Mayor Payton Jamieson convened a Dec. 1 meeting of the Milton City Council where staff and residents debated a proposed amendment (RZ2508) to the city’s Unified Development Code that would allow qualified AG‑1 subdivisions to shift building placement to preserve rear-yard tree canopy and reduce the need for variances.

Interim Community Development Director Diana Wheeler told the council staff considered three approaches: keep the existing standard (60‑foot front, 50‑foot rear, 10‑foot pool setback), adopt Option A (50‑foot front, 60‑foot rear with a 15‑foot contiguous tree‑preservation area and 20‑foot pool setback) or permit a more aggressive Option B (40‑foot front, 70‑foot rear with a 30‑foot preservation zone and 35‑foot pool setback). Wheeler said the Planning Commission recommended a compromise: a 45‑foot front, 65‑foot rear, 25‑foot pool setback and a 20‑foot tree preservation area.

The issue drew several residents who said their property values and the wooded character of their neighborhoods are at stake. Tom Gallagher, a Taylor Glen homeowner, said his pie‑shaped lot backs up to Little River Estates and urged protections for the view and hydrology, noting the Planning Commission’s recommended “45 foot front setback, 65 foot rear setback, 25 foot pool, and then the tree preservation area would be 20 feet.” Scott Reese, a land‑use engineer, urged flexibility to “reduce the front down to 50 feet” and increase rear setbacks to save trees and aid stormwater management.

Other speakers warned against a citywide change. Mark Sanfitello said there was “no data. There’s no policy directive. There’s no broad community input indicating a need for a change in interior neighborhoods,” and argued isolated situations can be handled through existing variance processes.

Council members exchanged concerns about aesthetics, precedent and homeowner expectations. Several members said they favored tree preservation but were split on whether to adopt a citywide change or continue to process requests through variances or the planning commission. Councilors asked staff for more visual examples, comparisons to surrounding jurisdictions, and guidance on how phased subdivisions would be treated.

Wheeler confirmed the amendment would not change AG‑1 density limits and said qualified subdivisions would be lots under three acres without pass‑through access (internal neighborhoods). City staff also noted practical items discussed by residents and developers — septic placement, limits on home footprints, and hydrology studies — could be included in criteria.

No vote was taken; staff told council the item will return for consideration at the first meeting in January.