JCC Supes Oppose GA Bills on Cemeteries

By Desiree Parker Wednesday, January 25, 2012

James City County’s Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to oppose legislation that could affect a controversial local mausoleum project that was recently pulled from consideration.

Del. Riley Ingram (R-62nd) proposed a bill in the House of Delegates that would change state code regarding cemeteries; Sen. Frank Ruff (R-15th) has offered the same bill in the Senate. The proposed changes would have affected the application recently withdrawn by St. Bede Catholic Church to build a large mausoleum on its property, likely having allowed it to go forward without Board approval.

Though legislators have agreed to work on fixing the bills so they no longer create a work-around for the mausoleum, and though Monsignor McCarron of St. Bede’s has withdrawn the application for the time being, the Board chose to go ahead Tuesday and offer their formal opposition to the bills. Several citizens thanked the Board and shared some concerns they still had about the issue including McCarron’s assertion that he had been “assured” that a future proposal would be approved.

County Attorney Leo Rogers explained that the legislation would change the definition of a cemetery to include a mausoleum; it allows a cemetery to be vested on a property if there has been a significant government action and a deed restriction in place; it extends site plans for a longer period and makes it harder to apply new laws during that timeframe; it exempts cemetery buildings from the building code and it nullifies all other local regulations regarding such cemeteries (Rogers said there was some uncertainty around this part).

If the legislation should pass, Rogers said, the mausoleum would probably be a vested use.

Supervisor John McGlennon said the bills would “dramatically change the authority of local government” and “could have unintended … or intended consequences.”

The Board voted to oppose the measure unanimously without any more discussion, and asked staff to send the information to all local and interested legislators.

While the Board didn’t have a lot to say on the matter, several citizens spoke at the meeting about the issue. Most of them thanked the Board for its opposition to the bills; a few had some other concerns.

Several citizens cited McCarron’s letter about the withdrawn application (read a story about that here) and noted that he expressed an intention to still go forward with the project at some point. They were concerned that the application would again return soon.

Mary Digges noted that in his letter McCarron said, “I have spoken confidentially to those in county government, our legal advisors and fellow pastors.” McCarron also said he had been “assured” that the project would be approved.

Digges asked the Board about the “secret meetings” and asked who had assured him of the project’s future approval.

County Administrator Robert Middaugh told citizens he had spoken with staff and that there had been “no staff communication” and “no assurances” about the mausoleum project, and that any new applications would still need to go through the regular approval process.