Please remember that anything on this webside is not official information nor is it anything more than the website's opinion or perception of what actually happened.
CEMETERY  COMMITTEE  REVIVED  AGAIN

LANDM?ARK N.Y.C. CEMETERY news...
A Planning and Zoning issue, too?  QUESTION:  Do you dig up your relatives when you move - or is this one of those "quiet title" matters?  Obviously, if P&Z gets involved, you must get a special permit, file a map, issue a bond in perpetuity...how about the basement?
C.G.S. Sec.19a:  http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/pub/chap368j.htm
SWRPA 2002 STUDY:  http://www.swrpa.org/Default.aspx?Publications=188
Planners Bookstore:  PLANNING FOR CEMETERIES:  PLANNING COMMISSIONERS JOURNAL #64, FALL 2006





Townwide cemetery survey: Weston selectmen split on mailing
Weston FORUM
Written by Kimberly Donnelly
Wednesday, 18 August 2010 11:51

In a split 2-1 vote on Aug. 5, the Board of Selectmen approved a supplemental appropriation of up to $2,500 to cover the cost of a townwide mailing from the Cemetery Committee. The mailing will consist of a survey aimed at gauging interest in creating a cemetery in Weston.

Selectman Dan Gilbert voted against approving the appropriation, saying he would rather see the Cemetery Committee first give a presentation to townspeople, detailing exactly what the committee is proposing. The other two selectmen said they want to first determine if there is an interested audience before spending a lot of money on marketing.

Richard Wolf, a member of the Cemetery Committee, told the selectmen the survey to be mailed would consist of two simple questions:

• Would you be interested in purchasing a family plot or individual plots in a cemetery in Weston, and if so, how many?

• Would you be interested in full interment or ash interment grave sites?

The survey is the latest in a long line of steps the current Cemetery Committee has taken in its attempt to build a non-denominational town cemetery. Town-owned properties were studied and narrowed down until the Board of Selectmen told the committee to focus on development of the Fromson-Strassler property in Georgetown.

Last month, the committee brought forward to the selectmen preliminary proposals it had received from Willowbrook Cemetery in Westport for site design and management of a cemetery on a portion of the Fromson-Strassler site.

The committee said estimates for a preliminary site study — including a master site plan, landscape design, land surveys, and marketing and advertising — would cost upward of $66,000.

First Selectman Gayle Weinstein said at that meeting that while she was impressed with Willowbrook’s proposal, she wanted to gauge the level of interest among Westonites before investing that kind of money.

The board asked the Cemetery Committee to come up with a survey and determine how much money would be needed to conduct it.

At the Aug. 5 meeting, Ms. Weinstein expressed surprise that the survey Mr. Wolf proposed did not have any contact information on it in case people had questions, nor did it ask for contact information from survey participants who express an interest in the cemetery.

“This would be the perfect time to gather names, phone numbers, and e-mail addresses for a database you could use going forward,” Ms. Weinstein said.

Selectman Dave Muller also said he “feels strongly” the survey should let people know that as of now, the Cemetery Committee and the Board of Selectmen are looking at the Fromson-Strassler property as the most likely spot for a cemetery.

Presentation

Selectman Gilbert said he thinks a more comprehensive presentation to the town should come before a survey.

“A survey is a good idea, but for me, money would be better spent by presenting information to the town that’s as real as it can be to give people an opportunity to evaluate something of substance,” he said.

People want to know what the cemetery will look like and what it is going to cost, Dr. Gilbert added.

“I don’t think it will give you any valuable information,” and the survey won’t tell town officials who is willing to “write a check” for cemetery plots, he said.

Selectman Muller reminded Dr. Gilbert that at the last Board of Selectmen meeting, they had talked about the fact that a presentation would be helpful, but “no one would do that presentation for free.” In fact, Mr. Muller said, it would cost many times the amount of a townwide mailing, and would be money wasted if no one is even interested in buying into a Weston cemetery.

“We don’t want to spend anything if people aren’t interested,” Mr. Muller said.

Ms. Weinstein agreed with Mr. Muller, saying that if the survey indicates there are people in town who are interested, “then we can take that next step [and do a presentation], but at least you’ll know you have an audience.”

And, if people return the survey with contact information, that will show a “certain level of commitment,” and “at least you’ll know who you’re marketing to,” Ms. Weinstein said.

Ms. Weinstein and Mr. Muller voted to approve up to $2,500 for the townwide mailing, while Dr. Gilbert voted against.

The mailers were printed this week, and do include a space for people to include their contact information.

The names of the Cemetery Committee members are listed on the survey, but only the selectmen’s office phone number is listed as a contact for anyone who has questions.

The survey asks people to respond if they are “interested in burial spaces in Weston,” but it does not mention that Fromson-Strassler is the property currently iunder consideration for the community cemetery.

The town plans to mail the survey after Labor Day, on Sept. 7. Residents are asked to return responses using the pre-paid postage no later than Sept. 17.


Conservation Commission purview?  Isn't that another solution?

Weston P&Z reviews family cemetery regulation
Weston FORUM
Written by Patricia Gay
Wednesday, 14 July 2010 11:40

The Weston Planning and Zoning Commission is reviewing two potential zoning regulations that, if approved, would allow cemeteries on private property.

Last week, The Forum looked at a draft regulation that would allow the operation of a public cemetery on private property.

The second part two of this two-part series focuses on a draft regulation that would allow the burial of family members in the backyard under a Family Cemetery Special Permit.

Diane Von Furstenberg is not only an influential fashion designer, but she has also influenced Weston’s Planning and Zoning Commission to review its regulations regarding home burials.

It’s not Ms. Von Furstenberg personally who has come to P&Z’s attention, but rather the action of the Zoning Commission of the town of New Milford, which granted her a permit to create a family cemetery for up to 20 plots in her yard at her Litchfield County residence.

An article about Ms. Von Furstenberg’s zoning approval appeared in the April 15 issue of The New York Times, and it caught the eye of several Weston P&Z members.

“We looked at our own regulations and realized they were silent about home burials. So before we run into any problems, we believe we should be proactive and address this issue,” said Stephan Grozinger, P&Z chairman.

To that end, P&Z is reviewing a draft zoning regulation titled, “Family Cemetery Special Permit,” (see text of regulation online at www.theWestonForum.com) which, if approved, would allow Westonites to bury family members in their own yards.

“The reason I drafted the regulation is because the commission does not deal in hypotheticals. We will examine the pros and cons of home burials. If there is public support, we can pass a regulation that will allow them. If the public is opposed, we can pass a regulation prohibiting home burials. But whatever the case, we need to do something, because as it stands now our regulations are silent about them,” Mr. Grozinger said.

Court case

A recent court case about home burials has also convinced Mr. Grozinger that the town of Weston needs to take some sort of action.

In Piquet vs. the town of Chester, the plaintiff Elise Piquet filed an action in Superior Court asking whether she had the right to use her private land for the burial of her late husband and for herself upon her death. Her husband was buried in the couple’s backyard, without the knowledge of the town’s zoning compliance officer, who, upon learning of it, issued Ms. Piquet a cease and desist order for violating the town’s zoning regulations.

Although the lower court found in favor of the town in a summary judgment motion, the case is currently on appeal.

Chester and Weston’s zoning regulations are somewhat different on the issue of cemeteries and home burials, but the fact that Weston’s regulations say nothing at all about them could cause potential liability and litigation, which Mr. Grozinger said he would like to avoid.

“There is no specific prohibition in Weston’s regulations against burying someone in the backyard. The town does not need to incur the expense of litigation on this issue. Either there needs to be an outright prohibition or a regulation that stringently monitors home burials,” Mr. Grozinger said.
Draft regulation

In the home burial regulation under P&Z’s review, a cemetery allowing the interment of “up to four human remains,” would be allowed on residential properties.

The minimum setback would be 75 feet from the front, side, and back lot lines.

P&Z has the right to request a bond to assure perpetual maintenance of the cemetery. (It was reported that Ms. Von Furstenberg set up a trust fund to maintain her cemetery in perpetuity.)

No remains treated with formaldehyde or other hazardous substances may be interred.

Grave markers are required to be flush to the ground and above-ground vaults and mausoleums are prohibited.

The regulation has a sunset clause, and will expire on Dec. 31, 2015 unless renewed by P&Z.

“Although I can’t imagine a lot of people will support the regulation, it’s only fair that the issue is brought to the public’s attention,” Mr. Grozinger said.

In discussing the issue informally with people around town, Mr. Grozinger said many said that while they were not in favor of home burial for their own families, they would not object if their neighbors did so under regulated conditions.

A discussion of the draft regulation for family cemeteries, as well as a discussion on a draft regulation for public cemeteries on private property, is scheduled for P&Z’s regular meeting on Sept. 7.

A tentative date of Sept. 20 has been set for a public hearing on the draft regulations, if there is a decision by the commission to take one or both of them to the next level.

New two-acre residential and hereafter district?
Under P&Z review Public cemetery on private property?
Written by Patricia Gay, Weston FORUM
Wednesday, 07 July 2010 10:44

[One of the few cemeteries in Weston is the one behind Emmanuel Episcopal Church on Lyons Plain Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission is considering regulating the operation of a public cemetery on private property. —Kimberly Donnelly photo]

One of the few cemeteries in Weston is the one behind Emmanuel Episcopal Church on Lyons Plain Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission is considering regulating the operation of a public cemetery on private property. —Kimberly Donnelly photo
The Weston Planning and Zoning Commission is reviewing two potential zoning regulations that, if approved, would allow cemeteries on private property. Part one of this two-part series focuses on a draft regulation that would allow the operation of a public cemetery on private property. Next week — family burials in the backyard.

For years, the town of Weston has been grappling with the idea of putting a public cemetery on town property.

In May, the Board of Selectmen moved a step forward in the process by asking the town’s ad hoc Cemetery Committee to focus its efforts on the 100-acre Fromson-Strassler property in Georgetown to see if part of it would be suitable for use as a cemetery.

While waiting for the Cemetery Committee’s findings on costs and feasibility (which it is expected to present at Thursday's Board of Selectmen meeting), the Planning and Zoning Commission is looking into another alternative — allowing cemeteries on private property.

“Cemeteries have been a prominent issue in Weston for more than a decade, and while the committee is exploring the use of putting a cemetery on public land, P&Z is looking at the use of private land,” said Stephan Grozinger, P&Z chairman.

To that end, P&Z is reviewing a regulation Mr. Grozinger drafted, titled “Public Cemetery Special Permit” (click here for text of regulation), spelling out the limitations and restrictions for cemeteries on private land.

Mr. Grozinger pointed out that the regulation was drafted to provide a starting point for discussion on the topic, which is in its preliminary stages.

“The commission has discussed the idea casually, but we plan to do it more formally in September. If the regulation gets the commission’s support, the next step would be to hold a public hearing to see if there is public support for it,” Mr. Grozinger said.
Limitations

The draft regulation contains numerous limitations for cemeteries on private land, and includes minimum acreage requirements, setbacks, parking restrictions, planting and fencing requirements, and maximum density restrictions.

Any lot in Weston could be used for a cemetery and “the internment of human remains,” provided it complies with the conditions set forth in the regulation.

The minimum lot size required is one and one-half (1.5) acres, which Mr. Grozinger said is intended to keep cemeteries small.

The cemetery would need a minimum road frontage of 200 feet, and the total of land covered by buildings, parking and driveways, may not exceed 5% of the lot.

There would be a minimum setback of 75 feet for all gravesites and memorial gardens from the front, side, and back lot lines. “This requirement is more restrictive than regular setbacks, which are 50 feet from the front and 30 feet from the sides,” Mr. Grozinger said.

There is also a minimum 75-foot setback for parking.

The regulation allows P&Z to require additional areas be set aside to protect natural features, sightlines or neighboring properties.

A planting plan for the lot would need to be submitted for P&Z approval, and the commission could require the installation of fences or walls if it deems them necessary.

Dwellings would be prohibited on the lot, and all cemeteries must comply with state burial laws and regulations.

Any developer of a site would be required to submit a bond to provide for the cemetery’s perpetual maintenance.

There would be a maximum of 500 gravesites allowed per acre. Grave markers would be restricted in size and could not exceed 32 inches in height, 20 inches in width, and four inches in depth.

P&Z, in its discretion, could restrict the type of grave markers to ones that are flush to the ground.

Above-ground burial vaults or mausoleums would be prohibited except for memorial gardens and columbarium wall structures for the internment of cremated remains.

With an eye towards natural internment, no remains treated with formaldehyde or other hazardous substances would be allowed.
Benefits

Mr. Grozinger said there would be several benefits to the town in allowing public cemeteries on private property.

A main benefit is the potential for generating additional tax revenues. Lots that are presently open space would be taxed as developed lots, Mr. Grozinger said.

A cemetery lot would not add the expense of additional children for the schools, and the land would remain “virtually undisturbed” in perpetuity, Mr. Grozinger said.

“Another thing that makes this alternative attractive,” Mr. Grozinger said, “is it conserves space without spending town money.” He noted that the town would most likely have to enter into a ground lease on the town-owned Fromson-Strassler property and make infrastructure improvements in order for it to be viable for a cemetery.

Privacy is another important factor to take into account, Mr. Grozinger said. Under the current zoning regulations, a neighbor may build a tennis court with a chain link fence 30 feet from someone’s property line — substantially closer than the 75-foot setback for grave markers.

A discussion of the draft regulation is scheduled for P&Z’s regular meeting on Sept. 7. A tentative date of Sept. 20 has been set for a public hearing, if there is a decision by the commission to take the regulation to the next level.

In September, the commission will also discuss a draft regulation for family burial in backyards, which is the subject of part two of this series and will appear in next week’s Forum.

----------------------

THE DRAFT REGULATION FOR PUBLIC CEMETERIES, FROM THE FORUM

Public cemetery: Special permit draft regulation
Weston FORUM
Wednesday, 07 July 2010 10:51

The Planning and Zoning Commission is reviewing this draft regulation that would allow cemeteries on private property with a special permit.

341.8 Public Cemetery Special Permit

1. Cemetery Use. The use of any lot as a cemetery for the internment of human remains shall be permitted subject to the conditions set forth below.

2. Location: Cemeteries shall be permitted only on a minimum lot area of one and one half acre (1.5 acre) and only in locations with safe and convenient vehicular access as determined by the commission. The commission may reject an application in the event it deems the proposed location or other circumstances unsuitable on any aesthetic, social, or psychological basis.

3. Coverage: A minimum rectangle shall be contained within the lot of 170 feet by 200 feet. Minimum road frontage shall be 200 feet. The sum total of land covered with buildings, parking and driveway surfaces shall not exceed five percent (5%) of the lot.

4. Setbacks and Parking: Minimum setback of all gravesites, memorial gardens, and ancillary structures shall be 75 feet from the front, side and back lot lines. Minimum parking setback shall be 75 feet from the front, side and back lot lines. The commission may set aside additional areas of the lot to further protect natural features, sightlines, or neighboring properties. The commission shall determine the location and dimensions of any parking and driveway areas and may determine the materials to be used.

5. Additional Requirements:

(a) General Requirements. No application for a cemetery special permit shall be approved unless such application includes:

i) A plan showing the location of each proposed gravesite on the lot as fully developed together with proposed walking/access paths, driveways, parking areas, and ancillary structures. In no event shall any gravesite be developed which is not shown on the plan approved by the commission.

ii) A plan showing proposed plantings on the lot as fully developed including species, height and caliper of all trees and shrubs.

iii) The complete contracts and proposed burial policies to govern the development and operation of the lot (excluding monetary terms) providing for adequate remedies, exercisable by the commission or its designee, in the event this regulation, the conditions of the special permit approval, the contract or the policies are violated. Following approval, no contract for the provision of burial or management services to the lot may be amended or assigned without the approval of the commission. Following approval, no provision of proposed burial policies governing the development and operation of the lot may be amended without the approval of the commission.

iv) A report demonstrating that the lot’s topographical and soil conditions are adequate for the use and density proposed, and that there shall be no material hazard to the water supply (expressly including any possible future wells which may be located immediately adjacent to the boundary lines of the lot) as a result of the proposed use, all certified to the commission by an engineer/soil scientist registered in the State of Connecticut.

v) The commission may require that the lot be subject to a covenant prohibiting any subdivision of such lot.

(b) State Approval and Licensing. Any special permit approval shall remain subject to approval of the proposal, and the on-going licensure of the operator, by the appropriate agency or agencies of the State of Connecticut.

(c) Dwellings. Dwelling use on the lot shall be prohibited.

(d) Plantings /Fencing: The commission shall approve a planting plan for the lot which shall provide for the replacement of planting material as needed. The commission may require the installation and maintenance of a fences or walls on the lot as it deems necessary or desirable in its discretion.

(e) Maintenance: The commission may require the submission of a bond and/or submission of a fee for each developed grave site, adequate in the commission’s discretion, to provide for the perpetual maintenance of the lot, plantings, ancillary structures, walls and fences, and/or shall approve a plan providing adequate funding for such care. All such funds shall be held in a manner so as to be secure and bankruptcy remote.

(f) Maximum Internment Density: No more than five hundred (500) gravesites per acre shall be developed on the lot. The commission may, in its discretion, (i) require a lesser density, (ii) permit increased density for internment without a vault or coffin, and (iii) permit increased density to encourage preservation of specific large trees or natural formations. Nothing in the foregoing shall prohibit or limit the stacked internment of two remains within a single gravesite.

(g) Maximum Grave Marker Size: grave markers shall not exceed thirty-two (32) inches in height, twenty (20) inches in width, and four (4) inches in depth. The commission may, in its discretion, require standard design of grave marker, require smaller grave markers (or grave markers which are flush to the ground) throughout the lot or any portion thereof, and may limit the materials from which said markers may be fashioned.

(h) Above-ground Burial Vaults: Above-ground burial vaults or mausoleums shall not be permitted except as otherwise permitted pursuant to subsection (k), below.

(i) Natural Internment: No remains may be interred which have been treated with formaldehyde or other hazardous substance. The commission may, as part of its approval or at any time following approval, require certification of compliance with the foregoing.

(j) Unvaulted Internment: No more than twenty-five (25) remains shall be interned without a vault in any twelve (12) month period. The commission may, in its discretion, require that all remains be interred in vaults.

(k) Memorial Garden/Ancillary Structures: Memorial Garden and columbarium wall structures for the internment of cremated remains and ancillary structures for the care of the plot may be constructed in such location as may be determined by the commission.

(l) Additional Restrictions. There shall be no exterior lighting or public address system of any kind on the lot. No merchandise or service shall be advertised, displayed or sold on the lot.

(m) Non-native Soil. No soil may be deposited on the lot at any time unless such soil has been tested and certified to the commission as being free of any hazardous substance by an engineer/soil scientist registered in the State of Connecticut.

(n) Maximum Cemetery Development. No more than five (5) non-contiguous lots may be issued a special permit under this Section.

(o) Exemption. The provisions of Sections 332.1 and 332.7 shall not apply to this Section.


Old Montville burying ground among forsaken cemeteries;  Law allows towns to take control, but provides no funding
New London DAY
By STEPHANIE REITZ Associated Press Writer
Article published Jul 5, 2010

Montville - Almost 125 years ago, 15-month-old Emma Wheeler was laid to rest within sight of her family's church near a stone wall in a New England cemetery.

The church is now long gone, and the cemetery is abandoned. Over time, the toddler's grave and the rest of the Montville burial grounds became obscured by shoulder-high branches, brambles and fern fronds.
It's a scene mirrored at an untold number of abandoned cemeteries nationwide, leaving state and local governments under pressure from residents to clean up the burial grounds out of respect for the dead - without imposing more costs on the living.

Last year, Connecticut joined a number of states that have enacted laws that let towns acquire abandoned cemeteries if they cannot find the legal owners or heirs and if no burials have taken place for generations.
But the new law only allows for the acquisitions and cleanups. It doesn't require towns to do so or allocate any money to pay for the work.

Likewise, officials in many other states say it's proven nearly impossible to pinpoint exactly how many abandoned burial grounds exist, much less find the legal owners or shoulder the cost of cleaning them up. Part of the reason: Cemeteries weren't on tax rolls, so there was little impetus for governments to track their ownership.

Many abandoned cemeteries are the remnants of family farmstead burial grounds. Some were burial grounds for slaves and their descendants, who were segregated from whites even in death. Others are former churchyards abandoned when the churches disbanded or the last sexton died. Some were in frontier territories that were left behind as pioneers moved on.

In Florida, a legislative task force said some counties have more than 100 abandoned cemeteries each, and that thousands of other lost burial grounds probably remain undiscovered.

Researchers a few decades ago estimated that North Carolina had at least 10,000 abandoned cemeteries - a figure that some researchers now think is too low, given the longtime Southern tradition of being buried on the family homestead.

"Especially with the new mobility in the South after World War II, people moved away and there often would be nobody left to take care of the family graves," said John Clauser, a former archaeologist for the state of North Carolina. "The holly takes over, the yucca starts running wild. Within a few decades, there'd be just about no sign to the casual observer that the graves were there."

Connecticut's law, which went into effect in the fall, lets municipalities take over abandoned cemeteries if no burials have taken place and no plots have been sold in at least 40 years. The cemetery also must have been left without maintenance for at least 10 years, and either the owner can't be found or doesn't object to giving up the site.

Michele Pedro, who has explored the remnants of the Montville burial ground in search of her husband's ancestors, pressed town officials to restore it, resulting in a volunteer cleanup event.

But that's just a temporary fix.

Montville officials currently have no plans - or the money - to acquire the cemetery, despite having permission to do so through the new law. The land hasn't been on the tax rolls for centuries because of its status as a burial ground even though its owner, the Chesterfield Baptist Church, disbanded in the late 1800s.

Its graves date to the late 1700s and include veterans of wars dating to the Revolution.

"I find it absolutely horrifying that anybody would disrespect the dead by letting this get so out of hand," Pedro, of Waterford, said on a recent afternoon as she pushed through branches and brush before the cleanup.
"Even if you don't care about the dead or about history, it's only common decency to care at least enough about the veterans in a place like this to give them some dignity," she said.

Since many such cemeteries aren't on the tax rolls, chasing down today's legal owners can be a challenge.

That's the case in Lowell, Mass., where volunteers are tending a half-acre cemetery on land whose most recent owners of record have been dead for more than a century.

With no taxes to collect, no one has aggressively tried to track down the landowners' descendants. They probably number in the hundreds and likely have no idea they have a stake in an abandoned cemetery.
In Easton, Conn., the town has taken over three abandoned cemeteries since the fall and paid for the cleanups with grants, donations and an adopt-a-grave program.

"The places were going to rack and ruin and becoming a bit of an eyesore," said Town Clerk Derek Buckley, also the town's sexton. "We all felt an obligation to these people because many of them were the founding members of our town."


A casket made of willow, a renewable material.

Into the Great Green Beyond
NYTIMES
By JOHN COLLINS RUDOLF
June 30, 2010, 8:31 am

At the end of an eco-conscious life, there is a final choice a person can make to limit his or her impact on the planet: a green funeral.

“Consumers might live green, but they don’t think about dying green,” said Darren Crouch, president of Passages International, with offices in Albuquerque, N.M., and Berkshire, England, which supplies funeral homes with environmentally friendly caskets and urns. “They don’t know that they can green their funeral.”

Of the more than 2.4 million deaths per year in the United States, roughly 70 percent of the newly departed are interred in traditional caskets — that is, wood, steel or even copper caskets, many of which are then encased in slabs of reinforced concrete to prevent the weight of the earth from causing them to collapse. For those who go the casket route, embalming with toxic chemicals like formaldehyde remains common.

As a result, the environmental footprint of the dead is a heavy one. Every year, cemeteries across the nation bury approximately 30 million board feet of hardwood, 104,000 tons of steel, 2,700 tons of copper and bronze and 1.6 million tons of reinforced concrete, according to statistics gathered by environmental groups and advocates for green burial.

For those inclined toward a green funeral for themselves or a loved one, there are several options. One is cremation and burial in a biodegradable urn. Caskets made from renewable materials are also becoming popular; when the actress Lynn Redgrave passed away recently, for instance, she was buried not in a traditional hardwood casket, but in one made from bamboo.

And in England, there is a growing trend toward so-called woodland burials, in which bodies are buried not in regimented plots but in fields and forests, allowing the remains to quickly return to nature.

Green caskets and eco-friendly burial options remain somewhat rare in the United States, so planning ahead is a good move, proponents say. One useful resource is the nonprofit Green Burial Council.

“There are greener alternatives within the funeral industry,” Mr. Crouch said. “But when someone dies, you don’t have much time to research your options.”

RELATED TO GREEN FUNERAL?

The Planning & Zoning Commission is preparing to hold public hearings in the Fall on two new special permit zones:  one for town cemetery special permit and one for "family" burials on private property.

SELECTMEN'S FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS MAY 19, 2010

Above is a grave from a collection of headstones displayed on an internet site.  Rural looking!

At their Special Meeting May 19th, the Board of Selectmen reviewed their 'walk' of three possible cemetery sites, taken on May 1st, and discussed with Cemetery Committee members present their reactions.   The Cemetery Committe was invited back in later June to provide what information they might be able to get together on making an estimate of costs for a Town Cemetery at F-S.

We started our "walk" by parking at Town Hall (upper left)...
JOINT BOARD OF SELECTMEN AND CEMETERY COMMITTEE "WALK" OF 3 POTENTIAL CEMETERY PROPERTIES SATURDAY MAY 1, 2010, 11am to 12:30pm

Special Joint Meeting of Cemetery Committee and Selectmen - photos of first stop - Jarvis Military Academy site.
A quorum of both Cemetery Committee and Board of Selectmen were present at this "site walk" (4 of 5 from Cemetery Committee, full Board of Selectmen) and First Selectperson Weinstein opened the meeting on time and then passed the leadership of the "walk" to Chair. Richard Wolf of the Cemetery Committee.  Quite a few citizens, several of whom were neighbors (but not all) were at the first stop - Jarvis.  The second stop was to be the Moore property and the last, Fromson-Strassler.  "About Town" only attended the first site of three.


The Jarvis Military Academy

Possible Weston cemetery sites: Jarvis property seems most suitable
Weston FORUM
Written by Kimberly Donnelly
Thursday, 04 March 2010 00:00

Based on specific considerations weighed by the town’s Cemetery Committee, it appears the Jarvis property on the corner of Norfield and Weston roads — the current location of the Parks and Recreation Department offices — is most suitable for use as a town cemetery.

Last week, the Cemetery Committee offered the Board of Selectmen a rating of three sites the town might consider using as a cemetery. These are the Jarvis property (site of the old Jarvis Military Academy) in Weston Center; the Moore property on Lord’s Highway; and the Fromson-Strassler property in Georgetown.

In rating the sites, the committee considered things such as development, maintenance and management costs; visibility to neighbors and from major roads; accessibility; environmental conditions; future expansion possibilities; compatibility with surroundings; and potential opposition by neighbors or regulatory problems.

The Jarvis property scored highest in both unweighted tabulation of ratings and in a weighted tabulation, which assigns a value based on importance to each consideration.

Jarvis received a total weighted rating of 2,139 points out of a possible total of 4,000. Fromson-Strassler received 1,860 points, and Moore 1,750 points.

The Jarvis property rated highest for considerations such as accessibility to a major road, topographic suitability, and subsoil conditions.

However, it did not rate well when it comes to future expandability (it is only a two-acre parcel). Jarvis rated 2, compared with 100 for each of the other two properties.

The only other considerations in which the Jarvis site rated lower than both the other properties was character of the property as a cemetery and present adequacy of the site.

The Cemetery Committee said the character of the property as a cemetery is based on expert opinion that a preferred site has a “rising uphill approach, or gently level, undulating or rolling, minimal forest cover, [and] ‘marginal agriculture.’”

In addition, the committee members believe a site should “complement Weston’s rural character and/or blend with exisiting development.”

The character of the Jarvis site was given a weighted rating of 144, compared with 200 for the Moore property, and a 188 for Fromson-Strassler.

As for present adequacy of the site, the committee said a desired site would provide the town with burial space for 50 years, which means a site of approximately two acres minimum. Since Jarvis is only two acres, is was rated a 165, comared with 250 for Moore, and 220 for Fromson-Strassler, both of which are larger.

The Cemetery Committee is made up of Richard Wolf, chairman, Pamela Bochinski, Benjamin Hume, Harold Matthews, and Stewart Pearl.

The selectmen decided that sometime after the end of this month — after Selectman Dan Gilbert returns from an extended trip — the selectmen will walk each of the properties with Cemetery Committee members.

First Selectman Gayle Weinstein said after that, the board will seek community input.

“We may each have personal preferences, but we all have a responsibillity to the community going forward,” Ms. Weinstein said.


FROM WHIDBEY ISLAND TO WESTON?
Tuesday, 2/2/2010 1:29 pm

Langley eyes fees for green burials
By ROY JACOBSON, South Whidbey Record Reporter
Jan 29 2010, 4:17 PM · UPDATED

The first reading of a proposed new fee schedule to include green burials at the city cemetery will occupy the Langley City Council at its meeting next week.

The council meets at 6:30 p.m. Monday, Feb. 1, at city hall on Second Street.

The city’s Cemetery Board came up with a suggested price for the new green-burial plots at Langley Woodman Cemetery.

The cemetery has set aside 48 plots for green burials, which are done without cement grave liners or embalming, and involve biodegradable caskets or sheaths.

There are only 11 other certified green-burial sites in the United States, two of them in Washington state, at Burlington and in Eastern Washington, said Debbie Mahler, city finance director.

Each green-burial site at Woodman Cemetery is 6 feet by 10 feet, compared to the standard 4 feet by 8 feet, and requires more space so maintenance vehicles don’t drive over the graves, risking the chance of a collapse.

The Cemetery Board recommends charging $1,200 per plot, with an additional maintenance fee of $400.

Because there have been several requests from off-island residents for the green-burial plots, a six-month pre-sale price for local residents of $1,000 plus $400 maintenance also is recommended, Mahler said.


Weston FORUM article and editorial on "open public meeting" televised on Channel 79 live!  #4 Moore not pictured...





CEMETERY COMMITTEE:  DECEMBER 2, 2009 AT 7:30PM IN THE TOWN HALL MEETING ROOM - "OPEN PUBLIC MEETING" NOTES...

Present:  Richard Wolf, Pam Bochinski, Hal Mathews, Stewart Pearl, Benjamin Hume;  Margaret Wirtenberg; John Conte, Town Engineer;  invited members of the public including the Board of Selectmen (Gayle Weinstein, First Selectman, Dan Gilbert and David Muller), two members of the Board of Finance (Mike O’Brien and Bob Atkinson), one member of the Planning and Zoning Commission (Jane Connelly), two members of the Commission on Aging (Lois Miller, Terry Hulley) and another dozen citizens.  Former First Selectman Woody Bliss was present.

The meeting was called to order by Chair. Richard Wolf at @7:35pm.   Wolf read the charge to this Cemetery Committee

The Committee introduced themselves to the public and explained their interest in the subject and why they volunteered to serve.

Pam Bochinski gave a thorough description of what had transpired over the 18 years since the first Cemetery Committee began work.  That first Committee recommended that the Town take over Coley Cemetery.

The second Committee recommended using parts of Bisceglie Park.   The third Committee did a business plan for a non-denominational cemetery on the newly acquired Fromson-Strassler parcel.  Committee #4, using a professional consultant, did a review of parcels, creating a matrix evaluating their possibilities and recommended properties that were either not available or encumbered. 

Richard Wolf then went on to explain how the new Committee had a slightly different charge (for 50 years worth of burials instead of 100 years), so that  more Town-owned properties were in play.  He described the map.  There were 10 or so potential sites located there.

Town Engineer Conte then went through his engineering assessment of the top 4 sites, discussing soils, depth to bedrock and other physical conditions;  access was discussed.

The public was recognized at all times if they had questions or comments.  Discussion ensued regarding the next steps, with the new Board of Selectmen making some suggestions about methodology, timing and the parcels themselves.  Chair. Wolf thanked everyone for coming.    

Architect pushes for changes at city cemetery
New Haven REGISTER
By Mary E. O’Leary, Register Topics Editor
Wednesday, October 7, 2009

NEW HAVEN — Architect Robert Stern made the case Tuesday for a “small intervention” in the wall on one side of the Grove Street Cemetery, but the owners of burial plots there dismissed the proposal as an intrusion into sacred space.

“The walk along Prospect Street is very unfriendly from the outside. It would be nice to catch a glimpse inside,” Stern said as he explained a plan to insert a cast-iron fence in three places along the 8-foot-tall sandstone wall.

He would also add another row of tall trees along the street, flowering bushes and ground cover, as well as more appropriate lighting adjacent to this section of the cemetery, which is a National Historic Landmark.

“I think, from the public’s perception, it is a bleak environment, but it can change into something much softer and more friendly,” said Stern.

The cemetery already has a cast-iron fence along the Grove Street perimeter; the sandstone wall on the three other sides was not added until 1841, after the original wooden fence deteriorated.

The suggestion to replace part of the sandstone with three four-foot sections of iron fencing was made by Charles Ellis, a proprietor of the cemetery and one of 11 members of its standing committee, who will make the final decision on any changes.

G. Harold Welch Jr., president of the standing committee, told the large audience of preservationists and proprietors that they won’t rush to make a decision. Anyone who owns a burial plot is a proprietor.

Ellis said his experience with cemeteries growing up in Massachusetts and going to school in Cambridge was of quiet, open spaces, and he considered opening up a portion of the wall along the Grove Street Cemetery as “a marvelous opportunity to improve the overall experience” of the city landmark.

Ellis, who is married to Yale Vice President Linda Lorimer, said the plan is not endorsed by the university, which is building two new residential colleges a block from the cemetery, but more of his idea, “to do something that might be useful to this community.”

Several widows who spoke up at the meeting agreed with the improved landscaping and lighting, but not touching the wall.

One woman said she drove her dying husband to the cemetery to show him where he would be buried. “He felt happy and content, if it is possible for anyone to feel happy that they had found the right place for them to be buried,” she said.

The thought that the cemetery would be opened up to passers-by “feels like such a violation of the committment I made to him. ... I find it bizarre to change something that is such a wonderful place,” she said to clapping from the audience.

Another woman said the Grove Street Cemetery is an example of a closed burial space, and to change it would violate that concept. “It’s a cemetery, not an attraction,” she offered.

Stern was not able to test how much noise and emissions would creep into the cemetery, but said any changes would be small compared to the amount of traffic already passing by on Grove Street.

Susan Saccio wasn’t buying any of the explanations.

Just having purchased a burial spot for herself and her husband, she found the proposal “very upsetting. This is a beautiful blessed space,” where visitors find peace and quiet, she said. “Leave the wall alone.”

“That wall really does imply a separation, whatever it is — it made me come here today,” to speak up, said Adrienne Lewis, whose husband, Gene Lewis, an architect, is buried there. “He just loved it” and would be happy she opposed any change, she said.

Stern, also the dean of the Yale Architecture School, said there have been changes over the years at the cemetery, as with most built structures.

“In my view, this is not a breaking of the sacred trust between 1840 and today. ... I have spent all my life as a preservationist. ... No building that I know of has been preserved exactly as it was,” while landscapes are constantly evolving, Stern said.

The Rev. Sandra Olsen of Center Church on the Green said she often accompanies visitors to the cemetery for memorial services and they are always comforted by the “mixture of intimacy and privacy they find. I don’t see the need to change that.”

Anstress Farwell of the New Haven Urban Design League presented Welch with a petition signed by 450 people opposed to the fence, but in favor of better landscaping.

Home Burials Offer an Intimate Alternative
NYTIMES
By KATIE ZEZIMA
July 21, 2009

PETERBOROUGH, N.H. — When Nathaniel Roe, 92, died at his 18th-century farmhouse here the morning of June 6, his family did not call a funeral home to handle the arrangements.

Instead, Mr. Roe’s children, like a growing number of people nationwide, decided to care for their father in death as they had in the last months of his life. They washed Mr. Roe’s body, dressed him in his favorite Harrods tweed jacket and red Brooks Brothers tie and laid him on a bed so family members could privately say their last goodbyes.

The next day, Mr. Roe was placed in a pine coffin made by his son, along with a tuft of wool from the sheep he once kept. He was buried on his farm in a grove off a walking path he traversed each day.

“It just seemed like the natural, loving way to do things,” said Jennifer Roe-Ward, Mr. Roe’s granddaughter. “It let him have his dignity.”

Advocates say the number of home funerals, where everything from caring for the dead to the visiting hours to the building of the coffin is done at home, has soared in the last five years, putting the funerals “where home births were 30 years ago,” according to Chuck Lakin, a home funeral proponent and coffin builder in Waterville, Me.

The cost savings can be substantial, all the more important in an economic downturn. The average American funeral costs about $6,000 for the services of a funeral home, in addition to the costs of cremation or burial. A home funeral can be as inexpensive as the cost of pine for a coffin (for a backyard burial) or a few hundred dollars for cremation or several hundred dollars for cemetery costs.

The Roes spent $250.

More people are inquiring about the lower-cost options, said Joshua Slocum, director of the Funeral Consumers Alliance, a nonprofit watchdog group. “Home funerals aren’t for everybody, but if there’s not enough money to pay the mortgage, there certainly isn’t enough money to pay for a funeral,” Mr. Slocum said.

Baby boomers who are handling arrangements for the first time are particularly looking for a more intimate experience.

“It’s organic and informal, and it’s on our terms,” said Nancy Manahan of Minneapolis, who helped care for her sister-in-law, Diane Manahan, after she died of cancer in 2001, and was a co-author of a book, “Living Consciously, Dying Gracefully,” about the experience. “It’s not having strangers intruding into the privacy of the family. It’s not outsourcing the dying process to professionals.”

While only a tiny portion of the nation’s dead are cared for at home, the number is growing. There are at least 45 organizations or individuals nationwide that help families with the process, compared with only two in 2002, Mr. Slocum said.  The cost of a death midwife, as some of the coaches call themselves, varies from about $200 for an initial consultation to $3,000 if the midwife needs to travel.

In Connecticut, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska and New York, laws require that a funeral director handle human remains at some point in the process. In the 44 other states and the District of Columbia, loved ones can be responsible for the body themselves.

Families are typically required to obtain the death certificate and a burial transit permit so the body can be moved from a hospital to a cemetery, or, more typically, a crematory.

But even in states where a funeral director is required, home funerals are far less expensive.

“I think with our economy being the way that it currently is, and it’s getting worse, that many people who may not have chosen to do these types of things may be forced to because of the finances,” said Verlene McLemore, of Detroit, who held a home funeral for her son, Dean, in 2007. She spent about $1,300 for a funeral director’s services.

Some families, like the Roes, choose burial on private land, with a town permit. In most states, those rules are an issue of local control. “Can Grandma be buried in the backyard? Yes, for the most part if the backyard is rural or semirural,” said Mr. Slocum.

(Some members of Michael Jackson’s family have spoken of making Neverland Ranch near Santa Barbara the singer’s final resting place, but officials say no one has submitted an application to the California Cemetery and Funeral Bureau, which would have to approve the home burial.)

Recently, some states, with the backing of the funeral industry, have considered restricting the practice of home funerals. Oregon legislators last month passed a bill that would require death midwives to be licensed, something no state currently does.  Many death midwives are like Jerrigrace Lyons, who was asked to participate in the home funeral of a close friend, a 54-year-old woman who died unexpectedly in 1994. Ms. Lyons was initially frightened at the prospect of handling the body, but she participated anyway.

The experience was life changing, she said, and inspired her to help others plan home funerals. She opened Final Passages in Sebastopol, Calif., in 1995 and said she had helped more than 300 families with funerals. Weekend workshops for those interested in home funerals have a waiting list.  Ms. Lyons educates the bereaved about the realities of after-death care: placing dry ice underneath the body to keep it cool, tying the jaw shut so it does not open.

Mr. Lakin, a woodworker, makes coffins specifically for home funerals. Ranging in price from $480 to $1,200, they double as bookcases, entertainment centers and coffee tables until they need to be used.

He became interested in home funerals after his father died 30 years ago and he felt there was a “disconnect” during the funeral process. Mr. Lakin is now a resource for funeral directors in central Maine and a local hospice.  His coffins are sold to people like Ginny Landry, 77, who wants a home funeral one day but is content to use her coffin to showcase the quilts she makes. It once stood in her bedroom, but her husband, Rudolph, made her move it to a guest room because he pictured her in the coffin every time he laid eyes on it.

“It’s very comforting to me, knowing I have it there so my children won’t have to make a decision as to where I’m going to go,” Ms. Landry said.

During her battle with cancer, Diane Manahan also requested a home funeral, and the family did not know then how much it would help them with their grief.

“There’s something about touching, watching, sitting with a body that lets you know the person is no longer there,” Nancy Manahan said. “We didn’t even realize how emotionally meaningful those rituals are, doing it ourselves, until we did it.”

Valley Forge Cemetery:  Aquarion lays out challenges if Weston pursues site
Weston FORUM
by Kimberly Donnelly
Mar 5, 2008

The town would have to jump through several hoops to put a cemetery on the corner of Valley Forge Road and Newtown Turpike — and there’s no guarantee after jumping through them that it would ultimately be approved by the landowners.

That was the conclusion the Board of Selectmen came to after speaking with representatives from Aquarion Water Company on Feb. 28.
 
“You have a challenge ahead of you if you wish to consider the site in question,” said Leendert DeJong, manager of watershed and environmental management for Aquarion.

First of all, Mr. DeJong said, a state law was established in 1949 that prohibits cemeteries within a half-mile of a public water supply. The site in question is 800 feet from the Saugatuck Reservoir.

Selectman Glenn Major clarified that the law does not say the town can’t locate a cemetery there, but if it wants to, the town would have to go to Superior Court and prove the cemetery is a public convenience, a necessity, and it will not be detrimental.

Mr. DeJong agreed, but said there are other hurdles.

In 2002, what was formerly Aquarion land around the Saugatuck River Watershed was acquired by the state. In 2004, Governor M. Jodi Rell established the Centennial Watershed State Forest — the site in question is part of that 15,000-acre tract.

The land is technically owned by Aquarion, but is managed by the Conservation Land Committee (CLC), made up of the Nature Conservancy, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and Aquarion. Mr. DeJong said conservation easements and a natural resources agreement exist between the three parties.

The agreement says Class I land, such as that being considered for the cemetery site, is to be “dedicated and preserved in perpetuity in its natural and open condition for the protection of natural resources,” Mr. DeJong said. The interpretation of that, he continued, is that the land is intended to be used as open space and for recreational use only.

In addition, Mr. DeJong said, the state health department has the ultimate say in what is approved or not on Class I land, so the cemetery proposal would require health department review and approval.

Steve Stamos, manager of natural resources for Aquarion, is the water company’s representative on CLC. He told the selectmen the group would consider a cemetery to be inconsistent with the natural resource management agreement.

Mr. Major said, “One could make the argument that a cemetery is not inconsistent with what’s being done here.” He wondered if the Superior Court, the state DEP, and the Nature Conservancy “sign off on that area as being a cemetery,” would Aquarion agree.

If Aquarion would simply never agree to having a cemetery on the site under any circumstances, “that obviously would have a huge bearing on how we proceed,” Mr. Major said.

Mr. DeJong said they could take the question to CLC at its meeting this week “and get a direct answer.”

However, Mr. Stamos said, “I can tell you, the answer is going to be no.”

First Selectman Woody Bliss said the board would still like an official answer from CLC, and Mr. Stamos agreed he would get one.

CEMETERY COMMITTEE REPORTS TO SELECTMEN DEC. 20, 2007:
We attended this Selectmen's meeting, and as we heard it, it was the opinion of the Chair. of the Cemetery Committee Richard Wolf that only the Lachat property (see above right) fits the bill as a site for a Town cemetery, and this view is supported in the study by a consultant.  FORUM report follows:

Weston eyes Lachat for cemetery
by BRIAN GIOIELE, Weston Forum
Jan 2, 2008
 
A portion of the Lachat property, near the corner of Godfrey Road West and Newtown Turnpike, has been recommended as a possible site for a new town cemetery. —Kimberly Donnelly photo 
Cemetery experts believe that the Lachat property could be home to more than just a nature center.

The Cemetery Committee’s report — presented to the Board of Selectmen Dec. 20 — says a four-acre portion of the Lachat property is the “physically and aesthetically most suitable location for a proposed cemetery of the sites reviewed.”

The only problem is the land is jointly owned by the town and the Nature Conservancy. And Selectmen Glenn Major said Dr. Steve Patton, director of the conservancy’s Devil’s Den, has said that type of use is off limits.

“I don’t think the use of the property is inconsistent with the agreements (made in the Lachat deal),” said Mr. Major. “But when asked about this, Steve Patton told me, ‘Fine, use eminent domain.’ Those were his words.”

The Lachat site was among five locations in town analyzed for character and cemetery potential by Grever & Ward Inc. Landscape Architects and Cemetery Planners.

The other sites were:

•    Some three acres on the corner of Valley Forge Road and Newtown Turnpike.
•    The library site on Norfield Road.
•    The Jarvis property where Jarvis House sits on Norfield Road.
•    Expansion of the existing Coley Cemetery on Weston Road, just south of Goodhill Road.

“We decided that only one site of town-owned property could be recommended at this point in time, and that is a portion of the Lachat site,” said Cemetery Committee member Richard Wolf.

The committee’s report notes the delicate nature of the site’s ownership, but a cemetery would not be “incompatible with other uses under consideration.”

“The committee is mindful of the practical and political issues which the use of a portion of the Lachat property for this purpose may present,” said the committee’s report. “Nevertheless, the committee strongly believes that this cemetery site should be included as part of the land use master plan now being developed for the Lachat property by the town and the Nature Conservancy.”

When asked the remaining order of preference of sites after the Lachat property, Mr. Wolf said that no such decision was made.

“It is important that we have an order of preference for the other options,” Mr. Major said.

“The committee hasn’t done that,” said Pam Bochinski, committee chairman. “The consultant doesn’t feel that the other sites, other than the possible exception of the Valley Forge site, are good cemetery sites at all.”

The selectmen then asked why the Valley Forge site, which was also found appropriate for a cemetery in the consultant’s report, was not recommended.  The committee said using that site would require land acquisition, since the property in question is part of the Centennial Watershed State Forest, jointly managed by Aquarion Water Co., the state Department of Environmental Protection, and the Nature Conservancy.

Ms. Bochinski said Aquarion officials have stated the company would not allow such a development, meaning eminent domain would again be the only option.  Mr. Major asked for more information about the suitability of the Valley Forge Road site as well as estimates on what the costs would be to use eminent domain to take either the four acres of Lachat land or the three acres of Valley Forge Road property.

“If we in fact have to spend X amount of money, we might determine that it would be more cost-effective for us to investigate purchasing properties that we had not considered purchasing before,” Mr. Major said.

The consultant found the Lachat site “appears to be a very viable choice for a town cemetery” that could hold some 2,000 graves plus substantial facilities for cremated remains.

“The immediate neighborhood is thinly populated, no major commercial or other public facilities are competing for existing infrastructure, the demand for public services is practically nil, and safety conflicts are not apparent,” the report states.

This site would have longevity of 50 years as a cemetery, according to the consultants.  The Valley Forge Road site, located at the corner of Newtown Turnpike, could yield 2.4 acres of interment space, or some 2,200 graves. This means the site would last some 55 years, the report states.

“There are no notable restrictive site limitations other than the small existing cemetery whose limits of occupation are unknown,” the report states. “An archeological study would likely ensue in respect to the existing burial ground to establish its limits and avoid compromising its historical and heritage values.

“Otherwise, there are no neighborhood constraints, businesses or competitive entities to challenge its usage,” the report states.

Ms. Bochinski said that not only land acquisition but also clearing of the property make the Valley Forge Road location unsuitable.  But Mr. Major said using the Lachat site could prove to be the “most complicated regarding deed restrictions.”

However, Mr. Wolf said the committee still felt the Lachat land would be most suitable for a town cemetery.

“We thought there was a possibility of switching. The town could give up the rights to an equivalent piece of land to the Nature Conservancy,” Ms. Bochinski said.

“I specifically asked Steve (Patton). He was very unequivocal: ‘No,’” responded Mr. Major.

Selectman Gayle Weinstein asked about reutilizing Coley Cemetery, an idea the committee members shot down immediately.

“Quite frankly, some committee members have said you can recompose the committee if you decide to look at Coley,” said Mr. Wolf. “We have taken the position that Lachat is the only property that would satisfy the needs of a town cemetery, unless the town purchases other land.”

Ms. Bochinski said expanding Coley Cemetery would yield another 200 to 300 new grave sites, while ultimately destroying the historical character of the old cemetery. She said any new graves would “really be cramming things in there.”

“So the committee’s position is it is Lachat or nothing?” asked Mr. Major.

“Yes,” responded Mr. Wolf.

News from around CT...
Cemetery Group Links Two More Accounts To Cross 
New London DAY
By Jenna Cho    
Published on 9/26/2007 

Ledyard — In a matter of months, the Gales Ferry Cemetery Association's new board of directors has gone from having no records of its financial history to learning about the existence of three separate bank accounts under its name.

The latest discoveries were of two high-yield Certificate of Deposit accounts, since closed, that the association's former sexton, Cynthia L. Cross, had held at The Dime Savings Bank. It was the same bank that had held a checking account in the association's name that association officials say Cross used regularly to write checks from and deposit funds into.

Association President Susan Billing is hopeful the information she is gathering will help with an ongoing police investigation on discrepancies in the cemetery association's finances, which Cross, 53, appears to have operated single-handedly for years. Cross has not been charged with any criminal wrongdoing in the cemetery investigation.

Cross is currently serving a prison sentence for embezzling $152,000 from the Town of Ledyard's Water Pollution Control Authority. In that case, Cross was said to have pocketed cash payments made to the WPCA while she worked as its executive administrator.

Billing said Cross denied use of any bank account to conduct association business before she resigned in June. Billing discovered the CD accounts by requesting bank information on two deposits made to the association's checking account.

“Bank accounts are like road maps, right to the source of the money,” she said.

The problem, Billing said, was that banks only kept records for a certain number of years, and some of the history the association seeks goes back 17 years, when Cross took over as sexton from retired town treasurer Catherine L. Clark.

The CD accounts were closed on May 20, 2002 and Aug. 7, 2003. The account amounts — $8,104.22 and $4,996.97 — were deposited back into the checking account the same days the CD accounts were closed.

Association secretary Mary Emerich said that while Cross publicly denied managing any bank accounts under the association's name, Cross once told Emerich specifically that she was using interest generated from a CD account to maintain the cemetery.

The existence of the CD accounts also raises a question about the existence of a Board of Directors. Billing said Cross had told her before resigning that she worked under a board that met annually. The names Cross provided as board members didn't check out, but Billing said that bank records of the CD account that was closed in August 2003 showed that a woman named Kimberly E. Smith, identified in the records as the association's president, signed on that account.

Billing said she has not yet verified Smith's involvement and remained uncertain as to whether a board truly existed during Cross' time as sexton. The association reorganized in June and elected a new board.

Billing has requested information on 30 more deposits Cross made to the association's checking account. She said she hoped the history of those deposits would yield even more information on Cross' management of the association's funds.

“I think it's good news, even though unfortunately the money's not there,” said Billing of the discovery of the CD accounts. “What I'm hoping for is that one of the other deposits may show a source that still has funds in it. And I know that's probably wishful thinking, but it would be nice. If we don't find out, if we don't ask, we'll never know.”


Cemetery Committee 2009-2010 Public Notices/informal, unofficial minutes
Members:  Hal Mathews, Pam Bochinski, Stewart Pearl, Richard Wolf, Benjamin Hume.

NOTE:  A "walk" of the Fromson-Strassler Property including the Town Engineer scheduled for Tuesday, May 11, 2010 at 2:45pm, beginning at the termination of Upper Parish Road.

Please note that we have not posted the notices or minutes online for some time - they are available in the Town Clerk's Office for public inspection.  Please read the FORUM story about the Cemetery Committee's Public Hearing here.


Minutes of Oct. 26, 2009


Minutes of October 7, 2009


WALK scheduled for September 26, 2009 at 9am (Saturday) of properties discussed at Sept. 8th meeting.


Agenda, Tuesday, September 8, 2009 at 7:30pm, Commission Roon at Town Hall

Agenda, Monday, August 31, 2009 at 7:30pm, Commission Room at Town Hall

PREVIOUS COMMITTEE NOTES: "About Town" did not continue attending this Ad Hoc Committee because some of the work was being done in Executive Session (land discussions) to which we would not be invited to attend (since we are not on the Committee).
Meeting #5
The fifth meeting of this Committee will take place on Saturday, January 6, 2007 at 9:30am in the Commission Room at Town Hall.  The posted agenda includes approval of minutes of the previous meeting and a continuation of the discussion and evaluation of potential cemetery sites.
Meeting #4
The fourth meeting of the renewed Cemetery Committee (#3 was a windshield survey of Town owned and some not Town-owned properties reviewed for possible consideration for a Town of Weston cemetery - "About Town" did not go on this legally noticed [Dec. 2] "tour.") took place on Saturday morning, December 9, 2006.

After reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of sites "visited" on Dec. 2, the Committee concluded that a spread-sheet analysis and whatever visual aides needed to communicate its work, could be prepared later in January 2007 for informal review by the Town leadership prior to further steps such as actually proposing an application [NOTE:  this website's opinion coming up...] for a new zone for cemeteries, or a new Special Permit category for a Town Cemetery, to the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Meeting #2
In the second meeting of this new group, on Saturday, November 18, 2006, it was decided to move ahead with a quick review of land available including any made available since the last effort (windshield survey) as soon as a list of "top ten" sites can be assembled and located on appropriate maps to scale;  after the "windshield survey" the Committee will meet on Saturday, December 9, 2006 at 10am in the Commission Room at Town Hall.

New ideas regarding the existing memorial and role of a cemetery in community life were broached.

Minutes of the Cemetery Committee are available at the Town Clerk's Office.

In the public record...contact Town Clerk for membership on the immediately previous (2007) Ad Hoc Committee.

The Town of Weston has been studying the need for a Town Cemetery for perhaps 15 years.  An Ad Hoc Committee has been active in several bursts of activity in that time.  All minutes are available at Town Hall, as this has been one of the very best Committees ever appointed for posting notices and keeping up to date minutes on file!  Video record of "testimony" by members at LWV of Weston "Speak Up" events over the years is witness to this.

In 2006, a new effort began, ultimately coming to no conclusion that could be supported by the Selectmen.  References in our Board of Selectmen's Minutes on-line are as follows: