Milton commission asks staff to review drainage, tree‑canopy and screening before Little River Farms Phase 2 moves forward

The Milton Planning Commission on Oct. 22 recommended that the City of Milton community development director review drainage, tree‑canopy feasibility and other site constraints before advancing a preliminary plat for Little River Farms Phase 2, a proposed 10‑lot subdivision on 16.6 acres at the end of Blackberry Ridge Trail.

The recommendation followed a staff presentation, a detailed presentation by the applicant’s engineer and about a dozen public commenters who live adjacent to the site. The commission’s formal motion asked staff to vet hydrology and stormwater plans, confirm whether the proposed layout can meet the city’s 57% tree‑canopy requirement for AG‑1 zoning, explore additional evergreen screening along the north property line and consider the potential effect of pending code updates in the city’s review.

Robin McDonald, the city’s zoning manager, told commissioners the parcel is zoned AG‑1, lies within the rural Milton overlay and includes stream buffers and a floodplain along the Little River. McDonald said the preliminary plat shows 10 single‑family lots ranging from about 1.2 to 2.3 acres, a separate lot for a stormwater facility and that the preliminary plans “meet the regulations of the Unified Development Code” as submitted. She also noted a level‑3 soil survey had been preliminarily reviewed by the Fulton County Board of Health.

Scott Reese, the project engineer representing Chatham Neighborhoods (doing business as Chatham Neighborhoods LLC), described the plan as a by‑right AG‑1 subdivision and said the submitted plat shows “the maximum build‑out” for each lot so the commission could see worst‑case impacts. Reese explained the large reserve septic areas are a standard requirement and said the reserve system is shown at 150% of the initial system “and will probably never be installed” but must be depicted for health‑department design criteria.

Reese also said the applicant was willing to propose moving house footprints closer to the street and increasing the rear setback — a design the applicant argued would preserve more trees at the rear. He said that change could rely on a pending text amendment to “flip‑flop” front and rear building lines now under review by the city, or on a variance the developer could seek if the amendment is not in effect.

Neighbors said they were told during earlier application processes that only a smaller, 5‑lot scenario was being considered and said the 10‑lot plat represented a substantial change from what they had expected. Tom Gauger, who lives on Taylor Valley Way in Taylor Glen immediately north of the site, said residents “felt duped” by the larger plan and asked the commission to delay action so staff could conduct a site visit with neighbors.

Multiple speakers cited the same concerns: loss of tree screening that currently buffers homes from noise at the adjacent Little River Farms event facility, the location of primary and reserve septic fields near property lines and steep, wooded topography that they said would require extensive grading. Lisa Bumiller said the preliminary layout would “require to move almost all the trees” on the rear lots and questioned the stability of a stormwater pond shown near the river. Several speakers also raised traffic and safety worries for vehicles exiting Batesville Road toward Birmingham Highway.

Attorney Rich Kaye, representing the Ivy trust and the property owner, said the owner had presented multiple conceptual scenarios to staff and that the plans provided to the public were intended to illustrate only one prospective development pattern. He said the trust had financial reasons to sell the land and that different buyers could pursue different development options.

Commissioners and staff asked technical questions about septic siting, the existing drainage way across the site and how future lot grading could change the placement of field lines and stormwater infrastructure. Staff noted that final tree‑canopy calculations, hydrology analysis and lot‑by‑lot septic designs are typically produced at the Land Disturbance Permit (LDP) stage, after preliminary plat review, and that the preliminary plat as submitted complied with current AG‑1 dimensional standards (60‑foot front setback, 50‑foot rear setback, 25‑foot sides) and other UDC requirements.

After public comment and discussion, Commissioner Byrd moved — with a second from Commissioner Nolte — that the commission recommend the community development director review hydrology/drainage feasibility, tree‑canopy requirement feasibility, potential evergreen screening along the north property line and the potential impact of pending code changes as part of the director’s review of the preliminary plat; the motion also asked staff to discuss the possibility of a developer‑requested variance to increase front setbacks with the applicant. The commission voted unanimously to approve the recommendation.

The commission’s recommendation does not change the fact that the submitted preliminary plat meets the city’s standards as presented; it directs additional staff review and signals to the applicant and neighbors the areas the commission wants clarified before later approvals or permits. The applicant may pursue a variance or rely on a pending text amendment that, if adopted, would alter how front and rear building lines are applied.