Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Trails Blueprint Map topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milton council pulls proposed Trails Blueprint update after residents cite lack of notice, tree and safety concerns
Summary
Council withdrew two items tied to the Milton Trails blueprint map after residents said property owners were not adequately notified, raised concerns about sidewalks/trails on rural Hickory Flat Road and warned of mature‑tree impacts; staff will return after expanded outreach.
Milton City Council voted on Nov. 17 to withdraw two items related to an updated Milton Trails blueprint map and to direct staff and the Milton Trails advisory committee (Emtek) to conduct additional outreach.
Deputy Community Development Director Rob Del Ross presented the proposed UDC amendment and map update, describing the blueprint’s dual function as guidance to developers and an aspirational plan for future trail connections. Staff said the February 2025 online outreach drew about 140 responses and that map segments advanced to project design would require separate public engagement, concept development and budget alignment.
Several residents who would be directly affected urged delay. "I probably talked to all the people I know in Milton, and nobody knew anything about any of this," said Jim Garrett (790 Hickory Flat Road), who asked whether the project was for horses, pedestrians or bicycles and raised concerns about safety given heavy traffic and fire station activity on Hickory Flat Road. Mary Cronk (600 Hickory Mill Lane) said property owners near proposed segments had not been notified and requested well‑publicized public meetings and targeted notification for impacted parcels. Julie Zauner Bailey (255 Hickory Flat Road) objected to concrete sidewalks or multiuse trails on Hickory Flat Road, calling the roadway rural and citing emergency‑vehicle safety.
Council members debated outreach methods (social media/newsletter vs. targeted mailings), the distinction between a citywide 'wish list' and project‑level approvals, and whether Emtek’s survey reached the appropriate audience. Staff and communications personnel said outreach had used the city newsletter, website and social media; council members argued for more targeted contact with property owners likely to be impacted.
After extended discussion, Council Member Cookerly moved to withdraw both items (identified in the meeting as agenda items 25‑293 and 25‑305). Council Member Vierhoff seconded; the motion passed unanimously. Staff said they will return with a revised process that includes additional public engagement and clarity about material types (staff noted Emtek prefers limiting concrete to form‑based code areas and favoring gravel/asphalt elsewhere).
