Petition for private family cemetery on Centennial Farm draws divided questions; staff recommends denial

John Ackerman asked the Zoning Board of Appeals for a special use (case 2503S) to create a private family cemetery on about one‑tenth of an acre of his Centennial Farm, stating the site would initially hold 10–15 plots with room for more but that he expects only a small family succession. He told the board his father was cremated and interred at the site and said family members maintain the right‑of‑way and surrounding acreage.

The county health department recommended setbacks of no closer than 75 feet to potable water, that the coroner be notified of any burial and that a licensed funeral director be present; it also recommended recording GPS coordinates of burial sites. Tazewell County staff reviewed the application and recommended denial. The staff report identified two primary negative findings: (1) the county comprehensive plan seeks to protect high‑productivity agricultural soils (the property has a soil productivity index greater than 125) and the proposed cemetery would convert agricultural land to a nonagricultural use; and (2) the petition includes no on‑site parking and staff said visitors would likely park on the unimproved shoulder of Ackerman Road, creating potential vehicle‑safety concerns.

Board members and attendees raised questions about perpetuity and maintenance. Several board members cautioned that a cemetery can create a long‑term burden on future property owners and asked whether a bond or other funding could be conditioned to ensure maintenance. One member noted examples of abandoned mausoleums and cemeteries and asked how the county could ensure long‑term upkeep; staff said the health‑department recommendations (recording burial coordinates and working with a licensed funeral director) partly address documentation and oversight. John Ackerman said the family currently mows and maintains the area and would record the surveyed site; he said the funeral director has already recorded latitude/longitude for the interments that occurred.

Staff told the board it had found four cemetery special‑use cases in the past 25 years: two private‑cemetery requests in R‑1 districts that were denied, and two earlier private cemeteries adjacent to churches in the early 2010s. The board discussed conditioning approval on actions such as a recorded survey, GPS coordinates filed with the recorder of deeds and possible financial assurances for future maintenance; staff said recording and survey could be accomplished and that the funeral director already held coordinate information for existing interments.

The transcript shows extended discussion and questions but records no final vote on case 2503S. Staff recommended denial; the applicant and several board members debated permanence, access and documentation. The transcript ends with the public hearing phase and board members preparing for deliberation.