Milton planning commission continues hearing on 20-townhome proposal at Highway 9 and 5 Acre Road

The Milton Planning Commission on April 23 continued, to May 28, a preliminary-plat public hearing for a 20-unit townhome development proposed on 3.87 acres at 2655 5 Acre Road (parcel ID 22523007590131), citing requests for more information after extensive resident comment.

Robin (Community Development staff) told commissioners the developer, EPIC Design and Build LLC, proposes 20 townhomes that the department has found to meet the Deerfield form‑based code standards for the site and the Highway 9 vision plan. Robin said the parcel is in the T4 zone, that townhomes (referred to in the code as row houses) are an allowed residential form for the four lots identified in the 5 Acre Road zone, and that the plan proposes required buffers, underground detention, and a 20‑foot landscape strip along 5 Acre Road and Highway 9.

Why it matters: the parcel adjoins the long-established 5 Acre Estates neighborhood and faces Crooked Creek and Lake Laurel subdivisions. Neighbors argued the density, access and traffic, and potential stormwater effects conflict with the character and safety of surrounding single‑family properties; staff and the applicant said the plat complies with current code and that additional technical details will be provided as part of subsequent permit reviews.

Most important details

- Site and proposal: 2655 5 Acre Road / Hwy 9, 3.87 acres; 20 townhome units proposed by EPIC Design and Build LLC; applicant representation: David Saunders, Key Engineering Solutions, 2847 N. Bogan Road, Buford.

- Density/math: The Deerfield form‑based code caps buildings at 10,000 square feet of heated area per acre. Robin explained the cap equals 38,700 sq ft for 3.87 acres; the applicant’s submission showed five units at 2,044 sq ft (total 10,220) and 15 units just under 1,900 sq ft (total 28,395), which the staff presentation characterized as “just under” the 38,700 limit. Robin also said transfer development rights (TDRs) are not allowed in this area.

- Buffers and design review: The plan shows a 50‑foot undisturbed buffer along two property lines, a 10‑foot improvement setback, and a required 20‑foot landscape strip along 5 Acre Road and along Highway 9. Robin said underground detention and a fire turnaround approved by the Fire Marshal are shown on the plat; final building designs and landscape plans will be reviewed by the city architect and the Design Review Board before building permits are issued.

- Access and traffic: Robin and the city transportation engineer, Robert Del Ross, said Georgia DOT will allow only right‑in/right‑out access at the proposed Highway 9 location. Del Ross read a GDOT response that confirmed state approval of right‑in/right‑out only at the proposed access point.

- Stormwater and trees: Robin said a preliminary hydrology (hydro) was submitted and reviewed by the city stormwater engineer (referenced in the hearing as Jerry) and that the reviewer was satisfied with the preliminary submission; final stormwater design will be reviewed with the land‑disturbance permit. The site is subject to the city canopy/ tree ordinance; T4 areas require 30% canopy coverage of pre‑existing canopy.

Public comment and applicant rebuttal

David Saunders, representing the applicant, said the proposal “meets the requirements from the State Road 9 vision plan” and that the team had engaged with some neighbors; he said the applicant is open to further discussion and will provide additional details at the next hearing.

Dozens of nearby residents opposed the plat during the scheduled public‑comment period. Kyle Ofrey (resident) said the proposal’s price point and scale “is not, in line with our neighborhood,” and said residents would submit a detailed, lawyer‑prepared review. Billy Carmen (resident at 345 5 Acre Road) raised a technical concern about setback math and argued the plat’s dimensional figures do not fit the recorded lot depths: “If you take the plat from the original subdivision…That leaves you 255 feet of buildable area. They say they need 287 feet.” Several speakers, including Glenn Martin (resident) and Laura Bentley (resident), said they are not opposed to development in principle but asked for a lower‑density alternative that would better match the established single‑family character of 5 Acre Estates and adjoining neighborhoods.

Opponents also cited traffic and safety concerns. Kevin Muldowney (resident, Crooked Creek) and Evan Smith (resident) warned that additional cars and pedestrian activity at the Highway 9/5 Acre Road gateway could create hazards given existing roadway conditions and the planned GDOT improvements. Multiple residents asked why sidewalks, additional parking or lower unit counts were not included.

Applicant rebuttal: Saunders said the plan relies on landscaped screening and buffers to reduce impacts, and that the developer intends to build higher‑quality townhomes (he indicated a target price materially higher than typical townhome construction) and will present architectural details at design review.

Commission discussion and next steps

Commissioners asked staff and the applicant for more documentation on: ownership of both parcels (staff said the developer currently owns the parcels), the exact square‑foot math behind the density calculations, stormwater discharge and detention design, sidewalk/ pedestrian facility timing, parking layout (the site plan shows two parking spaces per unit plus a few guest spaces and one accessible space near the mailbox kiosk), and how future Highway 9 right‑of‑way and redesign could affect the site. Robin confirmed the preliminary hydro and site‑distance work had been submitted and reviewed but that more detailed civil plans will be required for the land‑disturbance permit.

Formal action and votes

- The commission voted to continue/hold a second public hearing on the preliminary plat at the Planning Commission meeting of May 28, 2025, and to advertise that hearing; the motion passed (voice vote: unanimous). The commission also established, by motion, a 30‑minute time cap for supporters and 30 minutes for opponents with a three‑minute limit per speaker for the hearing (motion seconded and approved).

Clarifying details extracted from the hearing

- Parcel ID: 22523007590131; address referenced as 2655 5 Acre Road/Highway 9. - Site area: 3.87 acres. - Proposed units: 20 townhomes (5 units at 2,044 sq ft; 15 units just under 1,900 sq ft; applicant total ~38,615–38,700 sq ft as presented). - Zoning/code: T4; Deerfield Form Based Code (2015) and a December 2016 text amendment allowing residential on the four 5 Acre Road parcels; transfer development rights (TDRs) not permitted in this area. - Buffers/setbacks: 50‑foot undisturbed buffer, 10‑foot improvement setback, 20‑foot landscape strip along both roads shown on plat. - Stormwater: underground detention ponds shown; preliminary hydro reviewed and described as satisfactory by city stormwater reviewer (name referenced as Jerry). - Access: GDOT indicated right‑in/right‑out only at the proposed Highway 9 access. - Parking: two spaces per unit (required), plus 3–4 additional guest spaces (one accessible near the mail kiosk); fire turnaround area not available for parking. - Sidewalks: not required by code for this frontage; future Highway 9 improvements may add pedestrian facilities. - Impervious coverage: survey indicates allowable impervious area shown as 70% on plan. - Ownership: staff stated the developer currently owns both parcels.

Discussion vs. decision (explicit separation)

- Discussion points: neighbors raised density and compatibility, traffic safety, sight lines, stormwater/runoff to lower properties, buffer planting and screening, sewer connection questions, and the fidelity of the math behind setbacks and buildable depth. - Directions (assignments): Staff to re‑check setback and density math and to provide outstanding record documents referenced in the Highway 9 vision and prior amendments; applicant to supply more complete LDP/civil drawings, architectural renderings, and detailed hydrology for the next hearing. - Formal decision: Continuation of the public hearing to May 28, 2025 (no final approval or denial at this meeting).

Ending

The Planning Commission left the record open for a second hearing on May 28, 2025, and invited neighbors and the applicant to exchange additional documentation in advance of that meeting. The commission emphasized that final technical approvals (stormwater, fire access, Design Review Board sign‑off) will be resolved during subsequent permit reviews if the plat moves forward.