Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Family Burial Plot Cemetery topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board denies appeal for private family burial plot; cites cemetery standards and public health statutes

4444377 · June 18, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The appeals board denied an appeal seeking a conditional‑use permit for a private family burial plot, concluding the proposal was ‘like or similar’ to a cemetery and that Wisconsin cemetery requirements (chapter 157) informed the committee’s analysis; motion passed 4–1.

The Sawyer County Board of Appeals denied an appeal by Eugene and John Burt asking for a conditional‑use permit for a private family burial plot, finding that the zoning committee reasonably treated the proposal as a use like a cemetery and that the committee could require conditions similar to those in Wisconsin Statutes chapter 157.

John Burt, agent for the applicant, argued the county had accepted his application and that private, family burials have long historical precedent and are not governed by chapter 157. He told the board he had “fulfilled our obligation” for the family burial plot, including a survey and plat, and that the county’s insertion of chapter 157 into the decision was a post‑hoc change to the application.

Zoning counsel Rebecca Roker and Malia Malone said the committee examined whether the proposal was a like or similar use to a cemetery under Sawyer County Code §17.5(b)(26). Because the committee found the use resembled a cemetery, it reasonably reviewed the requirements and public‑health considerations that apply to cemeteries and concluded the applicant had not shown it met those standards.

After discussion of jurisdiction, applicable law and the record from February and March committee hearings, the appeals board voted 4–1 to deny the appeal. The board emphasized its role is to review whether the zoning committee acted within its jurisdiction, applied the correct law and had substantial evidence; it concluded those tests were satisfied where the committee denied the permit.

The denial leaves the county’s zoning committee decision in place. The appellants were advised they may seek judicial review in circuit court within the statutory timeline.