. In summary , I again appreciate your effort. I understand the pressure to do something but you must not allow that pressure to force the adoption of fatally flawed ordinance. At this point, I am hopeful you will unanimously vote down this ordinance because if passed it will ensure the destruction of everything it is supposed to protect. Through my experience as an architect , I have worked through countless ordinances and I know how developers evade their intent by adherence to the letter of the ordinance. This ordinance provides woefully , inadequate conservation measures and provides countless paths around its intent. If this ordinance is adopted , Milton will assuredly become nothing more than another homogenized North Atlanta suburb . The property values that have been such a concern will undoubtedly decline as what is driving them higher is eliminated. In addition , this ordinance will force an increase in the size and cost of government through increased government involvement, community septic system failures , strained infrastructure and increase litigation. The natural result will be pressure to increase property taxes even as values decline. The legacy we face is a deteriorating community , a loss quality of life , lower property values , larger government and higher taxes. Please review the attached comments. The first and the most important test of every piece of this ordinance should be does it conserve Milton's rural character? I ask that you conscientiously and earnestly consider these comments. The voice of your community and the recommendations of your Planning Commission above any preconceived ideas or agendas. Your vote on this has tremendous consequences . It will determine the future of Milton more so than any other vote to date. I believe you all want to preserve Milton but I also believe that anyone who is in favor of this ordinance does not fully grasp its deficiencies. Kim Horne, 415 Wade Glen Court, Milton, Georgia 30004 I am not going to repeat what everybody else has said but I strongly oppose the CSO as written. I would hope that tonight you would follow suit with what the Planning Commission has said three times along with what many citizens have said and please deny the ordinance. Charlie Hoffman, 915 Providence Ridge, Milton, Georgia 30004 I lived in Milton for three years now and I moved out of my old area because it was extremely busy and right outside of my neighborhood was a six lane road. We do not want that here. We live in a very rural area and we all think that is very nice. Most of us live on one acre. If we vote for this there will be four houses on the size of our yard. Why do we want four houses on our yard? We would also have to put in a sewer system. If we put in a sewer system they would have to dig up everything everywhere. We all live here because we like the way we live. Let's not change that. Please vote no on the CSO. Stephanie Jack, 520 Laurel Oaks Lane, Milton, Georgia 3004 I have lived here for 15 years and quite honestly do not think I need to say anything more than what Charlie just said. Please do not vote for this ordinance . Julie Zahner Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 The CSO is a guise for higher density housing. While everyone 's intentions may have been pure when the study into the CSO began, the reality now is the CSO would introduce private sewer, it does increase density to the tune of a quarter acre lot and it does allow for density that was never intended for rural Milton. Please focus on how to improve the AG standards versus allowing for more density and the introduction of private sewage. While some of you might want to take issue with the phrase "private sewer", it is indeed a private sewer. Large package community septic systems are analogous with sewer Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6 :00 pm Page 15 of25 because they allow for density that otherwise would never be allowed on any parcel internal to Milton. It allows for higher density and effectively brings sewer to the community just through private operators. And whether the CSO document reflects a quarter acre , a third of an acre or half and acre lot , it is higher density than what citizens want and what is allowable today. Specific concerns: • Public Input Process is not adequate • The document's purpose and intent talks about trying to create the perception of lower density . We do not need the perception oflower density , we need lower density. • Density Neutrality -It is critical to the issue that is before you. This is not density neutral , it has never been and it can 't be unless you require the same requirements in an "as is" build comparison with what would be required under AG-1 today versus what it would not. The reason that Lakapani and others would love to have this is under current build standards you could not get the density they are talking about getting. That is the fact and the truth. I understand the ordinance. You guys know I understand the ordinance and it should be denied . • Green Space -It does not define green space as green space as it allows structures , buildings , the community septic system , as well as structures that have nothing to do with green space. • Buffers-They are inadequate. You know it. We know it. The citizens should not have to ... those of us that live here that conserve our own land, should not have to have a quarter acre , third of an acre or half of an acre lots at my back property line. It is unconscionable and I cannot believe we are even talking about it. • Wastewater treatment system -You guys all said we would not allow it to happen. It should not. Please deny this ordinance . Hundreds and hundreds of people have asked you to deny. Bill Bailey, 255 Hickory Flat Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I just love following my wife. She talks so much slower than I do. These are copies from the EPA website that shows the Birmingham community septic system in non-compliance for the last six months. I shop there every day on my way home. The place just reeks. No one is providing any insight or oversight , if you will , on what is going on there . Every night they tum on the pumps for their community septic system , you can smell it in the parking lot and it is not very nice. No one actually wants to live in a subdivision if they are going to smell something like this on a daily basis where the houses surrounding them. As far as the drain fields , there are multiple acres behind Publix , if you put it on the conservation subdivision you will need twice the linear footage four year septic system as you would on a house. You are going to have to tear up the land to put in the drain fields. Roughly 360 feet for a five bedroom house plus double that for a reserve. If you put all your houses on half the land , you are going to have to tear up the land to put in the drain field, which is going to be called green space. I don't think that is what you intended if you want to preserve something , you are going to have to bulldoze the trees to put in that large of a system and then you are going to have to smell it every day. I do not think we want to smell that every day and nobody wants to live like that. There have only been two people that are large property owners like my wife and I that have come up here and said please do this . There are about 400 large parcel owners in the City of Milton. You have not heard many people of those people come up and say please do this to my property. Please Do Not Do This to My Property. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 20 15 at 6 :00 pm Page 16 of25 David Ellis, 3795 Hedgecliff Court, Johns Creek, Georgia 30022 I am with the Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Association. I come tonight in support of the CSO. As we have seen around the country , many progressive communities have adopted ordinances like this to protect open space and vital environmental areas where development is allowed. It creates options and opportunities for communities. We think it is a good thing for that reason. Again, let me go back to the option thing. One of the things Mr. Touchton raised earlier from the Council of Quality Growth related to having this as an option for development and not a mandatory requirement because there is some confusion in there. In the ordinance it says shall be preferred , it is pretty vague and hard to get your head around what that exactly means and really defining this as an option when it is appropriate. Also , if it is mandatory, it really raises a lot of questions. If the city permanently removes the development rights from the property, the forced permitted dedication of 50% residential subdivision found in 50-39A violates the sub(l :44:44) process provisions of the US and the Georgia Constitutions and taking provisions of the 51h Amendment of the US Constitution, something we are concerned about. That optional basis makes a lot more sense. Also the .25 minimum acre lot size requirement imposed in 50- 45A , may be economically feasible in some instances and has no relationship to the protection of health safety and welfare of the citizens of Milton. As such , it is also arbitrary under the due process provisions as well as the taking provisions of the US Constitution. Those are some concerns I know that Mr. Touchton talked about and that has been a part of the discussion today . Again , we do encourage that you take a good look at this. A CSO can be a very positive thing for a community because it gives really quality , economically environmentally sensitive developers like Brightwater Homes , who spoke earlier, and options when they look at developing land and doing the right thing. Again with the recent discussion we had about Impact Fees , open space is very expensive to the public and our communities and creating that open space within the private communities is a big help to those private citizens. Tom Meredith, 1015 Hickory Oak, Roswell, Georgia 30076 My wife and I have been in the Roswell and Milton area for 22 years and recently purchased a home of five acres that we are building our retirement home. Specifically , we came here to be on a horse farm. We are building on Ebenezer Road and there is some land back there that we knew would be developed at some time in the future. We did not think it would happen this quickly . We basically have been speaking to a developer , Charles Bostwick, who made a presentation earlier today. He showed me two plans. One plan is with the new CSO which does a really good job of preserving space , putting horse pastures out and conserving a lot of land . The other plan where you basically have one acre lots and every spare inch has to be maximized for one acre lots as is the way things are built. Quite frankly , I am going to be surrounded by this development one way or the other and I would much prefer this CSO sanction plan all thing being equal. I do not know the specifics enough , but I am simply saying from the two plans that I have seen and the analysis that I have done on a very specific plot of land , I would much prefer the CSO plan versus the one acre plan because it does maximize the land. It looks much nicer. Plus there are going to be places for myself to walk around. It looks like a better thing to do as a concerned homeowner and new to Milton. I came here specifically to have horses. My wife has two aging horses and we want to basically see them off into the horse sunset. That is my story . David Shannon, 2225 Birmingham Road, Milton, Georgia 30004 I have lived in the community for over 25 years . I think everyone's intention is it:J. the right direction to conserve , but I can give you my experience which is unique. We bought property next door to us to expand the farm. It was going to be a subdivision but it only allowed for seven lots out of 38 acres. That is the land around here , it just rolls. I also had another experience back in September 2009 with the great flood of Atlanta. The Manor wastewater treatment facility failed and overflowed and came into Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6 :00pm Page 17 of25 the tributaries, into Chicken Creek and it was devastating. We are talking about the same thing right now that we were talking about in 1998 when the Manor was being proposed. I think coming in here with homeowner HOA septic systems is not a good idea. I think larger lots are the answer if you want to conserve this area. Don Broussard, 1786 Alderbrook Road NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 I am the principal and owner of Town Planning and Design, as you know . I want to appear tonight to make a couple of brief comments. I wanted to clear up a misstatement that has been perpetuated starting at the Planning Commission meeting on October 28 1h that very irresponsible statement was made by one ofthe members that I had a conflict of interest. I want to make sure on the record ... ! can tell you all that I have no conflict of interest. I have never worked for anyone else in the City of Milton during my assignment with you all. I have not had any promises of work or promises of compensation. My job as a planning and consultant and as a responsible , ethical and professional is to give you all my best independent professional advice and that is what I have done. It would be nice to get a retraction from the Planning Commissioner in question but I am not going to hold my breath that I would get one. Let me say a couple of things about the ordinance. The draft you all are considering is a good ordinance and I support. I want to commend this council for sticking with this mission that you all have taken on at the direction of your citizenry. It is clear to me that those values that are in your Comprehensive Plan really mandate and require you all to do something in this direction. Conservation Subdivisions have a proven track record. They have been endorsed by the state, the Department of Community Affairs, the UGA Land Use Law Clinic. They are built all over New England, Virginia, North Carolina and Colorado. They have been endorsed essentially by the Wall Street Journal. Let me encourage you all to adopt a good ordinance and make that equestrian symbol something other than a hollow symbol. Conservation design is your best tool to do that. Matt Vinson, 105 Whipperwill Court, Eatonton, Georgia 31024 I have been involved in trying to differentiate waste water systems as opposed to septic systems. I am opposed to the CSO. I have taken some notes tonight and I am here to rebut non-facts and to give facts where I can. I was a health inspector. I have written septic permits. I have inspected septic installations. I am a licensed septic contractor. I have worked for the largest waste water product manufacturer in the country. I am a class 3 waste water operator. I operate the waste water system at Serenbe. If anyone would like to visit Serenbe and see how it looks , smells, and runs you are welcome to do so. It doesn 't stink , pollute or add nitrogen to the ground. We had a comment tonight about nitrates being added to the ground. Septic systems add nitrates to the ground. There is nothing in a septic system that treats nitrogen. It puts it out there and dilution is the solution to pollution when it comes to nitrogen with a septic system , community waste water systems actually de-nitrify. They have ground water nitrogen wells to make sure they de-nitrify. You have to test the ground water under your drain field to make sure you are not adding nitrates to the ground water supply. I also represent septic systems. I recently stepped down as the president of the Georgia on-site waste water association. That is a septic tank business so I am unbiased in the information I give you on septic versus community waste water. Perk rate has been mentioned five times tonight. None of you guys have the ability to change the perk requirements , EPD and the Georgia Department of Public Health sets those and you do not have the ability to change that. Nothing is going to change about permitting of individual septic versus community septic. There are 94 ,000 septic repair permits issued from 2002-2014; that is 94,000 failed systems that the Department of Public Health knew about and permitted. They fail as well. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 20 15 at 6:00 pm Page 18 of25 Mayor Lockwood No matter which position you have taken, I think there is some miscommunication. I fully believe that the intent of the CSO was not to increase density. There could be a possibility of it doing that but that is not the intention that this is developer driven , etc. I just wanted to clarify that. Ken, we could adopt this ordinance, deny this ordinance, if there is support on the council that wanted to try to change this ordinance, but I know there is a fine line there so could you please explain that. City Attorney Jarrard The council has placed on the agenda as published by way of your website and other ways that the city publishes information and so the public is here commenting on what they have seen online and based upon the information the council has provided. As we get into this, if there are modifications to it that begin to substantially change it more than just perhaps a few modest revisions then adequate notice requires that we have another public hearing, I will let you know. That depends upon where the debate goes. I think it would be appropriate to start with what was published and then the council can make a motion to deny, approve, or change it but at some point , if that occurs, I may recommend that we have an additional public hearing and allow the public to have one more opportunity to comment. Mayor Lockwood Can you give examples of where we might be going too far in changing it? Councilmember Longoria I can give an example. In the language that opens up the ordinance, there is the discussion about having it as the preferred method and it basically states that if you are developing a subdivision, you have to follow the CSO guidelines , if you don't want to do that, you have to ask for a permit to do the other. I think that is a problematic component of this. It is probably one of the few structured elements that has problems. I know one of the things that people have talked about is the reversal of that. You have to get a permit if you are going to develop as a CSO as opposed to not needing a permit to do that. I think that would be one of the changes that we talked about. Would that be too far out of line? City Attorney Jarrard No, and the reason that I am not going to have a concern with that is that I believe you are making a regulation less rigorous. You are making it absolutely optional at that point. If you take away the permit, then you have truly made it optional. I will step in when you start to change it making it more restrictive on property owners. Mayor Lockwood Is there enough desire by the council to look further into this ordinance and discuss it or if there is not we might just open it up for a motion? Councilmember Thurman As I have stated in discussions with several of you and in emails, I do not support the ordinance as it is currently written. I believe that it ought to be a use permit that is required rather than an ordinance that gives a person the right to it. I think it should be a use permit with additional restrictions including making sure that it is density neutral, making sure that the community septic is properly addressed, making sure that the land that we want preserved is preserved. All of that would be a use permit which I believe if we go to a use permit rather than an ordinance as it currently is, it would probably be something that would need to go back to staff and also come back for another hearing. Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6 :00pm Page 19 of 2 5 City Attorney Jarrard Yes , that would be a fundamental different sort of structure or change. That is not simply making this optional. That is reconfiguring the totality of the code . Councilmember Longoria First of all , I agree with Councilmember Thurman 's comments. I would start by saying that regardless of some of the comments that have been made tonight. The underlying principle of what we were trying to do with the CSO is a good thing. The idea of conserving Milton land in a meaningful way is certainly a good thing. The idea of doing this in a manner that maintains the current density standards that we have is a good thing. Supporting the ·Comprehensive Land Use Plan that is about to undergo its first five year update is also a good thing. Finding ways to do all of that without negatively impacting the property or home values is a good thing . The way this ordinance proposal is written today provides the Planning Commission review and Council approval for all of it. The four step process that we have in place is integral to this . The structure of the proposal itself is sound. We just messed up on some of the details. Some of those details include the size of the development , the minimum lot size , the optional nature of the proposal as opposed to being a requirement or getting a special use permit as Councilmember Thurman suggested , and communicating the fact that the proposal is intended to be a density neutral plan. Also , we can fix a lot of the variables in the subdivision proposal but that might not be enough. Our biggest challenge is that we have a lot of questions from well-meaning citizens. I think that both sides made good points tonight. Even though we have been talking about this for quite a while now, we have some flaws in the way this all came together. I think that a lot of folks would agree that we ran into quite a few bumps in the road in trying to pull all these things together. That is the thing we cannot fix. We cannot distance ourselves or fix some of the problems that we have. So , I am going to move that we deny the CSO proposal as written . Councilmember Kunz I am the northern most elected official in Milton and I walk up and down Mountain Road every Sunday. I see what is going on with the changes that are up there. When I ran for city council four years ago , I made a promise to protect our rural heritage and I specifically mentioned the equestrian community; preserving horse pastures. When I talk with people in and outside the city , everyone states how beautiful the community is and it is because of the horse pastures. It is not because of the subdivisions. So , I want to do everything within my efforts to preserve the large tracts of land. As an elected official , I feel that it is my responsibility to do everything I said I would do . Fighting for what is best for our community fits in that parameter. Current AG-1 zoning does not preserve our equestrian pastures. If someone can name an AG-1 community that has been built within the past five years that has preserved an equestrian pasture , I would be welcome to listen to them. But, you cannot do that because none exists and that is the reality that we are facing . It is an economics challenge that is happening to us. The reason our rural heritage is at risk is because of our current zoning laws and they need to change. Fortunately , people within our community are waking up to the reality that AG-1 is not getting the job done. Current AG-1 zoning is guaranteed to remove equestrian pastures. We were trying with the CSO to give the equestrian pastures the chance to remain. There is an economic option that gives our rural heritage that chance and that is the conservation design within the CSO . It is an option that other communities and states have found to be successful which increases property values and preserves a balance between people and nature by controlling density . It drives me crazy when people say that we are not smart enough to get it done but other people have done it elsewhere. That is the problem I see; we don 't have faith in ourselves. I worry about that because the reality of economics is that our equestrian pastures are disappearing. It is happening to us and I know that specifically because my Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7 , 20 15 at 6 :00 pm Page 20 of25 neighbors and I look at an equestrian farm next to our houses. We have looked at it for ten years. It is gone. It is a cul-de-sac today. The current zoning created that. We need to decide what rural means to us. Is it equestrian pastures or not? Does it mean subdivisions as we drive down the road? We , as a community, have to decide what rural is. I agree with Councilmember Longoria and Councilmember Thurman. There are details in this ordinance that need to be hashed out. Density is the primary issue that everyone has talked about and there needs to be clarity about exactly what that density will be. As a community, we need to figure that out. We need to direct development rather than let development direct us. But, that is going to take all of us working together. There are blogs out there stating what a bad person I am . I never thought I was until I read one of those blogs. Give it to the priest. I believe in all of you. This has been a long process and we are all tired. I commend all of you and I appreciate all of you being here; the proponents and the opponents. Everyone has the right to their opinion. I do know that the council is trying to find solutions ; something that brings us together and answers what will happen with AG-1. Everyone is special and each of you is Milton's best asset. I hope we can come up with a solution that looks at the reality of the changes that are occurring in the city. It is 3,000 acres which is 12% ofthe 25 ,000 acres that we have. We have to decide what price we are willing to pay if we want to preserve the equestrian landscape. I want to hear from the people who oppose the CSO a solution. It is great to say you are against something but tell me what you are for. I am fighting for equestrian landscapes. You may love me or hate me for it but I made a promise. I know this council will figure out a solution. Councilmember Lusk I reflect the same passion that Matt has and the passion that everyone who is in favor or against the CSO. During the past week , I have been going back through our Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in 2011. That was the result of three years of work . Several members of that CP AC are here tonight , Marty Locke , Kim Home , Paul Moore , Fred Edwards , Curtis Mills and several others. At that time , most of the city council was here. This is the guiding document that directs us in practically everything we do in the city. I had planned to read excerpts from this but it is a lengthy document; about 80 pages long. But, in at least a dozen places in the document , it mentions the adoption of conservation subdivisions. This document was overwhelmingly approved by the Planning Commission, CP AC , and City Council at the time. The basic concepts of that CSO have not changed . What we have seen in the past six , seven, or eight months since we have been discussing this issue , is the details. Like they say , the devil is in the details. I think there are some major issues involved with the ordinance the way it is written. I keep hearing that as a common thread tonight. I'm not sure if we were given the proper information and education that those who are totally opposed to it wouldn 't come around and see the virtues of it. But, I still hear that same common thread that we oppose it as it is written. So , given that commentary and the issues brought up by Councilmember Longoria and Councilmember Thurman , I think there is a lot more work that needs to be done on it. I think the educational process needs to be increased. I think there is a lot of misinformation , a lot of untruths that surround the entire discussion, and as educated and intelligent people , we can find some common ground and consensus on this. I believe that a conservation subdivision is good for the city. There is only a limited amount of open space left in the city. Once it is gone ; it is gone. There is no turning back. We only have one opportunity to get it right the first time. I propose that we dig into this issue further. There have been some legal issues brought up by Mr. Ellis. I am concerned about the use permit issue brought up by Councilmember Thurman . I'm not sure we could wade through those issues tonight and come up with something that is viable and acceptable. Re g ular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7 , 20 I 5 at 6:00 pm Pag e 2 1 of25 Councilmember Mohrig I think one of the challenges we have had is that we had a version that was designed back in July and August. Almost everyone here has said , they do not want to pass it as written. Nobody on council is saying that we want to ruin Milton. We live here. There is concern with the clear cutting and development that we have seen recently . With AG-1 , the council is not notified if a subdivision is being built. One of the good things about the CSO is that it has a four step process that would include more community input including the neighbors that abut the property that will be developed. All of us have spent a lot of time reviewing the CSO and it will be very hard to modify what we have in front of us tonight to move it forward. I support denying the CSO as Councilmember Longoria has made a motion. I have been very disappointed in some of the actions and words that citizens have had during this process. It is not necessary to tear each other down just because you have different views. Whether you are for the CSO or against it , I would hope that as we look forward as a community and try to decide what is good for Milton , you will not personally attack each other. I have heard repeatedly that the Planning Commission voted against the CSO three times so why can 't the council figure that out. Well, we are appointed so we can actually vote on this item. This is the first time we have been able to vote on the issue. When I talked to members on the Planning Commission, I asked them if they rejected the CSO because you think there is no merit to what it is trying to do or did you reject it in its current form as written. I was told by several Planning Commission members is that they rejected it based upon what they were given and had to work with. The y thought it had merit but had some flaws that needed to be worked through. We are all trying to figure out the best direction and what is best for Milton. Councilmember Thurman I think it is important to remember that the reason the CSO was brought up in the first place was because of the desire of the community to preserve property; to preserve the rural view shed , pastures , and some of the forests that we have. A conservation subdivision is one way to preserve some of that and I believe strongly in the concept of conservation subdi visions. They have worked well in some places. This was not introduced because a special interest group wanted to get more density . This came before us because several people in the community questioned why all the subdivisions were being built in Milton and wanted to know if there was a way we could preserve the rural view shed. It is really disappointing that there has been so much misinformation circulated. There is no way we could make all the changes that we need to make to the CSO that has been presented to us tonight. In order for a CSO to work we would have to have a minimum of 40 acres rather than 20 acres is because no one would even know that a conservation subdi v ision existed until you drove all the way down into the subdi vision. From the road and all adjacent property owners , a conservation subdivision should appear that it is undeveloped land and in order to do that you would need a larger parcel than 20 acres. Also , setbacks should be significant. If someone choses to live on a ten acre parcel , they should not have neighbors directly adjacent to them. They should see a pasture or woods. A conservation subdivision should be density neutral. I agree that we need to take a step back and as we start off with a new Comprehensive Land Use Plan, maybe that group can look at it again and figure out what we can do to reall y preserve the things that make Milton unique . Please come up with suggestions that we can actuall y use to preserve the land we have left in Milton. It is a lot easier to complain about things . Councilmember Hewitt The number one issue I have is density. It is more of an overall density. I do not want to see a single additional house after a CSO that can be allowed today. We did a survey this spring and close to 70% of our residents said that traffic was starting to impact their lifestyle . We can say we are a rural community all we want , but when you go to every four-wa y stop in the morning and there are 50 cars lined up , that Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7 , 2015 at 6:00 pm Page 22 of25 is not very rural to me. I would like to see it based off of perk tests that are required for traditional AG-1 subdivisions. Also , as Karen stated , 20 acres is too small in my opinion; 40 or 50 , these are arbitrary numbers but there are some smaller tracts of land in Milton that are probably suited for a conservation subdivision if it is done correctly. I like the idea of a use permit. I support making changes to the CSO that is currently presented. We just got off track with this CSO and we need to back up and punt and make some necessary changes. Mayor Lockwood A common thread is that the Planning Commission denied it ; it doesn 't look like anybody on the council supports it as it is currently written , and the community was against it. I remember in grade school we had an activity where we all lined up and the teacher told the first person in line how to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and by the time it got to the last person, not only was it not a peanut butter sandwich it wasn 't even a sandwich. Regarding the CSO , we hired a consultant, our staff put together a lot of things , etc. but you have seven different people on the council. When everyone gave their input on what was important to them , and I can guarantee if every citizen in Milton put together a CSO and we tried to put them all together to make everyone happy , it would be a matrix full of all sorts of different things. The good thing is that everyone in this room has the same goal and wants the same things for Milton; less density , preserve the land , etc. I noticed that there was a lot of effort that went into creating the CSO but sometimes you can 't miss the forest for a couple of trees. Six months ago, I put together a list of things that the council and I have worked on to help preserve the land in Milton and the CSO was just one of those things . In reality , the only way to truly preserve land is to take it off the market. Whether that means that the city takes out a bond to buy land that the taxpayers pay for or whether people use the TDR program , conservation easements , incentives that might help someone keep their land, etc. The public also has to help too . I will use myself as an example. When I moved to Milton , I bought a bigger piece of property and a smaller house; we downsized our house size when we moved to Milton. Sometimes you have to make a sacrifice. I am not saying that everyone here can or wants to but people need to realize that when there is a ten acre parcel of land for sale , talk it up and get you and your neighbors together to buy it. Nobody will say , "Take the bridge away; we don 't want anybody else to move here." But, the reality is that most people are thinking that. No one wants any more development. We can 't do that but we can all work together to try to slow development down. I think we are all on the same page we just all need to work together to get to the same end result that we all want. I just want to thank everyone for their effort and time. Councilmember Lusk We have all talked about denying this CSO as it was presented and re-opening the issue at a later date. I would like to come up with a schedule of when that will happen. This past summer, we talked about having a combined discussion about conservation, rural design , and the text amendments for the different zoning areas. Our goal was to have a complete package together by the end of the year. The City Attorney promoted that process. The wheels kind of fell off that due to the fact that there was too much to consider at the time. The Planning Commission now has the Rural Design element on their desk . I think this whole thing needs to be brought together in one package. I'm not sure we can discuss them individually and make them all compatible with one another in the final analysis. The Planning Commission set a schedule of having reviewed the text amendments by their February 2016 meeting. I'm not sure if we can accelerate this whole process again. I have my doubts that we can bring in conservation, the rural design, and other modifications to the AG-1 and Chapter 64 within the next two months. It may be unreasonable. We 've spent an inordinate amount of time on this whole issue but I would hate to see it drag out for another year. One of the members of the Planning Commission, Dr. Carpenter, had suggested in one of his summaries that we have a select committee of interested Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7 , 2015 at 6:00pm Page 23 of25 individuals to go through the conservation and rural design issue and independently come up with solutions or a resolution to this whole plan. I would like to see that committee formed with knowledgeable people ; people who have the experience in the different fields ; for example , Mr. Adams who has experience in his field , etc. There are several people in our community who have the property experience to deal with the issues that are involved in this whole package. I would like to see some type of a deadline as part of this motion and let's get on with the work of the city. Councilmember Longoria Bill , I thought about adding a timeframe to my motion, but at this time, I do not think that would be a good idea. We need to deny this proposal and then start the work that needs to be done next. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to Deny Agenda Item No . 15-183. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion . The motion passed unanimousl y (7-0). 2. Consideration ofthe Final Service Deliv ery Strategy Agreement between the City of Milton, Fulton County, and All Other Municipalities in Fulton County. (Agenda Item No. 15-272) (Deferr ed at Octob er 19, Nove mber 2, & Nove mb er 19, 20 15 Regular City Co un cil Mee tin gs) (Ken J arrard, C ity Allorn ey) Chris Lagerbloom, City Manager This agreement is not ready to be delivered to you tonight. It will be 2016 before we will obtain this agreement from Fulton County. We have been waiting on it since 2010 . We will be renegotiating this document in 2020 . We will be very good at it by the time we actually get it to you. My suggestion is that we table this item tonight and we will bring it forward to you once we get it. Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz mo ved to Table Agenda Item No. 15-272. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). The following Agenda Item No. 15-308 was moved by Motion and Vote to after Reports and Presentations. 3. Consideration of a Resolution Appointing Members to the City of Milton Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee by Appointing Members from District 1/Post1 , District 1/Post 2, District 2/Post 1, District 3/Post 1 and District 3/Post 2. RESOLUTION NO. 15-12-355 (Agenda Item No. 15-308) (Mayo rJoe Lockwood) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Richie Johnson for District 1/Post 1. Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7- 0). Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7 , 2 015 at 6:00pm Page 24 of25 Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to approve Terrance McCrossan for District 1/Post 2. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Motion and Vote: Councilmember Hewitt moved to approve Sumeet Shah for District 3/Post 2. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7- 0). Motion and Vote: Councilmember Kunz moved to appro ve Bill O'Connor for District 2/Post 1. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). 4. Consideration to Appoint the City of Milton Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee Chairperson (pursuant to Resolution No. 15-11-353 , Section 5). (Agenda Item No. 15-309) (Mayo r J oe Lockwood) Motion and Vote: Mayor Joe Lockwood nominated Peyton Jamison as the Chairperson for the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee. Councilmember Thurman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). NEW BUSINESS (No ne) MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS The following Staff Reports will be presented at the Work Session on December 14,2015. STAFF REPORTS Department Updates 1. Police 2. Public Works 3. Parks and Recreation 4. Community Development 5. Economic Development EXECUTIVE SESSION Motion and Vote: Councilmember Longoria moved to go into Executive Session to discuss personnel at 8:45p.m . Councilmember Mohrig seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Regular Meeting of the Milton City Council Monday, December 7, 2015 at 6:00pm Page 25 of25 RECONVENE Motion and Vote: Councilmember Lusk moved to reconvene the Regular Meeting at 8:58 p.m. Councilmember Kunz seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). ADJOURNMENT (Agenda Item No. 15-310) Motion and Vote: Councilmember Mohrig moved to adjourn the Regular Meeting at 8:59 p.m. Councilmember Hewitt seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). Date Approved: January 4, 2016 I Sudie AM Gordon, City Clerk Joe Lockwood, May STATE OF GEORGIA COUNTY OF FULTON ) ) ) ) ) AFFIDAVIT RE: CLOSURE OF OPEN MEETINGS CITY OF MIL TON Personally appeared before the undersigned officer, duly authorized under the laws of the State of Georgia to administer oaths , JOE LOCKWOOD, who in his capacity as Mayor and the person presiding over a Council meeting of the CITY OF MIL TON, and after bein g first duly sworn , certifies under oath and states to the best of his knowledge and belief the following : At a Regularly Scheduled Work Session City Council Meeting held on December 7, 2015, at 6:00PM the Council voted to go into closed session and exclude the public from all or a portion of its meeting. The legal exceptions applicable to the exempt matters addressed during such closed m · ting are as follows : [Check or initial as appropriate] 1. __ discussion or voting to authorize negotiations to purchase, dispose of, or lease property; authorizing the ordering of an appraisal related to the acquisition or disposal of real estate; entering into contract to purchase , to dispose of, or lease property subject to approval in a subsequent public vote; or entering into an option to purchase , dispose of, or lease real estate subject to approval in a subsequent public vote pursuant to O .C.G.A, 50-14-3(b)(1)(B-E); 2 . X discussing or deliberating upon the appointment, employment, compensation, hiring , disciplinary action or dismissal , or periodic evaluation or rating of a public officer or employee or interviewing applicants for the executive head of the city with the vote on any such matter coming in public pursuant to O .C .G .A. 50-14-3(b)(2); 3. attorney/client privilege in order to consult and meet with legal counsel pertaining to pending or potential litigation, settlement, claims , administrative proceedings or other judicial actions brought or to be brought by or against the agency or any officer or employee or in which the agency or any officer or employee may be directl y involved, pursuant to O.C.G.A. 50-14-2(1). 4. other (explanation): I certify that the subject matter of the closed meeting or the closed portion of the meeting was devoted to matters of official business or policy, with the exceptions provided by law as set forth above. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before ~\\11111 111 this 7th day of December, 2015 . ,,,,, ~ GOfYo''""" '~········ 0" ~ r-.··~~ISS f O.v··... :-f_-:, ~ -J ··o~ ~+. •• v , ~..,...,•c; T ~·.-:. ~ ., ::... ~o AI/;.. ~~ 4...: -0:~ ~ (1):---::o: .._..... :(.!): - \ :cr:· "' •v Cb•Q"" Notary Pubhc ' ··"'-s-. () .... •• h~ ... · I '7 So_ •.~ ... FlY ?.6 :;...-r:Y $ My Commission Expires: . v ~,,,,cou·N~'{\~''' ''''"'"'''' MAYOR ~OD