The Milton Planning Commission on Oct. 22, 2025, recommended that the City of Milton community development director review hydrology and drainage feasibility, the ability to meet tree‑canopy requirements, and the potential for additional evergreen screening along the north property line for the proposed Little River Farms Phase 2 preliminary plat; commissioners also asked staff to discuss with the developer the possibility of seeking a variance to move houses farther from the north property line.

The recommendation followed a staff presentation, an applicant presentation and nearly two hours of public comment from neighbors who said the 10‑lot plan would remove tree buffers, worsen noise from the adjacent event facility and risk erosion into the Little River. Commissioners voted unanimously to forward the items for staff review; the preliminary plat itself meets current requirements in the city’s Unified Development Code as submitted.

Why it matters: The 16.6‑acre parcel, proposed by Chatham Neighborhoods LLC as Little River Farms Phase 2, would add 10 single‑family lots directly behind homes in Taylor Glen and adjacent subdivisions. Neighbors said the change from earlier public materials — which showed a five‑lot scenario — amounts to a “bait and switch” and warned of noise, stormwater and visual impacts to existing backyards and the Little River corridor.

Robin McDonald, the city’s zoning manager, told commissioners the property is zoned AG‑1 within the rural Milton Overlay District, contains about 16.6 acres, and includes a floodplain and state/city stream buffers that together create a roughly 75‑foot non‑impervious setback along the Little River. McDonald said the preliminary plat shows 10 lots ranging roughly from 1.2 to 2.3 acres, a maximum lot coverage of 25%, a separate lot for a stormwater facility, and that the existing mail kiosk from Phase 1 would serve Phase 2. She said the preliminary plat, as drawn, meets the Unified Development Code (UDC) requirements for a preliminary plat.

Scott Reese of Bromelow Reese & Associates, representing Chatham Neighborhoods, described the plan as a by‑right subdivision under AG‑1 rules. Reese said the site package included a level‑3 soil survey that had been preliminarily reviewed by the Fulton County Board of Health and that the applicant showed “the maximum yield” for each lot when producing the plans. Reese also explained why the engineering submittal shows a reserve septic area sized at 150% of the initial field: “The reserve septic system is 150% of the size of the initial. ... That is a fail‑safe system,” he said, adding that reserve fields typically would not be cleared or used unless the primary system failed.

Reese said the applicant is proposing an alternative setback concept — moving homes closer to the street and increasing rear setbacks — to preserve more trees and rear privacy. He described a possible 40‑foot front building setback (measured as 50 feet from back of curb) paired with a 70‑foot rear setback and a larger pool setback (20–25 feet instead of the standard 10 feet). Reese said the city is considering a text amendment that would allow “flip‑flopping” the 60‑foot front / 50‑foot rear standard to 50‑foot front / 60‑foot rear in limited circumstances; that amendment is scheduled for the City of Milton’s community zoning information meeting (CZIM) and then, if advanced, to city council in January.

Rich Kaye, attorney for the Ivy Trust (the seller/owner), told the commission the trustees are selling because beneficiaries have present financial needs and said the trust provided two development scenarios to staff in earlier outreach — one showing five 3‑acre lots and another showing a 10‑lot layout — but that the materials carried a disclaimer that the buyer would determine final development. Kaye asked the commission and neighbors to consider that the trustees are seeking to maximize sale proceeds to support trust beneficiaries.

Public commenters — including Tom and Kim Gauger, Lisa and George Bumiller, Mark Sanfratello, Dan Skinner and others — urged the commission to delay or reduce the density. Tom Gauger said the materials presented during the original special‑use permitting process suggested a different outcome: “It feels like a bait and switch,” he told the commission. Neighbors asked the city to require a larger undisturbed tree buffer (some asked for 25 feet rather than 20), to require a maintenance bond for the stormwater facility, and to reduce the number of lots to five so the development would be consistent with earlier presentations and with adjacent lot sizes in Taylor Glen and nearby subdivisions.

Commission discussion focused on three technical risks neighbors identified: septic siting and whether primary and reserve fields would require tree clearing; whether the conceptual stormwater layout will affect on‑site drainage and increase erosion or sedimentation into the Little River; and whether the proposed lot footprints and driveways leave enough area to meet the UDC’s 57% tree‑canopy requirement. Commissioners asked staff to evaluate those feasibility questions before the project advances to the land disturbance permitting stage when individual building permits and final septic designs are submitted.

Action taken: Commissioner Judy Burrows (chair) made the motion — later amended and seconded by Commissioner Kurt Nolte — asking the community development director to review hydrology/drainage feasibility, the feasibility of meeting the 57% tree‑canopy requirement, the potential for additional evergreen screening along the north property line, and the potential effect of pending UDC updates (including the front/rear setback text amendment) in the project review. The commission also asked staff to discuss with the developer the possibility of seeking a variance or otherwise advancing a setback change that would move house footprints farther from the neighboring north property line. The motion passed unanimously.

What happens next: The commission’s action was a recommendation to the community development director, not an approval of final construction plans. McDonald and staff will review the technical items requested by the commission; any change to the front/rear setback standard could come through the pending text amendment process (CZIM in November, planning commission hearing in November and city council in January if advanced), or the developer may choose to pursue a formal variance before city council. Final compliance with tree canopy, septic siting and stormwater design will be assessed during land‑disturbance and building permit reviews. Neighbors were encouraged to report ongoing noise concerns from the separate Little River Farms event facility to the police department so those complaints can be investigated under the city’s noise enforcement process.

The commission’s recommendation record and the preliminary plat remain part of the municipal record; staff said they will return recommended technical findings and any suggested permit conditions to the commission as the review proceeds.