This is a copy of the email and letter that was sent to each of the 5 commissioners.  A similar email was sent to county department heads.

I haven’t had any response from anyone.

Good morning.

I have been trying to get used to the idea that an access road will be bulldozed through a beautiful county park, as the realization hits that it appears there is nothing that can stop it's construction.  The only hope now is that the proposed access road will forever remain an emergency access entrance only.

How on earth could this have happened in the first place?  

I have been in contact with various county officials including Chris White and Kathy Stallard, who have provided me with site drawings, as well some background information regarding county development procedures.

I do have additional questions that I'm not certain even a Department head could answer, so I want to ask them of you and have listed them below.

You are all aware of the particulars, but I will outline them for you anyway.

-I did some simple hand counting of the lots depicted on the site drawing provided by Mr White, and there are roughly 370 building lots depicted for the new Riverwood phase.

Ms Stallard has noted that Paulding County development guidelines require more than one exit for anything over 250 homes, therefore the access road will allow the developer to build an additional 120 homes, closing out the new phase.

-at any point has Paulding County or the citizens of Paulding County, been given any compensation or consideration for the use of an access road that allows the developer/builder to sell an extra 120 homes?

Did the developer restore some historic building, or beautify a park somewhere?  Maybe helped pay for the refurbishment of a senior center, or bought a couple school buses?

Something that could be argued to justify the $10 easement through a beloved public park?

Is there a land-use law that requires the county to grant the easement to the backside of the developer's property?  Or, if it wasn't granted, and being notably litigious, the developer would file suit?

Or was it a simple matter of property taxes generated by the 120 homes, and as long as the developer paid for the access road construction, then the park was to be sacrificed?

-I would also like to ask what the permitting requirements are for the access road creek crossing.  Can Paulding County issue the necessary permits outright, or are other governmental agencies such as the state or Army CoE involved as well?

Will an environmental impact study be part of the permitting process for the access road creek crossing?

Lastly, I want to point out at least one other subdivision/access road situation that already exists, which could be used to illustrate a precedent for keeping the access road at Mt Tabor as an emergency use exit point only.

I, along with the approximately 360 eventual households of Sienna Forest, Hills at Chestnut Grove and Chestnut Grove, are all required to use a single exit to Old Cartersville Road.  Without any input from the 360 households affected by it's closure, the south end of Chester Harris Road was closed due to the wishes of the 25 or so households that reside on that end, and an emergency use exit point was installed to cover the county's development requirements.

I hope that Paulding County will follow suit on the Mt Tabor access road by requiring that it remain for emergency use only, using the above mentioned scenario as reference.

The decision to require that the access road through Mt Tabor remain as emergency use only is yours to make very soon, so please preserve what is left of Mt Tabor Park.