Milton staff, equestrian committee debate large‑lot incentives, buffers and AG‑exemption rules

Diana Wheeler, interim community development director, told the Milton Equestrian Committee Wednesday that staff has drafted a package of incentives and code clarifications aimed at preserving large lots and supporting equestrian operations in the city.

The measures under discussion include allowing home‑based businesses to operate in accessory structures without a public hearing, requiring a 50‑foot vegetative buffer where a new subdivision creates more than twice the number of lots adjacent to a large parcel, waiving business license fees for qualifying equestrian farms, and tightening the city’s AG exemption process so exemptions apply to specific activities rather than to a property “in perpetuity.”

Wheeler said the AG exemption is narrowly drawn: “The AG exemption applies to activity, not property,” and staff proposes that each exempt activity require a separate application and review. She told the committee that staff would schedule applications for committee review, the committee would make a recommendation, and staff would then issue a decision. If staff denies an exemption, applicants could appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals, Wheeler said.

Committee members pressed for details. On home‑based businesses, Wheeler said current rules allow work from the main dwelling but not in detached accessory structures without a special‑use permit, which she estimated can take about four months. She cited two recent approvals — including a small bookbinding business that converted a barn on Providence Road — as examples that the rule change could ease administrative steps for property owners who want to work from an accessory building. Committee members asked whether riding‑lesson barns or boarding operations would count as home‑based businesses; Wheeler replied that classification depends on magnitude and context, and that some larger equestrian operations would continue to be treated as commercial uses.

On buffers, staff proposed a 50‑foot vegetative buffer between new subdivisions and adjacent large‑lot agricultural (AG) parcels when the subdivision creates at least twice the number of lots adjacent to an existing large parcel. Wheeler and committee members said the buffer would be held as common open space owned by an HOA so it would not count toward lot area and would reduce density immediately adjacent to large parcels. The committee discussed how setbacks would interact with the buffer; Wheeler said setbacks would be measured from the buffer line, not the property line, and that existing setback standards (discussed verbally at the meeting) would remain unchanged.

The committee also favored exploring a business‑license fee exemption for equestrian farms on large lots. Wheeler said staff would research whether waiving the occupational tax fee for qualifying horse farms or similar equestrian facilities would be feasible as an incentive.

On AG exemptions, staff presented a multi‑step proposal: an initial application and staff completeness review, a Milton Equestrian Committee recommendation after an evidentiary review, and a staff decision. Wheeler emphasized that an AG exemption authorizes a specific land‑disturbing activity — not a permanent change to a parcel — and that if a property owner later seeks different or additional work, they must submit a new application to determine whether that activity furthers the originally authorized exempt activity. The committee discussed including a time limit for authorized work; staff proposed language such as “AG exempt work must be completed within one year of approval or the site may be required to be returned to a pre‑exempt condition.” Members debated whether “complete” or “begin” should be the controlling standard and whether exceptions were needed for genuine, demonstrated delays.

Committee members recommended that staff draft clearer, activity‑specific guidelines and evaluation criteria to help the Milton Equestrian Committee make consistent recommendations. Wheeler said staff will prepare a summary of the items the committee supports and the items it does not, and return with draft ordinance language where code changes are required; the goal is to produce a package the committee can forward to city council by fall.

The discussion produced no formal vote; staff and the committee agreed to continue refining the package and return with draft language for recommendation to the city council.

Wheeler asked the committee to provide feedback on specific language, and staff said they would return with refined drafts, implementation details and suggested code edits for committee review.