Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cemetery Family Burial Plot topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies appeal seeking family burial plot; finds use comparable to cemetery
Summary
The Board of Appeals denied an appeal from Eugene and John Burt seeking approval for a perpetual family burial plot, concluding the committee reasonably treated the proposal as similar to a cemetery and properly considered state cemetery statutes.
The Sawyer County Zoning Board of Appeals denied an appeal from Eugene and John Burt seeking a conditional use permit for a perpetual family burial plot on agricultural land, concluding the zoning committee reasonably determined the proposal was a “like or similar” use to a cemetery and that the committee’s decision was supported by the record.
John Burt, agent for the applicant, told the board the family expected a permit consistent with what they applied for and argued state law does not prohibit private family burial plots. Burt said he completed survey and plat work and cited historical family burials in Sawyer County.
Zoning counsel Rebecca Roker and attorney Malia Malone for the zoning committee explained the committee first had to decide whether the proposed family burial plot was a like or similar use to the county’s listed conditional use for cemeteries, mausoleums, and columbariums. Roker told the appeals board that once the committee answered that question affirmatively, it appropriately evaluated whether to impose conditions similar to those required by state cemetery law (cited in the hearing), including public-health and administrative requirements. The committee concluded substantial evidence did not support granting the CUP without such assurances and denied the permit.
Board discussion focused on the limited standard of review for certiorari appeals—whether the committee stayed within jurisdiction, proceeded on a correct theory of law, acted reasonably rather than arbitrarily, and had substantial evidence to reach its conclusion. After deliberation the board voted 4-1 to deny the appeal, leaving the zoning committee’s March decision in place.
The appeals board emphasized that its role was not to decide whether private family burials should be allowed generally, but to determine whether the zoning committee’s process and findings were legally adequate. The committee had recognized historical existence of family plots but concluded current statutes and public-health requirements associated with cemeteries justified denial unless the applicant met conditions comparable to state requirements.
