Was cemetery defiled by developer?

Mon, 09/24/2007 - 8:31am
By: Ben Nelms

It is a pretty convoluted issue that may hard to prove, but there is little doubt that some of the old gravesites on the property at Trickum Creek Estates off Palmetto Road have been disturbed. Questions posed by the Tyrone Town Council Sept. 20 were aimed at finding a solution to the problem and rectifying the situation. To date, houses are complete or under construction on three of the five lots.

The council read a Aug. 25 letter from Fayette County Historical Society President Tony Parrott, who confirmed that an old family cemetery was located on the small development containing five lots and that the site of the old Watson Cemetery had been disturbed.

“An archeology survey was conducted for this cemetery and the size was determined by an archeologist. Since that time someone has disturbed this area,” Parrott said. “It is alleged that some of the stones and coping from the cemetery have been removed. We would appreciate the town pursing the restoration of these items through an enforcement action.”

Speaking for the historical society board, Parrott requested that the town require the developer to have a surveyor set pins and plat the Watson Cemetery in accordance with the findings of the report.

Town Manger Barry Amos responded Aug. 28, informing developer Todd Freeman that the pins should be installed as soon as possible. Amos said he expected action within 30 days or an explanation as to why action would not be taken. Amos also told the council that Freeman had sold the property but was still involved with the project.

Significant discussion followed, with numerous questions on the prior identification of the gravesite, its clear presence on the plat from the time the area was annexed in 2003 and the impact of state regulations on the identification of a cemetery and its subsequent preservation.

Noted in the discussion was a July 2005 police incident report by then Lt. David Mullis. The report referenced a response to the property under development indicated the presence of an old cemetery. Also noted was recent damage to one of the headstones. Another incident report dated Sept. 10, 2007 said the unknown persons had place a silt fence within the cemetery in an apparent attempt to stop dirt runoff and had placed one of the large stones back in place over the top of an open grave.

Councilwomen Grace Caldwell and Gloria Furr insisted that the developer should have been in compliance with state regulations through the entire development process, with Caldwell saying cemeteries were likely required to an provision for ingress and egress and Furr adding that the new access road in the development ran through a portion of the cemetery and had taken out 20-24 feet of the gravesite. Photographs from different dates displayed during the meeting showed where at least one headstone had been removed.

Adding to the convoluted issue, a 2005 archeological report from New South Associates took a different perspective. The report addressed positive subsurface probes of the cemetery site, adding that it was not certain if the probes represented graves or old tree roots. Based on the survey, Dr. Johannes Loubser recommended that housing development beyond the outermost buffer should have no detrimental effect on the cemetery.

Responding to the concerns, Sears said the town could require a survey affidavit and could develop a process that would allow for abandoned cemeteries to come under town control with accompanying maintenance obligations. The legal responsibility for the development project, including the cemetery, rests with the developer, Sears said.

Issues at Trickum Creek Estates also involved a lengthy discussion on easements in the small subdivision, with references again on the plat.

Amos was instructed a contact Freeman through certified letter regarding a survey of the cemetery and those with the easement to ensure that it is appropriate.

Far from satisfied, Furr insisted that something be done to protect the graves.

“I think the developer blatantly came through with the road,” Caldwell said on the disturbance of the graves.

login to post comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by DBest on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 1:54pm.

THIS IS A COPY OF AN EMAIL I SENT YESTERDAY TO ALL MEMEBERS OF COUNCIL, THE MAYOR, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION

My name is Doug Best. I own Lots 3 and 4 in Trickum Creek Estates in Tyrone, GA. This subdivision has come up in public discussion recently because of local citizen concern for a gravesite located on this subdivision. I have copied you on this email because I believe you may be an important part of the discussion as we search for a solution.

This gravesite has become an issue because concerned citizens have learned after the fact that developers put a road through a clearly platted gravesite. There are pictures showing that what is now a jumbled mess was once a fairly pristine and obviously historic location.

This subdivision would not have been allowed to proceed as it is, and the gravesite would not be in the disarray that it is, if both the developer and the responsible Town of Tyrone official had followed the existing rules.

The most important fact is that the responsible Town of Tyrone official had 2 chances to ensure that the gravesite in Trickum Creek estates was properly marked and protected as the law requires. One was before construction on the subdivision was permitted to begin and one was once work was stopped after a citizen reported to the police that a road had been illegally cut through one side of the graveyard. Both the Town and the developer had legal obligations relative to the gravesite which were not met.

In order to help figure out why this happened and where we should go from here, I would ask that you bear with me while I explain a little more about the subdivision's history and the money trail. Here are a few pertinent facts:

1) Town of Tyrone rules dictate that no driveway shall service more than 2 houses. Multiple-house, private drives were allowed in the past but rescue personnel expressed concern about locating the proper house in an emergency. At the time the Trickum Creek Estates subdivision was applied for, this type of drive was prohibited.

2) The developers purchased 10 acres and subsequently persuaded the Town of Tyrone to annex this area. The developers applied for a subdivision permit allowing them to develop the area into 5 approximately 2 acre lots.

3) For those who have not been to Trickum Creek Estates, the 5 houses/lots in Trickum Creek Estates are serviced by ONE driveway. Regardless of any other fact, this subdivision as it stands is clearly inconsistent with Town of Tyrone rules. Although culpability certainly lies with the developer, ultimately, it was up to the responsible Town official to ensure that the subdivision was completed according to Town rules and that any subsequent building permits issued were also consistent with Town rules.

4) If the developers had been forced to follow Town Rules, this 10 acre+ section could not have been developed without curbs and gutters. However, even if the subdivision had been built with proper curbs and gutters, it could not have been built and marketed with 5 buildable lots given the limiting dimensional aspects of the gravesite.

5) Established where it is, down the property line, a proper road with curbs and gutters would have destroyed even more of the gravesite. The only legally permissible alternative at the time would have been to allow less lots.

6) The developers originally submitted a Subdivision Plat that shows a road/easment closely circumventing the graveyard. This graveyard is clearly marked on previous plats filed at Fayette County. If the road had been cut where it was originally permitted, the developers would not have been able to sell Lot 3. There simply would not be enough room to meet all the requirements regarding setbacks and septic fields and still build a house on this lot.

7) There is both pictorial evidence and statements from local citizens supporting the fact that gravestones in this site were upright and extended to, and perhaps past, the property line. In order to put in the road these gravestones were moved and/or removed.

8) The plat submitted by the developers is inconsistent with the dimensions described on the plat on record with the county. These new dimensions were accepted by the responsible Town official as fact. Law requires significant proof to change the platted dimensions of a gravesite.

9)The developers were not forced by the Town official to pin, partition off, or protect the gravesite in anyway PRIOR to receiving a permit to start on the subdivision. The developers had a legal obligation to mark and protect the gravesite before beginning any work.

10) The developers cut a road directly down the property line and over the outside 25% (approximately) of the gravesite shown on the plat. The road was cut and gravel poured before work was stopped. Obviously, this road did not go where the approved plat had allowed.

11) After the fact, the developers secured a letter from an "expert" which asserted that there was no proof that bodies now lay directly below the road the developers had already cut. This issue was not brought before the council or any other governing body that might have insisted upon protection and clear delineation of the gravesite. The developers were allowed to file a new plat for subdivision with absolutely no confirmation as to the real boundaries of the gravesite. Again, the gravesite was not pinned or protected as required by law and work was allowed to continue. The only protection or identification that has occurred around the site to this point is a silt fence erected by a person working for me as an attempt to protect what was left in conjunction with my erosion control program.

12) Four building permits have currently been issued in this subdivision. In order to obtain a building permit, a Site Survey must be submitted. The accepted site surveys and corresponding building plans issued for all lots are not consistent with the subdivision as currently platted.

13) In order to meet the obligations as described by the subdivision plat, the homeowner on Lot 1 would have had to cut a driveway across the drainage easement out onto Trickum Creek Road. Instead, Lot 1 was permitted and built with a driveway accessing the main road into the subdivision.

14) In order to meet the obligations as described by the subdivision plat there would need to be 2 immediately adjacent and parallel driveways extending down the property lines of Lots 1, 2, and 3. Again, the house on Lot 1's driveway was permitted to cross directly across the supposed "easements" for lots 3, 4 and 5.

15) By law, there must be public access by way of an easement to this gravesite. In order to accomplish this, the Town official allowed that required public easement to be combined with the private easements necessary to access Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5.

16) Maintenence personnel must be allowed access to maintain the gravesite but no access is possible except down what was permitted as a private driveway.

17) There is no area available for people to park when visiting or maintaining the gravesides except in the middle of this public driveway.

It is obvious by the results that neither the developer nor the responsible Town official intended to ensure that this subdivision comply with Town law. This subdivision is the result of a "backroom" agreement outside of the processes dictated by Town code.

I believe that a Town's code/law exists to protect the rights of its citizens, both alive and dead. It would be easy at this point to say simply, this "train has left the station" and there is little that we can do. But my questions are: Will we accept incompetence or worse from a public official? Are we going to reward deception and rule breaking on the part of a developer?

I would ask that you use whatever influence you have to ensure that this discussion isn't allowed to digress into a finger pointing contest. I ask that this very important issue become part of the public conversation. I ask that both parties be held accountable and pressured to expedite a solution that serves both the homeowners in Trickum Creek Estates and the memories and families of those lying in the graveyard.

Regards,

Doug Best

Submitted by bladderq on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 8:03pm.

I could have driven thru Tyronne is less time than it took me to scan thru. this... nice letter though.

My one question is... Were any snakes harmed? Was the developer attacked by any snakes? And why do you own 2 lots in an illegal subdivision? Sorry, 3 ?'s.

Submitted by oldbeachbear on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 3:44pm.

But his big mouth may be his undoing!
36-72-16.
Any person who KNOWINGLY fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature and, upon conviction, shall pay a fine of not more than $5,000.00 for each grave site disturbed; provided, HOWEVER, any person who KNOWINGLING violates the provisions of Code Section 36-72-4 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature and, upon conviction, shall be incarcerated for not more than six months and shall pay a fine not less than $5,000.00 for each grave site disturbed
AND FOR ANYONE WONDERING WHAT 36-72-4 SAYS...
§ 36-72-4. Permit required for developing land on which cemetery located
"No known cemetery,[and he admitted it was there and he knew it was a cemetery}, shall be knowingly disturbed by the owner or occupier of the land on which the cemetery or burial ground is located for the purposes of developing or changing the use of ANY PART OF SUCH LAND UNLESS A PERMIT IS FIRST OBTAINED from the governing authority of the municipal corporation or county wherein the cemetery or burial ground is located, which shall have authority to permit such activity except as provided in Code Section 36-72-14."

HE NEVER APPLIED FOR A PERMIT TO DEVELOPE LAND WITH A CEMETERY ON IT! HE APPLIED FOR A PERMIT AS THOUGH THE CEMETERY WAS NOT THERE!! He has told several people that he played back there in the cemetery growning up and knew it was a cemetery. After it was torn up so badly, a woman who knew what it looked like ..pre developement...approached him and asked him to put a fence around it and that she would try to clean it up as best she could. His remarks to her were that she need not worry, he knew it was a cemetery as he had played among the markers as a child and he was 'gonna fix it', and it seems that is just what he did! The loophole some try to use to get away with tearing into one is that they never knew it was there. I guess this developer has just lost all of his chances of saying that!

zoes's picture
Submitted by zoes on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 3:38pm.

I may have missed it - but who is the developer on this property?


Submitted by tyronesleezeball on Mon, 10/08/2007 - 7:39am.

I heard it was Todd Freeman and Larry Lee Jr aka the Mayor's son. At this point nothing should surprises me anymore. Just like The Mayor changed the rules for convicted felons coaching in Tyrone. You can only do things in Tyrone if you are a friend or family member of the Mayors, or if you pad her pockets. That's ok, her days are numbered, thank God. Just remember Sheryl, we would love to see you leave Tyrone for good when you sell your property.

Submitted by oldbeachbear on Fri, 10/05/2007 - 4:41pm.

36-72-4.
No known cemetery shall be knowingly disturbed by the owner or occupier of the land on which the cemetery is located for the purposes of developing or changing of any part of such land unless a permit is first obtained from the governing authority of the municipal corporation or county wherein the cemetery or burial ground is located.

36-72-5.
Application for a permit shall include, at a minimum, the following information:
(1) Evidence of ownership of the land on which the cemetery or burial ground is located in the form of a legal opinion based upon a title search;
(2) A report prepared by an archeologist stating the number of graves believed to be present and their locations

(3) A survey prepared by or under the direction of a registered surveyor showing the location and boundaries of the cemetery

(4) A plan prepared by a genealogist for identifying and notifying the descendants of those buried or believed to be buried in cemetery.

(5) A proposal for mitigation or avoidance of the effects of the planned activity on the cemetery or burial ground.

36-72-6.
The applicant shall implement its plan for identifying and locating descendants no later than the date the application is submitted to the governing authority. The governing authority shall promptly inform any descendant who indicates an interest in the disposition of the human remains and burial objects regarding any proposals for mitigation, the terms of any permit issued, the time and place of any scheduled public hearings, and appeal procedures and events.

36-72-7.
(a) Within 15 days after it is satisfied that all reasonable effort has been made to notify descendants, as provided in Code Section 36-72-6, and following receipt of the recommendations of a board or commission created pursuant to Code Section 36-72-9, the governing authority shall schedule a public hearing at which any interested party or citizen may appear and be given an opportunity to be heard. In addition to the notice required in Code Section 36-72-6, notice of the public hearing shall be advertised in the legal organ of the jurisdiction once a week for the two consecutive weeks immediately preceding the week in which any such hearing is held.

36-72-8.
The governing authority shall consider the following in making its determination:
(1) The presumption in favor of leaving the cemetery undisturbed;

(2) The concerns and comments of any descendants and any other interested parties;

(3) The economic costs of mitigation;

(4) The adequacy of the applicant´s plans
(5) The balancing of the applicant´s interest with the public´s and any descendant´s interest
(6) Any other compelling factors which deems relevant.

36-72-16.
Any person who knowingly fails to comply with the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature and, upon conviction, shall pay a fine of not more than $5,000.00 for each grave site disturbed; provided, however, that any person who knowingly violates the provisions of Code Section 36-72-4 shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature and, upon conviction, shall be incarcerated for not more than six months and shall pay a fine not less than $5,000.00 for each grave site disturbed

Submitted by bladderq on Mon, 09/24/2007 - 6:37pm.

I thought there were going to big things... local TV, AJC articles, GA Bar investigations. Maybe something on 60 min, 20/20 or Dateline (ooops' wrong topic but wait there is a predItor or 2 over there).
Don't forget about getting that info on the "snakes." I want to know the who, what, when. where, why on the "eyewitness" w/ the skier in the bullrushes dying. Your credibility is at stake.

Submitted by oldbeachbear on Tue, 09/25/2007 - 7:17am.

No one has called the TV stations that I know of ...yet. Neighbors called the police in 2005 complaining about the graves being torn into. The report states that on the grave closest to the new road being cut, there was damage. The marker was broken and there was a large fresh scrape on it that could have been done by a large piece of construction equipment. There was only one person there with heavy equipment. Why they were not arrested, I don't know. The grave is still there with the top slab, broken up in about 3 pieces. Those slabs that covered the entire top of the grave back then are extremely heavy. That was why they were questioning the town manager. Graves seem to still be disappearing and the town manager has done nothing he was required to by state law to protect them. He was SUPPOSE to MAKE the developer have the graves surveyed off BEFORE any developement, he didn't. I agree it wasn't handled well back then, people are trying now to correct the wrong that was done and to protect what is left of the graves.

Submitted by oldbeachbear on Mon, 09/24/2007 - 12:17pm.

Tyrone didn't obey STATE LAWS which are there to protect graves. BEFORE a developer can do anything around a cemetery he HAS TO apply for a permit and 1. show ownership 2.have a report from an archeologist showing how many, and where the graves are. 3. a plan to notify all decendants 4. preposal on how to avoid damage to the cemetery.
NONE OF THESE WERE DONE AND THAT IS STATE LAW! When questioned, the town manager made some remark about that being a STATE law and not Tyrone's! Oh please! If he thinks we are that dumb, why does he have the police running around now chasing the lotto ticket bandits? Do we have a local law about stealing? Gee I thought that was our state laws.....does Tyrone have local laws about murder since they don't have to go by STATE or FEDERAL laws? I wonder if I could talk my ex into a long weekend here since it seems to be a place where nothing is a crime if it aint on Tyrone's books! Wow! a real utopia for law breakers!

Submitted by boxwing on Mon, 09/24/2007 - 4:06pm.

This issue was raised by local residents over two years ago to town officials and to at least one Council member. I know because I was one of the folks that talked to the Council member. I know the member called the Town Manager and asked questions, but nothing was ever done. The result was no action, so here we are two years later trying to deal with it after the fact.

Why is it so hard to simply hold developers to the law in Tyrone? Maybe it is because the roles of tax base development and code enforcement are too concentrated in a few hands? The town needs an independent Code Enforcement Officer that reports directly to the Council, not to the Town Manager. Then maybe we could see these issues delt with in a timely manner!

Submitted by oldbeachbear on Mon, 09/24/2007 - 6:05pm.

they were torn up?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.