The Milton City Council on Aug. 12 approved on first reading an ordinance to rezone two parcels totaling about 25.5 acres behind 6593 Caroline Street from R-2 (one- and two-family residential) to a recreation zoning district and separately approved a corresponding future land use map amendment, each on 5-3 votes. The council also heard public comments raising access, traffic and wastewater-capacity concerns.

City planning staff opened the public hearing, noting the Milton Planning Board recommended the rezoning by a 4–1 vote and that the recommended development agreement would allow the property to revert to its original zoning if development is not constructed within five years of the rezoning date. The council took the matter up as two ordinances; both passed first reading and will return for second reading at the council’s September meeting.

Why it matters: The rezoning would allow a recreational use on a site currently limited to single- and two-family dwellings under R-2. Neighbors and other residents said a recreational use proposed by the applicant—an RV park—would increase turning maneuvers and queuing on Highway 90 and Caroline Street and could stress local wastewater infrastructure until upgrades are completed.

Public speakers pressed the council on circulation and timing. Paul Ward, identifying himself as a camper and visitor to the area, said the proposed site's access from Caroline Street would be difficult for RVs arriving from U.S. 90, particularly for drivers unfamiliar with local turns and bridge traffic, and said he would not bring one-night stays to that location. Theresa Messick said she opposed placing an RV park along Highway 90 and said the site would not fit the type of growth she wants on the city’s main corridor. Property owner Joey (property owner/applicant) told the council he was open to alternatives but said the site is currently zoned to allow duplexes and that he chose the RV concept because of nearby amenities; he also acknowledged the need for engineering work on ingress and egress and said he would be willing to alter his plan if engineering constraints made the RV park infeasible.

City Manager Ed Spears and staff clarified process and next steps. Spears told the council the approvals taken were first readings of ordinances; if approved tonight, second readings and a development agreement would return to the council at the September meeting. He also said the council could dictate terms and conditions in any development agreement, and noted there remain environmental, life-safety, ingress/egress and other engineering hurdles before any final development approval.

Council debate and vote: Councilman Powell moved to approve the rezoning ordinance on first reading; Councilman Powers seconded. The first-reading votes on both the rezoning ordinance and the future land use amendment passed 5–3. Council members voting against the measures raised concerns about traffic, the adequacy of engineering review and whether rezoning was premature without a fully developed plan. Council members voting in favor emphasized property-owner rights and the opportunity to require conditions through a development agreement.

What was approved and what happens next: Both measures approved on first reading will return for a second reading at the council’s September meeting. If the council approves final ordinances, staff said a development agreement will be required; the planning-board recommendation included a five-year reversion clause so the land would revert to R-2 if development is not constructed within five years.

Community context and outstanding issues: Several residents warned that, during peak weekend hours, RVs and trucks attempting left turns onto the site from Highway 90 could create long queues and potentially require a formal traffic improvement (turn lane or signal)—a change that would likely require DOT or county review and would raise questions about who would pay for improvements. Speakers also urged the council not to assume that construction could be completed within the 12–24 month timelines some proponents suggested; one resident cited a nearby RV project that had cleared but not developed for several summers.

Ending: The council’s first-reading approvals set in motion a second-reading review in September and a required development-agreement negotiation process. Council and staff repeatedly emphasized that engineering, environmental and life-safety reviews remain to be completed and that the rezoning on first reading is only one of several steps before any building permits could be issued.