Donald V. Borgward Funeral Home asked the Prince George’s County Zoning Hearing Examiner, Maureen McNeal, on Oct. 8 for Special Exception 4848 to add a 1,664‑square‑foot crematory to its existing 8,101‑square‑foot facility at 4400 Powder Mill Road in Beltsville.

The issue matters to neighbors because the crematory would burn human remains on site and is subject to Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) air‑quality permitting; opponents raised concerns about emissions (including mercury), odors and potential effects on nearby home values. The applicant and several expert witnesses said the proposal complies with county zoning rules and that state permitting will set emissions controls and stack height.

Donald Vernon Borgward, the funeral home’s owner and the applicant, testified to long experience operating the business and said the firm presently uses third‑party crematories in Virginia and elsewhere. Borgward told the examiner he would follow all required state permits and licensing before operating a crematory on the site, and agreed to carry forward prior special‑exception conditions, including the existing restriction on funeral services after 4 p.m. on weekdays and a requirement that processions form on the property. “I do it exactly the way you’re supposed to,” Borgward said when asked about compliance with state and board licensing requirements.

County witnesses called by the applicant described the project as compliant with zoning and technical requirements. Civil engineer Michael Novy testified that the site plan (Exhibit 45) meets setbacks, parking and lot‑coverage standards for the RR zone and that the parcel is about 1.74 acres. Architect Ronald Lipford described the one‑story 1,664‑square‑foot addition and the illustrated exhaust stacks; he said the plans show stack heights of “approximately 33 or 35 feet,” and he acknowledged that MDE’s permitting could require a different height.

Traffic expert Michael (Mike) Lenhardt (report as Exhibit 31) testified that crematory operations would not generate undue traffic congestion under county standard §27‑3‑57 and that crematory activity alone would be a “de minimis traffic impact.” Lenhardt and the applicant stated the business currently uses third‑party crematoria, and Borgward estimated annual cremations at roughly 100–165 based on past practice; he and his daughter testified most cremations would occur during daytime business hours and that a single unit would typically process one body at a time, with up to about three on a busy day.

Senior land planner Mark Ferguson summarized the county‑code findings required for special exceptions (citing §27‑3‑17 and the funeral‑home/crematory provisions). Ferguson said the proposal is consistent with the site’s long‑standing funeral‑home use, with the county master plan’s call for context‑sensitive infill, and with the record’s technical exhibits. He also summarized the applicant’s pledge to obtain an MDE air‑quality permit and conditioned his land‑use finding on that state permitting. “Crematories are generally very, very low emitters of pollutants,” Ferguson testified, based on the manufacturer's emission data in the record (Exhibit 47) and on the requirement that MDE approve an air‑quality permit.

Neighbors testified in opposition. Longtime resident Steven Smith, who lives on Caverly Avenue adjacent to the site, said he and his wife are “opposed,” and that their concern rests on both perceived and actual health and property impacts: “I don’t think that a crematory should be located there with the funeral home,” Smith said. Smith asked about stack height and cited an MDE decision in the Evans Funeral Home matter (Exhibit 46), which limited that facility to two cremations in an eight‑hour period because of mercury exposure concerns.

The applicant presented a rebuttal witness from Matthews Environmental Solutions (equipment manufacturer): Barry Bersik described the typical two‑chamber cremation unit and the MDE permitting process. Bersik said the equipment includes computerized controls, opacity monitoring and a secondary chamber intended to destroy smoke and odors before exhaust. “Under normal conditions, there is no smoke or odor,” Bersik testified, and he said MDE reviews emissions data and public comments before issuing a construction permit, a process that can take nine months or longer and, in contested cases, sometimes years.

The applicant proposed two additional conditions for approval: a site‑plan note that chimney/stack height will be set consistent with the final MDE air‑quality permit, and a requirement to provide a copy of an approved MDE permit before issuance of a building permit for the crematory. Examiner McNeal closed the hearing record at the conclusion of testimony; no final administrative decision was issued at the hearing.

What happens next: the examiner will prepare a written recommendation that will reflect the record, the technical staff report, and any conditions the examiner deems appropriate. Any final action on Special Exception 4848 will depend in part on the applicant’s ability to secure the MDE air‑quality permit and the mortician’s‑board operator licensing the record requires.