Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cemetery Monument topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Company seeks exception for oversized columbarium at Spring Grove Cemetery in Mineral
Summary
A monument vendor asked Mineral council to allow a 67-inch columbarium-style obelisk with a larger foundation at Spring Grove Cemetery; councilors said the cemetery committee will research ordinance size limits and prior approvals before deciding.
Tamara Sheridan, representing Virginia Monument Company, asked the Mineral Town Council to allow a family to place a 67-inch columbarium-style obelisk at Spring Grove Cemetery and proposed a smaller foundation treatment to reduce future maintenance issues.
Sheridan told the council the stone’s base measures about 26 by 26 inches now, and because of the municipality’s 6-inch clearance rule the foundation would need to be extended to about 38 by 38 inches; she proposed instead a 32-inch pad with 3–5 inches of gravel dust around the base and a weed-blocking liner beneath. “I am very concerned in the future if a lawnmower hits that foundation pad…they’re gonna make everybody redo the whole monument over a chip,” Sheridan said.
Councilors and staff questioned whether the monument fits current cemetery rules. An official provided the town’s existing size references for double headstones (about 62 inches for a double headstone base) and noted the ordinance has historically limited width and sometimes height; one council member said she recalled an ordinance height guideline near 60 inches. Sheridan said the company reduced the monument from 67 3/4 inches to 67 inches to comply with the height guidance and emphasized the family would like the monument centered on the double plot rather than placed at the plot head.
Council members asked the cemetery committee and staff to review prior approvals, email records and the town’s cemetery regulations before granting an exception. The company representative said she can provide photographs of the staged monument and email prior correspondence. Councilors expressed concern about uniformity and the message a single centrally placed, oversized monument might send to other families; several members said they would prefer consistency with prior approvals.
The council did not make a final decision and directed staff and the cemetery committee to research past approvals, confirmed ordinance size limits and return with recommendations. Sheridan said she could show photos and provide contact information for follow-up.
The council scheduled further consideration through the cemetery committee rather than resolving the request at the meeting.
