EPD stops controversial PATH project
by Andy Phelan
andy@dekalbchamp.com
Photo by Andy Phelan
A worker from Lewallen Construction Co. clears debris April 11 from the trail where the county is building a concrete path to connect two parks near Emory University.
|
DeKalb County and the PATH Foundation agreed to stop work on a controversial trail connecting two parks near Emory University until at least April 21 after the Environmental Protective Division said the project violated state erosion control laws.
Known as the South Peachtree Creek Trail, the county project has split residents in the Clairmont Heights and Medlock Park neighborhoods, just north of downtown Decatur.
According to county Soil and Water Conservation District Supervisor Doug Denton, 215 feet of construction for the proposed half-mile concrete and boardwalk path between Medlock and Mason Mill parks is just five to 17 feet from the creek.
State law says there should be at least a 25-foot buffer. Calls left for an EPD spokesman were not returned by press time, but Denton confirmed the EPD is writing a consent order the county must agree to before resuming work on the project.
A meeting between the county and EPD is scheduled within the week.
“There are no tree-save fences and no barriers to prevent mud discharging into South Peachtree Creek -- these are egregious violations,” said Denton. “If this project is to continue, the PATH Foundation will have to do so within the confines of state laws.”
PATH Executive Director Ed McBrayer said his group would comply with the order.
“As a result of numerous calls by the dissident group, EPD visited the site to make a detailed inspection,” he said. “They pointed out several discrepancies in our E&S applications. We agreed to voluntarily stop clearing and grading until we correct the deficiencies.”
It's culminated nearly a week of wrangling among concerned residents, the county development department and the county’s Zoning Board of Appeals on the project that began last month.
On April 9, the ZBA ruled that construction must stop on the project. Voting 4-2, it upheld an appeal by a neighborhood group – the Three Forks Heritage Alliance that opposes the project – saying that while a second appeal is pending in May all work must cease.
“Work on this project must now stop,” said ZBA member Bob Lundsten, who voted in the 4-2 block. “We uphold the appeal based on the procedural argument.”
But the county and PATH continued its work despite the ruling. Although county officials did not return calls seeking comment, Public Works Director Ted Rhinehart and Planning and Development Director Patrick Ejike, who oversee projects and land planning for the county, told the ZBA April 9 that there should be no appeal because it was based on permits and variances issued for the project.
“The permits were issued in error,” said Rhinehart. “It’s a public transportation project, on public land, paid for with public money. We don’t need the permits.” Rhinehart called the situation an “unfortunate confusion.”
Rhinehart said the permits were voided March 20, and therefore makes any appeal by the group moot.
Three Forks received a temporary work stoppage from Superior Court Judge Gregory Adams on March 5 but were denied a second temporary restraining order on April 2 and again April 14.
Construction of the path began again April 7 and continued through April 11.
As construction continued, it highlighted a troubling trend ZBA member Lundsten said during the April 9 hearing – that the county is ignoring many decisions made by its own Zoning Board of Appeals.
Lundsten called the Three Forks case a “home run” to show that the county isn’t even following its own rules.
“How do we get this county to respect the actions of this board?” said Lundsten. “In previous administrations, any action or decisions by the ZBA were final.”
Three Forks attorney Brian E. Daughdrill, who argued the case before the ZBA, said the county development code indicates the ZBA’s ruling should be followed.
“The ZBA’s decision becomes that of the county,” said Daughdrill. “Their decision supersedes [that of] the planning director.”
Daughdrill said he was frustrated after his most recent attempt to stop the project was rejected by the judge.
“It’s disappointing,” he said. “It’s difficult because you have to look your clients in the eyes and tell them the system did not work. There was no due process.”
|
