Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cemetery Family Burial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning committee finds Burt family burial plot is "like or similar" to a cemetery, then denies conditional use permit
Summary
After public testimony and letters from the Town of Draper and county counsel, the Sawyer County zoning committee concluded a proposed 32‑plot Burt family burial site is “like or similar” to a cemetery but then denied the permit to establish it.
Get email alerts on the Cemetery Family Burial topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sawyer County’s zoning committee on March 21 engaged in a two‑part legal and factual inquiry over a proposed 32‑plot “perpetual family burial plot” on land owned by Eugene Burt in the Town of Draper. After public testimony and legal input, the committee first voted that the proposed use is “like or similar” to a cemetery and then denied the Burt family’s conditional use permit.
Lindsay Coles, attorney for the Town of Draper, urged the committee to deny the application. “The Burts’ proposed perpetual family burial plot is not a cemetery nor similar to a cemetery,” Coles wrote in a letter submitted into the record, adding that the proposal did not meet multiple statutory requirements that regulate cemeteries under Wis. Stat. ch. 157. Coles listed state requirements including minimum organizational structures, recordkeeping and platting that she said the Burt proposal lacked.
Eugene Burt, the applicant, told the committee the family plans green burials and described family readiness to maintain the site. “They will be buried like a green burial…they have to be buried at least 3 foot deep,” Burt said. Burt and supporters said the plot would be privately owned and maintained by family members.
County counsel Rebecca (last name given in record as Rebecca) advised the committee on legal thresholds. She told members that, while the statutes contain no single numeric threshold to define a cemetery, state law uses a 20‑lot reference in a related section and warned the committee that 32 proposed lots “looks a lot like a cemetery.” “Given that Mr. Burt is proposing 32, I think this looks a lot like a cemetery,” Rebecca told the committee.
Town officials and neighbors also spoke. Linda Zilmer, secretary‑treasurer and part‑time sexton of the Birchwood Cemetery, opposed the CUP and agreed with the town attorney that the proposal did not meet statutory criteria. Steve Bining, Town of Draper supervisor, said Draper already allows green burials in its municipal cemetery and that the town has a sexton and programs to help with indigent burials; he asked the committee to add conditions or require county assurance if the town might be required to assume care later.
On procedure the committee first considered — and passed — a motion that the Burt application is a like or similar use to a cemetery. The motion was made by Kaye Wilson and seconded by Ron Buchholz; roll call recorded Wilson, Buchholz and Steve Cariannon voting yes, and Dale Magnuson and Tweed Schumann voting no (3‑2 in favor).
Because the committee concluded the proposal was like or similar to a cemetery, the permit would, the county attorney said, be subject to cemetery standards in Wis. Stat. ch. 157. After further discussion the committee then voted to deny the CUP. The denial motion (mover: Kaye Wilson; seconder: Marshall Savitsky) carried on roll call: Wilson, Buchholz, Cariannon and Savitsky voted yes; Magnuson voted no (4‑1), and the permit was denied.
Committee members who opposed the CUP said the application did not show a cemetery authority, care fund, or recorded plat and raised concerns about state statutory requirements, long‑term maintenance and town liability. Members who supported denying the permit cited the same statutory gaps as a basis for denial. Members who favored approval said they sympathized with the family’s desire for a private burial place but noted the county’s legal mechanisms and ordinance language were limited.
The zoning administrator said staff will review ordinance language and other counties’ practices; he told the committee staff is already researching options for clearer home‑burial or family‑burial rules that could include thresholds and permitting pathways.
No final action was taken that creates a cemetery or a county obligation; the committee’s denial leaves the Burt family without county authorization under the current ordinance and prompts staff follow‑up about ordinance changes or model rules for family burial plots.

