This is a copy of the letter that will be emailed/posted to the department heads and the BOC members, along with the list of petition supporters.  There is a BOC meeting on Tuesday the 23rd, and although I wanted to wait to reach 500 signatures before sending it in, it seems like things are speeding up.  The BOC will be discussing amending Development Regulation Article 1.6.7 regarding single entrances for developments over 250 homes, and it remains to be seen what exactly this will mean.  

To Everyone Who Should Be Concerned,

Many people 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.  When told of the situation at Mount Tabor Park, reactions range from shock, to disbelief, to disgust.  The last hope now is that the proposed access road will forever remain an emergency access entrance only.

You are all aware of the particulars, but as I did on previously unanswered emails and letters 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.

I have emailed and mailed the following questions, none of which have been answered. 

-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 required 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?

-During the lead up to granting the access easement in 2018, was there any opportunity for community input?

-What are the permitting requirements 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 CoEinvolved as well?

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

Can anyone from any Paulding County department, division, or commission answer these questions?

And as stated previously, at least one other subdivision/access road situation already exists which can be used to illustrate a precedent for keeping the access road at Mt Tabor Park as emergency use only.  Myself and my wife, 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.

The many patrons of Mount Tabor Park are sincerely concerned that a $10 access road not become a thoroughfare due to a developer’s bidding, so we ask that you adhere to the overview of the Paulding County Board of Commissioners and remain committed to the well being, growth, and PRESERVATION of green space.  

I have included the names of those people who believe that one damaging decision for Mount Tabor Park is enough, and that no more should follow- keep the access road for emergency use only.