PHED Committee #2 & 3
October 16, 2017
MEMORA NDUM
October 12, 2017
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Planning, H,7using, and Economic Development Committee
Jeff Zyonl:Znio r Legislative Analyst
Bill 24-17, Land Use Information - Burial Sites; and SRA 17-01, Approval Procedures -
Burial Sites
Subdivision Regulation Amendment (SRA) 17-01, Approval Procedures - Burial Sites, lead sponsors
Councilmem ber Rice, Council President Berliner, and Councilmem ber Leventhal, and co-sponsors
Councilmemb ers Navarro, Hucker, and Eirich, was introduced on June 27, 2017. SRA 17-01 would
require burial sites identified in the inventory to be respected in the subdivision approval process.
Although there are state requirements for the removal of human remains and for registered cemeteries,
currently there are no specific references in County code dealing with cemeteries or burial sites. There
are no obligations for developers to do archaeological research on their sites based on County law.
1
Bill 24-17 was also introduced on June 27.
It
would require the Planning Board to establish and maintain
an inventory of burial sites. Under Bill 24-17, the Planning Board would be required revise that inventory
annually as research reveals additional sites or errors in prior research.
Once identified as a burial site, under SRA 17-01, the burden shifts to the subdivision applicant to research
and delineate the boundary of the burial site. The burial site would be protected from development unless
that protection would amount to "taking" the property.
The Plarming Board and Planning staff recommended approval of SRA 17-01 and Bill 24-1 7 with
amendments. The Planning Board recommende d allowing for more flexibility in determining when it is
appropriate to relocate buried remains. The Board also recommende d revisions to the inventory of burial
sites to allow changes whenever they are discovered, not just armually. Beyond the Bill and SRA, the
Board recommende d the appointment of a special advisory committee to comprehensiv ely explore
additional legislation concerning burial sites and archaeological resources.
The Council held a public hearing on September 12, 2017. In general, testimony supported the approval
of SRA 17-01 as the Council's first step in protecting burial sites. A number of people wanted to protect
The use offederal or state funds does trigger an obligation on the part of the active public agency to do proactive investigations.
This process is required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). Projects requiring review
include actions with direct federal or state funding sources, pennits, licenses, or other action with state or federal involvement.
1
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
burial sites in all development processes. Testimony suggested burial site protections for
situations like
the Macedonia Baptist Church, where a sketch plan application was in process when
the issue of
preserving a burial ground was raised.
2
Some testimony wanted to impose an obligation on
developers to
research burial sites on every development without regard to its identification on an inventory.
There was
testimony both for and against Planning Board discretion to allow the relocation of burial sites.
Additional
recommendations raised in testimony are addressed as issues below.
Issues
Shoul d all action on SRA 17-01 and Bill 24-17 be postp oned until more comprehensive legisla
tion
is developed?
Testimony from the Historic Preservation Commission recommended a delay in approving
Bill 24-17 and
SRA 24-17 until a more comprehensive approach can be developed by a specially-appointe
d committee.
In Staffs opinion, the Historic Preservation Commission is favoring the perfect over the
good. By the
judgment of testimony from organizations devoted to preserving burial sites, historic preser
vationists and
virtually all other testimony received, Bill 24-17 and SRA 17-01 are good first steps
in burial site
preservation.
In both physics and legislative action, there are two notable forces at work: inertia and entrop
3
y.
In
the
absence of inertia, entropy wins.
Staff recommends proceeding through the approval
process of
Bill 24-17 and SRA-17.
Shoul d the inventory of burial sites be restricted to where the Planning Board is autho
rized to
approve subdivisions?
Under Bill 24-17, the Planning Board must establish in an inventory of burial sites each site
"located in
an area of the County where the Planning Board is authorized to approve a subdivision."
4
As proposed,
the inventory triggers actions under the subdivision process. The Council and the Planning
Board lack
zoning and subdivision authority in Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville,
Barnesville,
Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. The Council has some authority, but no zoning
and land use
authority in these jurisdictions; the Planning Department has absolutely no autho
rity in these
municipalities. An inventory of burial sites that included these municipalities would be
an academic
exercise.
Staff does not recommend expanding the geographic scope of the inventory.
Shoul d all subdivision applications be the subject ofPhase 1 and Phase II archaeological
studies?
SRA 17-01 would require preservation of a burial ground and archaeological investigations
only when the
site was identified on the Planning Board's inventory of burial sites. A site not on the invent
ory would
not have any obligation to do any archaeologic investigation. Testimony recommended
requiring all
subdivision applicants to do archaeological research before proceeding.
The cemetery is not the subject of a preliminary plan application. There is a significant volume
of written testimony looking
for the Council to avoid the situation that developed regarding the Macedonia Baptist Church
.
3
"In high school, when I first heard of entropy, I was attracted to it immediately. They
said that in nature all systems are
breaking down, and I thought, 'What a wonderful thing; perhaps I can make some small contrib
ution to this process, mysel f"'
George Carlin
4
Bill 24-17 lines 39-41.
2
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Archaeological investigations have 2 phases to determine the existence of any resources on a site going
back to prehistoric times. The goal of a Phase I archaeological survey is to determine the presence or
absence of archaeological resources within a project area.
A Phase I investigation consists of a combination of background research and fieldwork designed to
identify resources and define site boundaries within a given project area. During the Phase I investigation,
the entirety of the project area must be studied. Phase I investigations entail detailed archival and
background research as to the possibility of a burial site. Phase I fieldwork also includes at least an on-
site survey of the site and may include some limited digging. The use of specific field methods and
techniques is dependent upon the type of ground cover present, the topographic setting, and the amount
of observed disturbance. The Phase 1 study indicates whether a resource may be on the site.
5
If
there is
some evidence of a burial site, a Phase II investigation would be required for the area in which the site is
thought to be located.
A Phase II archaeological investigation is conducted to determine the exact extent of the resource. A
Phase II study may include: evaluating areas of moderate and high artifact densities and determining the
surface and subsurface limits of the site. The field methods and techniques may include systematic,
controlled surface collection, shovel tests, hand-excavated test units, and use of remote sensing techniques
(ground penetrating radar). Field investigations should be designed to retrieve the information necessary
without seriously impacting the contextual integrity of the site.
Some archaeologic information is available without costly research. A chain of title can be done fairly
easily. The state maintains a registry of archaeological resources that is available to professionals without
additional research. Because of the sensitivity of archeological site information, access to archeological
site location data is restricted.
It
is generally available only to those who meet the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. The availability of historic libraries and church histories
can also reduce the cost of research.
Some counties require archaeologic investigations under certain circumstances. In Anne Arundel County,
when a parcel or project area is deemed to have a high potential for resources, a survey may be required
to identify potentially significant resources. Similarly, in Prince George's County, before the submittal
of a preliminary plan of subdivision, potential applicants are encouraged to contact the Historic
Preservation staff for an evaluation of archeological potential and a finding as to whether an archeological
investigation is needed.
6
Howard County maintains an inventory of burial sites.
It
requires additional
research for those sites and any other sites found.
7
While the cost of Phase I varies, depending upon conditions and other variables, it typically costs between
$1,500 and $6,000. Variables may include: size of property, number of buildings, complexity of the
current/historical use, integrity of the site, cultural affiliations, or other conditions.
8
A phase II study also evaluates an archaeological site's eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP).
6
SRA 17-01 and Bill 24-17 are modelled after the Prince George's County code.
7
Howard County has a Cemetery Preservation Advisory Board to determine the existence of a burial site that is not on the
inventory.
8
Acting Historic Preservation Supervisor, Phillip Estes, Planning Department staff; Jennifer Stabler, Ph.D., Archeology
Planner Coordinator, M-NCPPC, Historic Preservation Section, provided the following:
The cost of the Phase I surveys does vary quite a bit depending on the size of the property and the types of field methods
that will be used. The background historical research should be done first.
In
our office, I have usually done a chain of title
5
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Some people who recommended archaeology for all subdivisions, also wanted a public hearing on Phase
I and Phase II studies (with notice to interested parties).
9
That would add time and cost to an applicant.
As proposed, an applicant for a site on the inventory would be required to do an archaeology study to pin
down the burial area. The issue for the Council is whether the obligations of a developer should be
triggered by the inventory or whether every site in the County should be obligated to do additional
research.
Staff favors keeping the initial research burden on the Planning Board and imposing burdens on
the private sector only when there is a reason to do so.
Should the protection requirement of the proposed SRA be applied to other steps in the
development process?
If
one considers that most zoning is applied by the Council without a landowner's application, the
subdivision process is generally the first step in the development process. A requirement to only preserve
sites in the subdivision process will not include all land undergoing development. The SRA only applied
to preliminary plans. It does not apply to projects that have preliminary plan approval but have not gone
to record plat.
10
There are other steps in the development process outside of subdivisions. A sketch plan or site plan
approval may be required. A ZTA would need to be introduced to require burial site protection in those
processes.
11
Actions at building permit would also require separate legislation.
12
and some basic background research that I hand off to the consultant archaeologists. I do that to help me to determine if a
Phase I survey should be done on the property and to determine what resources might be present. The archaeologists
usually do a pedestrian walk over of the property to identify areas for further testing. Steep slopes are generally visually
examined but are not further tested with shovel test pits. The level areas are generally subjected to further testing. If there
are plowed fields on the property, the archaeologists will generally perform a surface survey and identify artifacts visible
on the surface. This should be combined with some shovel test pits to determine the stratigraphy of the site.
In
wooded
areas or areas with vegetative cover, the archaeologists will generally dig shovel test pits at a set interval (50
ft.
in Prince
George's County) and screen for artifacts.
9
Testimony also indicated that the State of Georgia required a Phase I review and a Phase II review, if warranted, for all
property. Staff could only locate a statute from George that required investigation when development was proposed on a known
cemetery site:
Georgia Code Section 36-72-4 G
No known cemetery, burial ground, human remains, or burial object shall be knowingly disturbed by the owner or occupier
of the land on which the cemetery or burial ground is located for the purposes of developing or changing the use of any
part of such land unless a permit is first obtained from the governing authority of the municipal corporation or county
wherein the cemetery or burial ground is located, which shall have authority to permit such activity except as provided in
Code Section 36-72-14.
10
A high percentage of land in the County has been through the subdivision process; however, it is common for new
development or redevelopment to require a new subdivision (resubdivision) before proceeding.
11
Although the Council is authorized to regulate zoning and subdivisions, the approval process is different. Zoning changes
are approved without the involvement of the Executive. Subdivision approvals either require the Executive's approval or a
Council override of an Executive veto.
12
The building permit process is purely administrative. There are no public hearings. DPS staff interprets code but it does not
decide contested subjective issues. Burial sites discovered during construction are subject to state law on the removal of human
remains.
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The later in the development process that the County requires changes due to the discovery of a burial
ground, the more burdensome it is on a developer, but more burial sites will be preserved. The physical
requirements for retaining a newly discovered burial site past preliminary plan may require redoing
previously made decisions about what goes where on a site. Stopping a building permit application is
extremely burdensome. On the other hand, once a grave is relocated, it will never be returned.
Staff would recommend approving SRA 17-01 and Bill 24-17 with amendments.
13
Future legislative
action is not precluded by the approval of SRA 17-01.
What should happen
if
a burial site is not on the inventory but is discovered before Plannin g Board
action?
As introduced, a burial site that is not on the inventory and discovered during development would be
subject to state law.
14
The Bill puts the burden on the Planning Department to develop and add to an
inventory of sites as it deems appropriate.
Howard County has a process to examine the validity of claims made during the development approval
process. Howard County has a Cemetery Preservation Advisory Board to help the Planning Department
determine the existence of a burial site that is not on the inventory. That procedure is not included in SRA
17-01 or Bill 24-17.
The program as proposed gives an incentive to everyone to forward their research on burial sites to
Planning staff as soon as it is developed. It creates a disincentive for last-minute disclosures.
Staff favors
these incentives and disincentives but would recommend more than an annual update of the
inventory, as addressed below.
Should the propose d inventory be updated more than annually?
Perhaps a little history on the Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory posted on the Planning Board's
website is in order. The Montgomery County Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) awarded a grant
to Peerless Rockville and Historic Takoma in 2004 for the first phase of the cemetery inventory project.
An initial database was created of all known cemeteries. Dedicated volunteers began the work of
surveying each one. In 2005, Phase II built on the database, expanding it and working on a GIS map
showing the locations of each cemetery and creating a list of the County's most threatened cemeteries.
15
In the words of Yoda, "Do or not do, there is no
try."
There may be some wisdom in "doing" the newly proposed program
for subdivisions first and then considering what to do next.
14
Maryland Criminal Law Code
§
I 0-402
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and
(f)
of this section, a person may not remove or attempt to remove human remains
from a burial site.
(b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, the State's Attorney for a county may authorize in writing the removal of human
remains from a burial site in the State's Attorney's jurisdiction:
( 1) to ascertain the cause of death of the person whose remains are to be removed;
(2) to determine whether the human remains were interred erroneously;
(3) for the purpose ofreburia l; or
(4) for medical or scientific examination or study allowed by law.
(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (4) of this subsection, the State's Attorney for a county shall require a person who
requests authorization to relocate permanently human remains from a burial site to publish a notice of the proposed
relocation
in
a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the burial site is located.
15
The project was peer reviewed by local historians and cemetery experts, including Mike Dwyer, Linda Layman, Jim
Sorensen, Eileen McGuckian, and Janet Manuel, for accuracy and completeness.
13
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
This web-available mapped inventory has not been updated since its creation.
16
The Planning Board has
not adopted the inventory in any form, except for hosting the information on its website. There has been
no qualified archaeological staff to evaluate any later research for including or correcting the boundaries
of sites.
The Bill as introduced requires that the inventory be maintained and updated annually. The Planning
Board must establish a procedure for a person to request the addition of a burial site to the inventory (or
the removal of a site if a more detailed archeological study indicates the absence of a burial site or a
smaller site). The procedures must include an outreach program.
17
This new program should allow the
Planning Board to consider any facts sufficient to determine the validity of sites on the inventory it
approves and justification for any future revision to that inventory.
18
Staff agrees that it is too limiting to
restrict the inventory to annual updates.
Staff recommends a revision to Bill 24-17 to require at least
an annual update to the inventory and whenever facts warrant an update.
Testimony suggested a public hearing on burial site decisions. There is nothing to prevent the Planning
Board from holding a hearing whenever it approves or updates the inventory.
It
is the Board's practice to
be open in its decision making.
Is there too much or not enough discretion to determine when the removal of human remains is
appropriate?
There is a provision in SRA 17-01 for very limited Planning Board discretion, to allow state law to regulate
the removal of human remains:
Without regard to Subsection 2, if the Planning Board determines that an accommodation of the
burial site with the development cannot be accomplished without denying the property owner
reasonable use of their entire property, then the Planning Board may approve a plan for
development with the appropriate treatment of the burial site under State law.
19
This provision mirrors a similar provision in the Howard County Code.
It
allows a burial site relocation
only when to do otherwise would result in the public "taking" of the property from the owner. Testimony
objected to the flexibility in this provision.
Some historians and archaeologists believe that there are never circumstances where human remains
should be removed. There was testimony to require the permission of descendants to relocate graves.
http://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/historic/montgomery-county-cemetery-inventory/
Bill 24-17:
The Planning Board must maintain, and revise as appropriate, an inventory ofburial sites located in the County. The inventory
must:
(A) include each burial site located in an area of the County where the Planning Board is authorized to approve a
subdivision;
(B) include a map and a description of each burial site including ownership information when available;
(C) be made available to the public electronically; and
(D) be updated annually.
The Planning Board must establish a procedure for a person to request the addition of a burial site to the inventory. The
procedures must include an outreach program.
18
When there is a reason to do so, it would be the obligation of the Planning Board to determine if there is sufficient evidence
to add a burial site to the inventory. Exactly what that evidence is to warrant inclusion is left to the Planning Board's judgment
.
19
Lines 88-93.
17
16
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
A zero tolerance for grave relocation would, at some point in the future, result in a Court ordering the
County to pay for burial sites that it may not wish to own. Unless the
Council wants a program to
purchase burial sites, Staff recommends at least retaining the flexibility in SRA-17-01 as it was
introduced.
The Planning Board requested more flexibility to allow the removal of graves. Planning staff believes
that deleting the word "entire" before the word "property" gives the Board that desired flexibility. There
may be situations where it would be reasonable for the Planning Board to approve appropriate grave
relocation under State law, even if the
entire
property has a reasonable use.
There is also testimony that recommended amending the provision
in
SRA 17-01 because it is too
inflexible; the provision only applies to avoid a "taking" of the property. In Prince George's County, there
are requirements for the preservation of a cemetery only when "there are no plans [by the developer] to
relocate human remains to an existing cemetery." The Prince George's County provision is far more
permissive than SRA 17-01. In blackletter code, the developer may choose to move graves; it is not the
Planning Board's option to allow these moves. This is a bridge too far, in Staffs opinion.
Testimony suggested giving the Planning Board more flexibility to approve the relocation of a burial site
"if the Planning Board determines that the burial site can be better honored and more accessible through
relocation and accommodation of the burial site elsewhere either within the development." This is far less
discretion than that written into the Prince George's County law, but far more discretion than in
SRA 17-01 as introduced.
If
the Council
trusts
the Planning Board to make the judgment to determine when (if ever) grave sites are
more accessible by relocation, it is a reasonable revision, given the competing goals in any development.
20
The phrase "better honor" may be too subjective. Planning staff may wish to comment on that point. Any
such decision by the Board to allow relocation would be controversial.
21
Should there be a Cemetery Advisory Board?
Neither SRA 17-01 nor Bill 24-17 as introduced establish an advisory committee. Howard County
established a Cemetery Preservation Advisory Board to advise the Planning Board on the existence of a
previously unknown burial site:
The Department of Planning and Zoning, in consultation with the Cemetery Preservation Advisory
Board, shall determine if the discovered area ... above is a cemetery ....
22
There was testimony to allow a newly created board the authority to amend the inventory instead of the
Planning Board. That is more authority than Howard County granted to its board. This makes sense only
if the Council
distrusts
the Planning Board, which is not the case.
Some who testified have no trust in the Board regarding burial sites and would like all authority in this area to be vested in a
newly-created board.
21
htt_ps://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dozens-of-bodies-buried-next-to-mgm-casino-outside-washington-will-be-
moved/2017/09/26/935e99da-9fd4-l le7-84fb-b4831436e807 stor:y.html?utm term=.lca4b05810ea
22
Howard County Code, Title 16, Subtitle 13 Section 16.1305.
20
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
There is nothing to prevent the Planning Board from establishing and having the advice of an advisory
board if it chooses to do so.
The Planning Board has the flexibility
to
establish and maintain the
burial site inventory and to use any advice in doing so.
Should the Council establish a special advisory committee to determine the need for additional
legislation to add protection to burial sites to other steps in the development process?
Testimony from the Planning Board suggested approval of what is before the Council and a study using a
special advisory commit tee to determine if the protections should be expanded to other steps
in
the
process.
Staff notes that the Planning Board is always free to recommend ZTAs and Bills for introduction at any
time. The Board is also free to get advice from any source without regard to whether that source is a
consultant, residents, or committees that it establishes.
Staff would not recommend Council
establishment of a special committee.
Should the protection for a burial site include maintenance?
As introduced. the burial site must be protected by arrangements sufficient to assure the Planning Board
of its future
maintenance
and preservation.
23
The technical changes recommended by the Planning Board
deleted a requirem ent for continued maintenance because that requirement is within the concept of
preservation. The Committee may wish to hear more on that subject from Planning staff.
Can the Bill guarantee funding to staff the SRA's requirements?
SRA 17-01 and Bill 24-17 should not be approved without consideration of their fiscal impact. The fiscal
impact provided by 0MB concluded that the up-front cost would be $156,000 to $260,000, with staff
being reassigned to this task for the existing work complement. In the alternative, it would require the
addition of one staff member at $118,300 annually, with an additional $36,000 to equip the new employee.
(Prince George' s County has a full-time employee devoted to this work.) Staff believes that there will be
up-front costs to develop the inventory AND a continuing need to review sites as they file for subdivision
applications and develop the research on additional sites.
It
is unrealistic to assume that after the initial
establishment of the inventory, no additional staff will be required. There are no qualified archaeologists
on the Planning Departm ent's payroll.
Testimony wanted guaranteed funding of staff support for developing and maintaining the cemetery
inventory. This is not possible. The Council makes budget decisions in the annual budget process.
23
Line 78 and 86 delete maintenance but require protection.
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Are technical revisions warranted?
The following are specific changes to SRA
17-01,
suggested by testimony, that are technical in nature.
Line#
Line
54
Line
67
Line
68
Description of the Change
add "boundary " after "subdivision"
delete
"If
there is no surface evidence
of a burial site"
replace "historic and archaeologic best
practices" with "appropriate measures"
Line
72
Line
73
Line
74
Line
79
at the beginning of the sentence add
"Unless Planning staff believes that
vandalism concerns dictate otherwise,"
after inventory add "that may include
photograp hs"
after such as add "grave locations" and
"fences"
delete "fence or wall must be
maintained or provide" and add
"manner" , then add "must be provided"
at the end of the sentence
Staff Comments
Staff does not object to this change.
Staff recommends this change; it avoids unequal
treatment for different surface conditions.
Staff does not recommend this change. The
replacement was suggested because the phrase is
an undefined term; it may require extraordinary
measures. Staff finds that historic and
archaeologic best practices are well-documented.
Staff recommends this change to avoid looting in
particular situations.
Staff recommends this change.
Staff recommends this change.
Staff recommends this change; it leaves the issue
of how the site should be delineated to the
Planning Board.
This packet contains:
Bill
24-17
Legislative Request Report
Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement
SRA
17-01
Planning Board recommendations
Planning Board recommended revisions to SRA
17-01
Planning staff recommendations
Circle#
1- 4
5
6- 9
10-16
17
18-23
24-29
F:\Land Use\SRAs\2017 SRAs\SRA 17-01 Burial Sites\PHED Memo 10-16-17.docx
9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
24-17
Concerning: Land Use Information -
Burial sites
Revised: June
27, 2017
Draft No: 6
Introduced:
June
27 2017
Expires:
December
27 2018
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: ----'-"N=on""'e"'--- -----
Ch. _ _ , Laws of Mont. Co. _ _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMER Y COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsors: Councilmember Rice, Council President Berliner and Councilmember Leventhal
Co-Sponsors: Councilmembers Katz, Navarro, Council Vice-President Riemer and Councilmember
Elrich
AN ACT
to:
(1)
(2)
require the Planning Board to establish and maintain an inventory of burial sites in the
County; and
generally amend the law relating to land use information function of the Planning
Department.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 33A, Planning Procedures
Sections 33A-17
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining ,
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deleted from existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 24-17
Sec.
1.
Section 33A-17 is amended as follows:
2
3
Article 4. Land Use information functions
33A-17.
[Land use information functions]
Information and referral services.
4
5
(a)
The Planning Board must provide [[informational]] information and
referral services on County land use and related regulatory functions to
interested members of the public. The services to be provided include
technical assistance and information on:
( 1)
(2)
(3)
master plans, including pending amendments;
zoning, including pending cases and pending text amendments;
subdivision
control,
including
pending
applications
and
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
amendments to Chapter 50;
(4)
(5)
(6)
growth policy and related regulatory requirements;
federal, state, and local environmental regulations; and
related administrative, regulatory, or legislative procedures
applicable to the Planning Board, Office of Zoning and
Administrative Hearings, Historic Preservation Commission,
Board of Appeals, other County regulatory agencies, Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission, and County Council.
(b)
A resource library must be maintained that contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
( 5)
relevant laws, regulations, and administrative procedures;
appropriate zoning_and other maps;
administrative and legislative hearing schedules;
significant administrative and judicial land use decision; and
master plans, policy documents, planning studies, and other
appropriate reference materials.
(
c)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
All County departments, offices, and agencies must provide the planning
department with:
6)
F:\LA W\BILLS\1724 Land Use Infonnation - Burial Sites\Bill 6.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 24-17
28
29
30
31
32
( 1)
reque sted materials (other than confidential documents) to ensure
the availability to the public of current information[,]; and
the location and telephone numb er of the person or persons to
whom inquiries may be referred.
In this subsection, £
burial site
means £ physical location where
huma n remains were buried in the earth, or entombed in £
maus oleum or columbarium. A burial site inclu des£ cemetery, but
does not include the sprinkling of ashes from cremated remains.
(2)
@
ill
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
ill
The Planning Board must maintain, and revise as appropriate, an
inventory of burial sites located in the County. The inventory
must:
(A)
include each burial site located in an area of the County
where the Planning Boar d is authorized to approve £
subdivision;
ill.)
include £ map and £ description of each burial site including
ownership information when available;
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
.(Q
@
be made available to the public electronically; and
be updated annually.
ill
47
48
The Planning Board must estab lish£ procedure for£ person to
request the addition of £ burial site to the inventory. The
procedures must include [[£]]an outreach program.
49
50
51
Approved:
52
53
Roger Berliner, President, County Council
Date
&
W\BILLS\1724 L,md Use
lnf-ati< m -
Brnial
s;i,,\Bill
6.Do~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 24-17
54
55
Approved:
56
57
58
59
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
60
61
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
&
F:\LAW\BILLS\1724 Land Use Information - Burial Sites\Bill 6.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 24-17
Land Use Information
-
Burial Sites
DESCRIPTION:
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
The Bill would require the Planning Board to establish and
periodically update an inventory of burial sites.
In the absence of an inventory land disturbances may unknowingly
violate burial sites.
Provide an inventory of burial sites with an opportunity to update
information. The Bill is a companion to Subdivision Regulation
17-
01
which accommodates burial sites in the subdivision process.
Planning Department
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Jeff Zyontz, Senior Legislative Analyst,
240-777-7896
To be researched.
Not applicable
({)
f:\law\bills\ 1724 land use information - burial sites\lrr.docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND
MEMORAN DUM
Julyl7,2017
TO:
Roger Berliner. President, Couniy Council
Jennifer
A.
Hughes, Director, Office of Management and Budge ;
Alexandre A. Espinosa. Director, Depaiiment of Finance , '..
-!,
;-1,
.
.,~
~~'ff
FRot\:1:
ltf
v<:·,,-rYZ.,/J
.'f
jP..0..
;
V
,,
1--·/
.
'J{v'
l~:)/i"'
SUBJECT:
FE!S
for Bill
24-17,
Land
Use
Information - Burial Sites
\.,:,
,
i
l;
Please find attached the fiscal and economic impact statements
for
the above-
referenced legislations.
JAH:fa
cc:
Bon111e
Kirkland, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices of the County Executive
Joy Nurmi. Special Assistant to the County Executive
Patrick Lacefield, Director, Public Information Office
David Platt, Depaitment of Finance
Dennis Hetman, Department of Finance
Jennifer Nordin, Office of Management and Budget
Felicia Zhang. Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
BILL
24-17,
Land Use Information-Buria l Sites
1. Bill Summary
Bill 24-17 requires the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-
NCPPC) Planning Board to create and maintain an inventory of burial sites in
Montgomery County. This Bill is a companion to Subdivision Regulation 17-01 which
includes burial sites in the subdivision approval process.
2. An estimate of changes in County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether the
revenues or expenditures are assumed in the recommended or approved budget. Includes
source of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
No impact to revenues.
M-NCPPC estimates ongoing expenditures for one new Planner Coordinator position
($118,300) and first year expenditures for supplies ($36,000); however, the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) believes the upfront workload to create an inventory
can be completed by a contractor and the ongoing workload is manageable through
existing staffing levels.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal years.
No impact to revenues.
M-NCPPC estimates ongoing expenditures for one full-time staff position and first year
expenditures for supplies (vehicle, computer, furniture).
Personnel
Costs
Operating
Expenses
Year l
$118,300
$36,000
Year2
$118,300
$0
Year 3
$118,300
$0
Year4
$118,300
$0
Year
5
$118,300
$0
Year6
$118,300
$0
Alternatively, 0MB estimates the upfront workload can be completed in the first year
by
a contractor ($156,000 - $260,000 based on an hourly rate of $75-$125) and the ongoing
workload can be absorbed by existing staff.
Personnel
Costs
Operating
Expenses
Year l
$0
$156,000-
260,000
Year2
$0
$0
Year 3
$0
$0
Year4
$0
$0
Year
5
$0
$0
Year6
$0
$0
4. An actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill/regulation that
would affect retiree pension or group insurance costs.
Not applicable.
5. Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures if the bill/regulation
authorizes future spending.
Not applicable.
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
6. An estimate
of
the staff time needed to implement the bill/regulation.
M-NCPPC estimates one new position is needed to complete infom1ation assessments,
fieldwork, mapping; and evaluations of development applications.
Alternatively, 0MB estimates the upfront workload can be completed by
a
contractor and
the ongoing workload can be absorbed by existing staff.
7.
An explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other duties.
M-NCPPC estimates one new position
will
complete the workload and existing
staff
duties
will
not be affected.
Alternatively, 0MB estimates the upfront workload can
be
completed by
a
contractor and
the ongoing workload can be absorbed by existing staff.
8. An estimate
of
costs when an additional appropriation is needed.
Not applicable.
9. A
description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
Not applicable.
10.
Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project.
Not applicable.
11. If
a Bill is likely to
have
no fiscal impact, why that is the case.
Not applicable.
12. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
Not applicable.
13. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis,
Karen Warnick, MNCPPC
Diane Jones, DPS
Oreg Ossont, DOS
Emil Wolanin, DOT
Timothy Goetzinger, DHCA
Jennifer Nordin, 0MB
Date
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Hill
24-17,
Land Use Information-
Burial
Sites
Background:
This legislation would require the I'v1ontgomer~ Count~ Planning Board
or
the \farylanJ-
National Capital Park and Plaiming Commission to t~stablish and maintain an inventory
of burial sites in the County. Subdivision
Regulation 17-01
would require that such
burial sites identified in the
1mentor;-
be re:-.pected in the subdi,ision
appro\al
process.
l.
The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
There are no sources of information. assumptions. or methodologies used in tbe
preparation of the economic impact
statemem.
2. A description of any variahlc that could affect the economic impact estimates.
\lot applicable.
3.
The
Bill's
positive or negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending, savings,
investment, incomcs
1
and proper~ values in the County.
Bill 24-17 \vould have no
economic impact
011
employment. spending.
sa\
ings.
investment. incomes. and property
values
in the CounL~.
-4.
If
a
Bill
is
likely
to have no economic impact,
why
is that the case'?
Bill 24-17 \vould have no economic impact because
it
establishes and maintains an
inventory of burial sites \,\·hich dol.:'s not ha\'e an impact on
employment. spending.
savings. investmem. incomes property \Blues.
5. The following contributed to or concurred
with this
analysis:
David Platt and
Robert Hagedoorn. Finance.
Alexandre A. Espmosa. Director
lkpanmcnt
of Finance
- ik¾e-:-
~----:Z!JL
·_
7
°
11_
!)ate
I
I
Pagel
or
l
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendm ent No.: 17-01
Concerning: Approval Procedures - Burial sites
Draft No. & Date: 3 -6/27/1 7
Introduced: June 27, 2017
Public Hearing:
Adopted:
Effective:
Ordinance No:
COUNT Y COUNC IL FOR MONT GOME RY COUNT Y, MARY LAND
SITTIN G AS THE DISTRI CT COUNC IL FOR THAT PORTI ON OF
THE MARYL AND-W ASHIN GTON REGIO NAL DISTRI CT WITHI N
MONT GOME RY COUNT Y, MARYL AND
Lead Sponsors: Councilmember Rice, Council President Berliner, and
Councilmember Leventhal
Co-sponsors: Councilmembers Navarro, Hucker, and Elrich
AN AMEND MENT
to:
1) define burial sites;
2) require the identification of burial sites on preliminary plan applications;
3) require approved preliminary plans to appropriately preserve burial sites; and
4) generally add provisions to protect and preserve burial sites in the subdivision
approval process.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 50
"Subdivision of Land"
Section 50.2 "Interpretations and Defined Terms"
Section 50.4
"Prelim inary Plan"
Boldfac e
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
*
*
*
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by introduced Subdivision Regulation
Amendment.
Deleted from existing law by introduced Subdivision
Regulation Amendment.
Added to the Subdivision Regulation Amendm ent by
amendment.
Deleted from existing law or the Subdivision Regulation
Amendm ent by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by Subdivision Regulation Amendment.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ORDINANCE
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, sitting as the District Council
for that portion ofthe Maryland-Washington Regional District in Montgomery County,
Maryland, approves the followin g Ordinance:
@
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
1
2
Sec.
1.
Chapte r 50 is amended as follows.
*
* *
3
4
Divisio n 50.2. Interpretation and Define d Terms
*
Section 2.2. Definit ions
*
*
5
6
7
8
9
All terms used in this Chapter that are defined in Chapter 59 or Chapter 49 have the
same meanin gs as the definitions in those Chapters, unless otherwise defined here.
In this Chapter, the following words and phrases have the meanings indicated.
*
B.
* *
10
11
*
*
*
12
13
14
15
16
17
Block:
Land area bounded by roads, other rights-of-way, unsubdivided acreage,
natural barriers, and any other barrier to the continuity of development.
Burial site: A physical location where human remains were buried in the earth, or
entomb ed in
~
mausoleum or columbarium. A burial site includes
g
cemetery, but
does not include the sprinkling of ashes from cremated remains.
*
Article II. Subdiv ision Plans
Divisio n 50.4. Prelim inary Plan
*
*
18
19
20
21
Except for an administrative or minor subdivision submitted under Divisions 50.6
and 50.7, the subdivider must submit a proposed subdivision to the Board for
<iff)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
22
23
24
25
26
appro val in the form of a prelim inary plan before the submi ssion of a plat. The plan
must show graphically, and supporting docum ents must demon strate, the data
neede d for the Board to make the findings requir ed by this Article.
Section 4.1. Filing and Specifications
*
B.
*
*
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The drawing.
The subdivider must submit a prelim inary plan drawi ng in a
form requir ed by regulations of the Board. Details and inform ation must
include:
*
7.
*
*
graph ic repres entati on of the propo sed subdivision, including:
*
J.
*
*
lines showi ng the limits of each zone, if the prope rty is locate d
in more than one zone; [and]
k.
all existin g topog raphy , structures, and pavm g on adjoining
prope rties within 100 feet[.]; and
1.
locati on of any burial sites includ ed in the Montg omery Count y
Ceme tery Inventory.
38
39
*
Section 4.2. Approval Procedure
*
*
40
41
*
D.
*
*
42
Requi red Findings.
To approve a prelim inary plan, the Board must find that:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
43
44
45
46
1.
the layout of the subdivision, including size, width, shape, orientation
and density of lots, and location and design of roads is appropriate for
the subdivision given its location and the type of development or use
contemplated and the applicable requirements of Chapter 59;
47
48
49
2.
the preliminary plan substantially conforms to the master plan;
public facilities will be adequate to support and service the area of the
subdivision;
3.
50
51
52
53
54
55
4.
5.
all Forest Conservation Law, Chapter 22A requirements are satisfied;
all stormwater management, water quality plan, and floodplain
requirements of Chapter 19 are satisfied; [and]
any burial site included in the Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory
and located within the subdivision is approved under Subsection 50-
4.3.M; and
56
57
58
[6]1.
any other applicable provision specific to the property and necessary
for approval of the subdivision is satisfied.
*
Section 4.3. Technical Review
*
*
59
60
61
In making the findings under Section 4.2.D, the Board must consider the following
aspects of the application.
62
63
M.
Burial sites
* * *
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
64
65
1.
When f! proposed preliminary plan includes f! burial site identified on
the Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory within the site, the
applicant must satisfy the following requirements:
a.
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
If
there is no surface evidence of the burial site, the applicant
must use historical and archeological best practices to establish
the location of the burial site. The comers of the burial site must
be staked in the field before preliminary plan submittal. The
stakes must be maintained
by
the applicant until preliminary plan
approval.
b.
An inventory of existing burial site elements (such as walls,
gates, landscape features, fieldstones, and tombstones) and their
condition must be submitted as part of the preliminary plan
application.
74
75
76
77
78
79
d.
C.
The placement of lot lines must promote long-term maintenance
of the burial site and protection of existing elements.
An appropriate fence or wall must be maintained or provided to
delineate the burial site. The design of the proposed enclosure
and f! construction schedule must be approved
by
the Planning
Board, before the approval off! record plat.
80
81
82
83
84
e.
The burial site must be protected
by
arrangements sufficient to
assure the Planning Board of its future maintenance and
preservation.
85
86
87
The Planning Board must require appropriate measures to protect the
burial site during the development process.
@
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
88
89
90
91
Without regard to Subsection
.b
if the Planning Board determines that
an accommodation of the burial site with the development cannot be
accomplished without denying the property owner reasonable use of
their entire property, then the Planning Board may approve
£!
plan for
development with the appropriate treatment of the burial site under
State law.
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
law.
* * *
Sec. 3. Effective Date.
This amendment takes effect 90 days after it becomes
Approved:
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
This is a correct copy of Council action.
103
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
TltE M,\RYl..t\ND-N,\110N.\1.C..\PfTAL P,\ll!i; AND
Pl.ANNIN<,
COl\lMl!->'SION
OFFICE OFTHE CHAlR
September 12, 2017
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, sitting as the District
Council
for
the Maryland-Washington Regional District in
Montgomery County, Maryland
·
Montgomery County Planning
Board
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.
17-0 I
&
Bill
24-17
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Montgomery ' County Planning Board of The Maryland-National Capital Parle and .
Planning Commission reviewed Subdivision Regulation Amendment No. 17-01 and Bill 24-17 at its
regular meeting on September 7, 2017.
By
a vote of 5:0, the Planning Board recommends approval,
with amendments,ofthe subdivision regulation amendment and bill to establish burial site procedures
for Montgomery County. The Board believes that the legislation as introduced provides a good start to
addressing burial procedures but also has several concerns that
wiJI
require additional deliberation
beyond those addressed in the technical staff report. The Board recommends that the language in the
SRA pertaining to the standard for when burial sites must
be
preserved (Section 43.M.3.), be modified
to reflect a recognition that in some cases
it
is appropriate to relocate buried remains even when
leaving remains in place would not deprive the owner of all economic use of the property. The Board
further commented that the legislation needs to address processes for historically marginalized groups,
and to make clear the scope of archaeological work. The Planning Board also believes that the
proposed annual update of the Cemetery Inventory would not be sufficient and therefore recommends
that updates occur as burial sites are discovef"e4. The Board recommends that the County establish a
special advisory committee with wide representation to more comprehensively explore additional
legislation surrounding burial sites and archaeological resources, without delaying the processing of
SRA 17-01 and Bill 24-17.
.
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the attached report is a true and correct copy of the technical staff report
and the foregoing is the recommendation adopted by the Montgomery County Planning Board of The
Maryland-National Capital Parle and Planning Commission, at its regular meeting held in Silver
Spring, Maryland, on Thursday, September 7, 2017.
Casey Anderson
Chair
CA:GR
6)
8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Chairman's Office: 301.495.4605 Fax: 301.495.1320
www,mntpmundamma~
E-Mail: mcp-chair@mncppc.org
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
AS MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON 9/7/2017
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
Concerning: Approval Procedures - Burial sites
Draft No.
&
Date: 2 - 6/2/17
Introduced: June 27, 2017
Public Hearing:
Adopted:
Effective:
Ordinance No:
COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
SITTING AS THE DISTRICT COUNCIL FOR THAT PORTION OF
THE MARYLAND-WASHINGTON REGIONAL DISTRICT WITHIN
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,MARY LAND
Lead Sponsors: Councilmember Rice, Council President Berliner, and
Councilmember Leventhal
AN AMENDMENT
to:
1)
2)
3)
4)
define burial sites;
require the identification of burial sites on preliminary plan applications;
require approved preliminary plans to appropriately preserve burial sttes; and
generally add provisions to protect and preserve burial sites in the subdivision
approval process.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 50
"Subdivision of Land"
Section 50.2 "Interpretations and Defined Terms"
Section 50.4 "Preliminary Plan"
Boldface
Underlining
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by introduced Subdivision Regulation
Amendment.
Deleted from existing law by introduced Subdivision
Regulation Amendment.
Added to the Subdivision Regulation Amendment by
amendment.
Deleted from existing law or the Subdivision Regulation
Amendment by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by Subdivision Regulation Amendment.
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* *
*
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
1
2
Sec. 1.
Chapter 50 is amended as follows.
*
*
*
3
4
Division 50.2. Interpretation and Defined Terms
*
Section 2.2. Definitions
*
*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
All terms used in this Chapter that are defined in Chapter 59 or Chapter 49 have the
same meanings as the definitions in those Chapters, unless otherwise defined here.
In this Chapter, the following words and phrases have the meanings indicated.
*
*
*
B.
*
*
*
12
13
14
15
16
Block:
Land area bounded by roads, other rights-of-way, unsubdivided acreage,
natural barriers, and any other barrier to the continuity of development.
Burial site: A physical location where human remains were buried in the earth, or
entombed in
f!
mausoleum or columbarium. A burial site includes
f!
cemetery, but
does not include the sprinkling of ashes from cremated remains.
*
Article II. Subdivision Plans
Division 50.4. Preliminary Plan
17
*
*
18
19
20
21
Except for an administrative or minor subdivision submitted under Divisions 50.6
and 50.7, the subdivider must submit a proposed subdivision to the Board for
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-0 I
22
23
24
approval in the form of a preliminary plan before the submission of a plat. The plan
must show graphically, and supporting documents must demonstrate, the data
needed for the Board to make the findings required by this Article.
25
Section 4.1. Filing and Specifications
26
27
B.
* * *
The drawing.
The subdivider must submit a preliminary plan drawing in a
form required by regulations of the Board. Details and information must
include:
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
*
7.
*
*
graphic representation of the proposed subdivision, including:
* * *
J.
lines showing the limits of each zone, if the property is located
in more than one zone; [and]
k.
all existing topography, structures,
and
paving on adjoining
properties within 100 feet[.]; and
L
location of any burial sites included in the Montgomery County
Cemetery Inventory.
*
*
*
40
Section 4.2. Approval Procedure
41
42
D.
* * *
Required Findings.
To approve a preliminary plan, the Board must find that:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
1.
the layout of the subdivision, includi ng size, width, shape, orientation
and density of lots; and location and design of roads is appropriate for
the subdivision given its location and the type of develo pment or use
contem plated and the applicable require ments of Chapte r 59;
2.
3.
the prelimi nary plan substantially conform s to the master plan;
public facilities will be adequate to suppor t and service the area of the
subdivision;
4.
5.
all Forest Conservation Law, Chapte r 22A requirements are satisfied;
all stormw ater manage ment, water quality plan, and floodplain
require ments of Chapte r 19 are satisfied; [and]
any burial site included in the Montg omery County Cemete ry Invento ry
and located within the subdivi sion bounda ry is approved under
Subsec tion 50-4.3 .M; and
56
57
58
59
60
61
[6]1.
any other applicable provisi on specific to the propert y and necessa ry
for approv al of the subdivision is satisfied.
*
Section 4.3. Technical Review
*
*
In making the findings under Section 4.2.D, the Board must conside r the following
aspects of the application.
62
63
M.
Burial sites
* * *
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
1.
When
~
proposed preliminary plaJ.?- includes
~
burial site identified on
the Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory within the site, the
applicant must satisfy the following requirements:
a.
If there is no surface evidence of the burial site, the applicant
must use historical and archeological best practices to establish
the location of the burial site. The corners of the burial site must
be staked in the field before preliminary plan submittal. The
stakes must be maintained
!2y
the applicant until preliminary plan
approval.
b.
. An inventory, either written or photographic, of e~isting burial
site elements (such as grave locations, walls, gates, landscape
features, fieldstones, and tombstones) and their c~ndition must
be submitted as part of the preliminary plan application.
c.
The
placement
of lot
lines
must
promote
long-term
[[maintenance)) protection of the burial site and ([protection
Qfll
existing elements.
An appropriate [[fence or wall must be maintained or providedl)
manner to delineate the burial site must be provided. The design
of the proposed enclosure and
~
construction schedule must be
approved
!2y
the Planning Board, before the approval of
.e:
record
plat.
The burial site must be protected
J2y
arrangements sufficient to
assure the Planning Board of its future [[maintenance and))
preservation.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
law.
2.
The Planning Board must require appropriate measures to protect the
burial site during the development process.
-1_
Without regard to Subsection
b
if the Planning Board determines that
an accommodation of the burial ·site with the development cannot be
accomplished without denying the property owner reasonable use of
their [[entire]) property, then the Planning Board may approve~ plan
for development with the appropriate treatment of the burial site under
State law.
*
* *
Sec. 3. Effective Date.
This amendment takes effect 90 days after it becomes
Approved:
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
This is a correct copy of Council action.
Date
105
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
D
~
MoNTGO:MERY CoUNTY
PLANNING
DEPARTMENT
THE MARYLAND-NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION
MCPB
Item No. 9
Date: 9/7/17
(SRA 17-01) Approval Procedures - Burial sites; Bill 24-17 Land Use Information - Burial sites
Gregory Russ, Planner Coordinator, FP&P, gregory.russ@montgomeryplanning.org, 301-495-2174
Sandra Youla, Senior Planner, HP, FP&P, sandra.youla@montgomeryplanning.org, 301-563-3419
Pam Dunn, Chief, FP&P.pamela.dunn@moritgomeryplanning.org , 301-650-5649
D
Completed: 8/31/17
Description
Bill 24-17 would require the Planning Board to establish and maintain an inventory of burial sites in the County.
Subdivision Regulation 17-01 would require burial sites identified in the inventory to be respected in the
subdivision approval process. Specifically, SRA 17-01 would define burial sites, require the identification of burial
sites on preliminary plan applications and require approved preliminary plans to appropriately preserve burial
sites.
Summary
Staff finds that the proposed legislation in SRA 17-0land Bill 24-17 is a beginning but believes that the
County Council should more comprehensively address the topic of protection for burial sites and
archaeological resources, in part by examining other review processes outside of subdivision review.
Staff believes that the County could benefit from establishing a special advisory committee with wide
representation
to
more
comprehensively
explore
legislation
surrounding
burial
sites
and
archaeological resources. In Attachment 1, and as discussed herein, Staff has included several
language modifications to the SRA as a starting point.
Background/Analysis
Montgomery County has a long history of occupation and is replete with burial sites, known and
unknown, marked and unmarked, rnaintained and abandoned, and under various types of ownership.
Burial sites have a multi-faceted character: they are land uses, archaeological sites, conveyors of history,
sensitive cultural resources that are the subject of religious and cultural beliefs, cultural landscapes, on
private or public land, abandoned or maintained, operational or not operational, and non-profit or for
profit enterprises. Because of their multi-faceted nature, the regulation of burial sites - new and old - is
complex. In particular, the identification, documentation, protection, and regulation of existing burial
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
sites are challenging. In addition to burial sites, Montgomery County also has many historic
archaeological resources.
To date, Montgomery County has no explicit local policy governing either archaeological resources or
burial sites.. Local law and regulation deal with burial sites in limited ways. The Historic Preservation
Ordinance and Master Plan for Historic Preservation allow for the designation of historic sites and
districts, which may include burial sites and archaeological resources. (Typically, burial sites have been
designated as parts of larger complexes, such as churchyards or farms, but there have been exceptions.)
The Zoning Ordinance regulates cemeteries as a land use and gives some flexibility to locally designated
historic resources. The Parks Department, Montgomery County's largest land owner, by practice seeks
to document, protect, and interpret burial sites and archaeological resources on its properties. State
and federal law also provide certain limited protections for burial sites and archaeological resources.
In response to these challenges, efforts were made to document burial sites and archaeological
resources. The
Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory,
prepared between 2004 and 2009, was created
to identify all known burial sites, regardless of whether remains had been relocated from the site or
whether the precise location was unknown. The Montgomery County Historic Preservation Commission
provided five grants during this period to support the creation and development of the
Cemetery
Inventory.
Currently, the
Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory
has no official regulatory status. The
Planning Department maintains the webpage and a GIS layer. Additional existing burial sites are
discovered on an ongoing basis. In addition, Montgomery Parks Department archaeologists track
archaeology sites on parkland countywide, in coordination with Maryland Historical Trust.
Other Maryland counties have used a variety of approaches, including establishment of a cemetery
board (Howard County) and archaeological regulation (Prince George's County). Some have also
established cemetery registers. Five counties in Maryland have a cemetery inventory, a cemetery map,
and some type of project review -- Anne Arundel, Calvert Co [limited mapping], Charles [has GPS
coordinates, not mapped yet], Howard, and Prince George's. Other jurisdictions have some of these
critical tools. Currently countywide, Montgomery County only has a cemetery inventory.
Other jurisdictions outside of Maryland have also begun protecting burial sites and archaeological
resources. Alexandria had one of the first municipal archaeology ordinances in the country. California
modified state law to require local governments to conduct certain types of reviews for archaeological
resources.
Ongoing development and redevelopment pressures in Montgomery County continue to exacerbate the
challenges of documenting and protecting the County's burial sites and archaeological resources. In
response, the County Council introduced SRA 17-01 and Bill 24-17 on June 27, 2017. The Montgomery
County Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the proposed legislation at its regular meeting on
August 16, 2017 and found it insufficient.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
SRA 17-01 Approval Procedure s- Burial Sites
As stated above, SRA 17-01:
defines burial sites (Lines 14-16);
requires identification of burial sites that are included in the Montgomery County Cemetery
Inventory on preliminary plan applications;
requires approved preliminary plans to appropriately preserve burial sites; and
generally adds provision to protect and preserve burial sites in the subdivision approval process.
Bill 24-17 Land Use Information - Burial Sites
requires the Planning Board to establish and maintain an inventory of burial sites in the County;
The inventory must:
(A) include each burial site located in an area of the County where the Planning Board is
authorized to approve a subdivision;
(B) include a map and a description of each burial site including ownership information
when available;
(C)
be made available to the public electronically; and
(D) be updated annually.
The Planning Board must establish a procedure for a person to request the addition of a burial
site to the inventory. The procedures must include an outreach program.
Staff finds that the proposed legislation is a starting point but also believes that additional, more
comprehensive measures to protect burial sites and archaeological resources should be considered.
Specifically, the legislation:
Only addresses subdivision and not other processes that may adversely affect burial sites (such
as other development review processes; permitting; and disturbance of burial sites not in
conjunctio n with development review/permits).
Only provides _protections for burial sites on the Montgome ry County Cemetery Inventory but
not for newly discovered burial sites or sites not yet discovered.
Only addresses burial sites and not archaeological sites.
Does not address local enforcement mechanisms, especially for emergency situations.
Does not address the need for recording locations of burial sites in multiple locations, which
helps ensure their co_ntinued ~ecognition (e.g. in recorded easements and in sales contracts as a
required disclosure under county law; and in deeds, tax assessment data and tax maps, which
are under state control)
Does not address on-site signage and interpretat ion for burial sites.
Other things to consider are:
3
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Provision for requisite additional staffing in the Planning Department Historic Preservation
Section for an Archaeologist.
Does not address recommendations in the Cemetery Inventory project, including the need for a
Cemetery Preservation Advisory Board.
Staff has also recommended specific clarifications and expressed other general comments concerning
the SRA in the section below and in Attachment 1 (SRA 17-01).
Section 4.1. Filing and Specifications
* * *
B.
The drawing.
The subdivider must submit a preliminary plan drawing in a form required by
regulations of the Board. Details and information must include:
* * *
7.
graphic representation of the proposed subdivision, including:
* * *
1
location
Qf.
any burial sites included in the Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory.
Comment
-
Besides the Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory other references such as National,
state or local registers of historic places and archaeological sites should be considered.
Section 4.2. Approval Procedure
* * *
D.
Required Findings.
To approve a preliminary plan, the Board must find that:
* *
*
6.
any burial site(s) included in the Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory and located
within the subdivision
boundary
is approved under Subsection 50-4.3.M: and
Comment: added the word "boundary''. Does not provide protection for newly discovered burial sites or
protection for archaeological resources.
Section 4.3. Technical Review
In making the findings under Section 4.2.D, the Board must consider the following aspects of the
application.
M.
Burial sites
4
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
1,_
When
9
proposed preliminary
.P.@11
includes£ burial site identified on the Montgomery
County Cemetery Inventory within the site, the applicant must satisfy the following
requirements:
£:.
jf
there~ no surface evidence of the burial site, the applicant must use
historical and archeological best practices to establish the location of the burial
site. The corners of the burial site must be staked in the field before preliminary
.P.@D.
submittal. The stakes must be maintained
QY
the applicant until preliminary
plan approval.
Comment:
There should be a requirement that a Planning Department staff archaeologist review and
approve the submitted historical/archaeological documenta tion.
b.
An inventory,
either written or photographic,
of existing burial site elements
(such as
grave locations,
walls, gates, landscape features, fieldstones, and
tombstones) and their condition must be submitted as part of the preliminary
plan application.
Comment:
inventories of burial elements can be written, but this requirement should be expanded to
include not only a written inventory but a photographic inventory of burial elements including the date
the photos-were taken.
c.
The placement of lot lines must promote long-term [[maintenance])
protection
of the burial site and [[protectio n
.Qfll
existing elements.
Comment:
Easements for the burial site and access thereto should be recorded and shown on the
record plat. Some counties create lots for burial sites.
d.
An appropriate [[fence or wall must be maintained or provided]l
manner
to
delineate the burial site
must be provided.
The design of the proposed enclosure
and 2 construction schedule must be approved
QY
the Planning Board, before the
approval of~ record plat.
~
The burial site must be protected
J2y
arrangements sufficient to assure the
Planning Board of its future [[maintenance andl) preservation.
b,
The Planning Board must require appropriat e measures to protect the burial site during
the developme nt process.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Comment:
Define "appropriate measures" more fully.
Conclusion
Staff finds that the proposed legislation is a good starting point but believes that the County Council also
should comprehensively address other review proces_ses outside of subdivision review that protect
burial sites and archaeological resources. Staff believes that the County could benefit from establishing a
special advisory committee with wide representation to more comprehensively explore legislation
surrounding burial sites and archaeological resources. In Attachment 1, and as discussed herein, Staff
has included several language modifications to the SRA as a starting point.
Attachments
1.
SRA 17-01 as modified by staff
Bilf 24-17
2.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
PHED Committee #2 & 3
October 16, 2017
MEMORA NDUM
October 12, 2017
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Planning, H,7using, and Economic Development Committee
Jeff Zyonl:Znio r Legislative Analyst
Bill 24-17, Land Use Information - Burial Sites; and SRA 17-01, Approval Procedures -
Burial Sites
Subdivision Regulation Amendment (SRA) 17-01, Approval Procedures - Burial Sites, lead sponsors
Councilmem ber Rice, Council President Berliner, and Councilmem ber Leventhal, and co-sponsors
Councilmemb ers Navarro, Hucker, and Eirich, was introduced on June 27, 2017. SRA 17-01 would
require burial sites identified in the inventory to be respected in the subdivision approval process.
Although there are state requirements for the removal of human remains and for registered cemeteries,
currently there are no specific references in County code dealing with cemeteries or burial sites. There
are no obligations for developers to do archaeological research on their sites based on County law.
1
Bill 24-17 was also introduced on June 27.
It
would require the Planning Board to establish and maintain
an inventory of burial sites. Under Bill 24-17, the Planning Board would be required revise that inventory
annually as research reveals additional sites or errors in prior research.
Once identified as a burial site, under SRA 17-01, the burden shifts to the subdivision applicant to research
and delineate the boundary of the burial site. The burial site would be protected from development unless
that protection would amount to "taking" the property.
The Plarming Board and Planning staff recommended approval of SRA 17-01 and Bill 24-1 7 with
amendments. The Planning Board recommende d allowing for more flexibility in determining when it is
appropriate to relocate buried remains. The Board also recommende d revisions to the inventory of burial
sites to allow changes whenever they are discovered, not just armually. Beyond the Bill and SRA, the
Board recommende d the appointment of a special advisory committee to comprehensiv ely explore
additional legislation concerning burial sites and archaeological resources.
The Council held a public hearing on September 12, 2017. In general, testimony supported the approval
of SRA 17-01 as the Council's first step in protecting burial sites. A number of people wanted to protect
The use offederal or state funds does trigger an obligation on the part of the active public agency to do proactive investigations.
This process is required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA). Projects requiring review
include actions with direct federal or state funding sources, pennits, licenses, or other action with state or federal involvement.
1
1
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
burial sites in all development processes. Testimony suggested burial site protections for
situations like
the Macedonia Baptist Church, where a sketch plan application was in process when
the issue of
preserving a burial ground was raised.
2
Some testimony wanted to impose an obligation on
developers to
research burial sites on every development without regard to its identification on an inventory.
There was
testimony both for and against Planning Board discretion to allow the relocation of burial sites.
Additional
recommendations raised in testimony are addressed as issues below.
Issues
Shoul d all action on SRA 17-01 and Bill 24-17 be postp oned until more comprehensive legisla
tion
is developed?
Testimony from the Historic Preservation Commission recommended a delay in approving
Bill 24-17 and
SRA 24-17 until a more comprehensive approach can be developed by a specially-appointe
d committee.
In Staffs opinion, the Historic Preservation Commission is favoring the perfect over the
good. By the
judgment of testimony from organizations devoted to preserving burial sites, historic preser
vationists and
virtually all other testimony received, Bill 24-17 and SRA 17-01 are good first steps
in burial site
preservation.
In both physics and legislative action, there are two notable forces at work: inertia and entrop
3
y.
In
the
absence of inertia, entropy wins.
Staff recommends proceeding through the approval
process of
Bill 24-17 and SRA-17.
Shoul d the inventory of burial sites be restricted to where the Planning Board is autho
rized to
approve subdivisions?
Under Bill 24-17, the Planning Board must establish in an inventory of burial sites each site
"located in
an area of the County where the Planning Board is authorized to approve a subdivision."
4
As proposed,
the inventory triggers actions under the subdivision process. The Council and the Planning
Board lack
zoning and subdivision authority in Brookeville, Poolesville, Laytonsville, Rockville,
Barnesville,
Gaithersburg, and Washington Grove. The Council has some authority, but no zoning
and land use
authority in these jurisdictions; the Planning Department has absolutely no autho
rity in these
municipalities. An inventory of burial sites that included these municipalities would be
an academic
exercise.
Staff does not recommend expanding the geographic scope of the inventory.
Shoul d all subdivision applications be the subject ofPhase 1 and Phase II archaeological
studies?
SRA 17-01 would require preservation of a burial ground and archaeological investigations
only when the
site was identified on the Planning Board's inventory of burial sites. A site not on the invent
ory would
not have any obligation to do any archaeologic investigation. Testimony recommended
requiring all
subdivision applicants to do archaeological research before proceeding.
The cemetery is not the subject of a preliminary plan application. There is a significant volume
of written testimony looking
for the Council to avoid the situation that developed regarding the Macedonia Baptist Church
.
3
"In high school, when I first heard of entropy, I was attracted to it immediately. They
said that in nature all systems are
breaking down, and I thought, 'What a wonderful thing; perhaps I can make some small contrib
ution to this process, mysel f"'
George Carlin
4
Bill 24-17 lines 39-41.
2
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Archaeological investigations have 2 phases to determine the existence of any resources on a site going
back to prehistoric times. The goal of a Phase I archaeological survey is to determine the presence or
absence of archaeological resources within a project area.
A Phase I investigation consists of a combination of background research and fieldwork designed to
identify resources and define site boundaries within a given project area. During the Phase I investigation,
the entirety of the project area must be studied. Phase I investigations entail detailed archival and
background research as to the possibility of a burial site. Phase I fieldwork also includes at least an on-
site survey of the site and may include some limited digging. The use of specific field methods and
techniques is dependent upon the type of ground cover present, the topographic setting, and the amount
of observed disturbance. The Phase 1 study indicates whether a resource may be on the site.
5
If
there is
some evidence of a burial site, a Phase II investigation would be required for the area in which the site is
thought to be located.
A Phase II archaeological investigation is conducted to determine the exact extent of the resource. A
Phase II study may include: evaluating areas of moderate and high artifact densities and determining the
surface and subsurface limits of the site. The field methods and techniques may include systematic,
controlled surface collection, shovel tests, hand-excavated test units, and use of remote sensing techniques
(ground penetrating radar). Field investigations should be designed to retrieve the information necessary
without seriously impacting the contextual integrity of the site.
Some archaeologic information is available without costly research. A chain of title can be done fairly
easily. The state maintains a registry of archaeological resources that is available to professionals without
additional research. Because of the sensitivity of archeological site information, access to archeological
site location data is restricted.
It
is generally available only to those who meet the Secretary of the
Interior's Professional Qualification Standards. The availability of historic libraries and church histories
can also reduce the cost of research.
Some counties require archaeologic investigations under certain circumstances. In Anne Arundel County,
when a parcel or project area is deemed to have a high potential for resources, a survey may be required
to identify potentially significant resources. Similarly, in Prince George's County, before the submittal
of a preliminary plan of subdivision, potential applicants are encouraged to contact the Historic
Preservation staff for an evaluation of archeological potential and a finding as to whether an archeological
investigation is needed.
6
Howard County maintains an inventory of burial sites.
It
requires additional
research for those sites and any other sites found.
7
While the cost of Phase I varies, depending upon conditions and other variables, it typically costs between
$1,500 and $6,000. Variables may include: size of property, number of buildings, complexity of the
current/historical use, integrity of the site, cultural affiliations, or other conditions.
8
A phase II study also evaluates an archaeological site's eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP).
6
SRA 17-01 and Bill 24-17 are modelled after the Prince George's County code.
7
Howard County has a Cemetery Preservation Advisory Board to determine the existence of a burial site that is not on the
inventory.
8
Acting Historic Preservation Supervisor, Phillip Estes, Planning Department staff; Jennifer Stabler, Ph.D., Archeology
Planner Coordinator, M-NCPPC, Historic Preservation Section, provided the following:
The cost of the Phase I surveys does vary quite a bit depending on the size of the property and the types of field methods
that will be used. The background historical research should be done first.
In
our office, I have usually done a chain of title
5
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Some people who recommended archaeology for all subdivisions, also wanted a public hearing on Phase
I and Phase II studies (with notice to interested parties).
9
That would add time and cost to an applicant.
As proposed, an applicant for a site on the inventory would be required to do an archaeology study to pin
down the burial area. The issue for the Council is whether the obligations of a developer should be
triggered by the inventory or whether every site in the County should be obligated to do additional
research.
Staff favors keeping the initial research burden on the Planning Board and imposing burdens on
the private sector only when there is a reason to do so.
Should the protection requirement of the proposed SRA be applied to other steps in the
development process?
If
one considers that most zoning is applied by the Council without a landowner's application, the
subdivision process is generally the first step in the development process. A requirement to only preserve
sites in the subdivision process will not include all land undergoing development. The SRA only applied
to preliminary plans. It does not apply to projects that have preliminary plan approval but have not gone
to record plat.
10
There are other steps in the development process outside of subdivisions. A sketch plan or site plan
approval may be required. A ZTA would need to be introduced to require burial site protection in those
processes.
11
Actions at building permit would also require separate legislation.
12
and some basic background research that I hand off to the consultant archaeologists. I do that to help me to determine if a
Phase I survey should be done on the property and to determine what resources might be present. The archaeologists
usually do a pedestrian walk over of the property to identify areas for further testing. Steep slopes are generally visually
examined but are not further tested with shovel test pits. The level areas are generally subjected to further testing. If there
are plowed fields on the property, the archaeologists will generally perform a surface survey and identify artifacts visible
on the surface. This should be combined with some shovel test pits to determine the stratigraphy of the site.
In
wooded
areas or areas with vegetative cover, the archaeologists will generally dig shovel test pits at a set interval (50
ft.
in Prince
George's County) and screen for artifacts.
9
Testimony also indicated that the State of Georgia required a Phase I review and a Phase II review, if warranted, for all
property. Staff could only locate a statute from George that required investigation when development was proposed on a known
cemetery site:
Georgia Code Section 36-72-4 G
No known cemetery, burial ground, human remains, or burial object shall be knowingly disturbed by the owner or occupier
of the land on which the cemetery or burial ground is located for the purposes of developing or changing the use of any
part of such land unless a permit is first obtained from the governing authority of the municipal corporation or county
wherein the cemetery or burial ground is located, which shall have authority to permit such activity except as provided in
Code Section 36-72-14.
10
A high percentage of land in the County has been through the subdivision process; however, it is common for new
development or redevelopment to require a new subdivision (resubdivision) before proceeding.
11
Although the Council is authorized to regulate zoning and subdivisions, the approval process is different. Zoning changes
are approved without the involvement of the Executive. Subdivision approvals either require the Executive's approval or a
Council override of an Executive veto.
12
The building permit process is purely administrative. There are no public hearings. DPS staff interprets code but it does not
decide contested subjective issues. Burial sites discovered during construction are subject to state law on the removal of human
remains.
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
The later in the development process that the County requires changes due to the discovery of a burial
ground, the more burdensome it is on a developer, but more burial sites will be preserved. The physical
requirements for retaining a newly discovered burial site past preliminary plan may require redoing
previously made decisions about what goes where on a site. Stopping a building permit application is
extremely burdensome. On the other hand, once a grave is relocated, it will never be returned.
Staff would recommend approving SRA 17-01 and Bill 24-17 with amendments.
13
Future legislative
action is not precluded by the approval of SRA 17-01.
What should happen
if
a burial site is not on the inventory but is discovered before Plannin g Board
action?
As introduced, a burial site that is not on the inventory and discovered during development would be
subject to state law.
14
The Bill puts the burden on the Planning Department to develop and add to an
inventory of sites as it deems appropriate.
Howard County has a process to examine the validity of claims made during the development approval
process. Howard County has a Cemetery Preservation Advisory Board to help the Planning Department
determine the existence of a burial site that is not on the inventory. That procedure is not included in SRA
17-01 or Bill 24-17.
The program as proposed gives an incentive to everyone to forward their research on burial sites to
Planning staff as soon as it is developed. It creates a disincentive for last-minute disclosures.
Staff favors
these incentives and disincentives but would recommend more than an annual update of the
inventory, as addressed below.
Should the propose d inventory be updated more than annually?
Perhaps a little history on the Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory posted on the Planning Board's
website is in order. The Montgomery County Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) awarded a grant
to Peerless Rockville and Historic Takoma in 2004 for the first phase of the cemetery inventory project.
An initial database was created of all known cemeteries. Dedicated volunteers began the work of
surveying each one. In 2005, Phase II built on the database, expanding it and working on a GIS map
showing the locations of each cemetery and creating a list of the County's most threatened cemeteries.
15
In the words of Yoda, "Do or not do, there is no
try."
There may be some wisdom in "doing" the newly proposed program
for subdivisions first and then considering what to do next.
14
Maryland Criminal Law Code
§
I 0-402
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) and
(f)
of this section, a person may not remove or attempt to remove human remains
from a burial site.
(b) Subject to subsection (c) of this section, the State's Attorney for a county may authorize in writing the removal of human
remains from a burial site in the State's Attorney's jurisdiction:
( 1) to ascertain the cause of death of the person whose remains are to be removed;
(2) to determine whether the human remains were interred erroneously;
(3) for the purpose ofreburia l; or
(4) for medical or scientific examination or study allowed by law.
(c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (4) of this subsection, the State's Attorney for a county shall require a person who
requests authorization to relocate permanently human remains from a burial site to publish a notice of the proposed
relocation
in
a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the burial site is located.
15
The project was peer reviewed by local historians and cemetery experts, including Mike Dwyer, Linda Layman, Jim
Sorensen, Eileen McGuckian, and Janet Manuel, for accuracy and completeness.
13
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
This web-available mapped inventory has not been updated since its creation.
16
The Planning Board has
not adopted the inventory in any form, except for hosting the information on its website. There has been
no qualified archaeological staff to evaluate any later research for including or correcting the boundaries
of sites.
The Bill as introduced requires that the inventory be maintained and updated annually. The Planning
Board must establish a procedure for a person to request the addition of a burial site to the inventory (or
the removal of a site if a more detailed archeological study indicates the absence of a burial site or a
smaller site). The procedures must include an outreach program.
17
This new program should allow the
Planning Board to consider any facts sufficient to determine the validity of sites on the inventory it
approves and justification for any future revision to that inventory.
18
Staff agrees that it is too limiting to
restrict the inventory to annual updates.
Staff recommends a revision to Bill 24-17 to require at least
an annual update to the inventory and whenever facts warrant an update.
Testimony suggested a public hearing on burial site decisions. There is nothing to prevent the Planning
Board from holding a hearing whenever it approves or updates the inventory.
It
is the Board's practice to
be open in its decision making.
Is there too much or not enough discretion to determine when the removal of human remains is
appropriate?
There is a provision in SRA 17-01 for very limited Planning Board discretion, to allow state law to regulate
the removal of human remains:
Without regard to Subsection 2, if the Planning Board determines that an accommodation of the
burial site with the development cannot be accomplished without denying the property owner
reasonable use of their entire property, then the Planning Board may approve a plan for
development with the appropriate treatment of the burial site under State law.
19
This provision mirrors a similar provision in the Howard County Code.
It
allows a burial site relocation
only when to do otherwise would result in the public "taking" of the property from the owner. Testimony
objected to the flexibility in this provision.
Some historians and archaeologists believe that there are never circumstances where human remains
should be removed. There was testimony to require the permission of descendants to relocate graves.
http://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/historic/montgomery-county-cemetery-inventory/
Bill 24-17:
The Planning Board must maintain, and revise as appropriate, an inventory ofburial sites located in the County. The inventory
must:
(A) include each burial site located in an area of the County where the Planning Board is authorized to approve a
subdivision;
(B) include a map and a description of each burial site including ownership information when available;
(C) be made available to the public electronically; and
(D) be updated annually.
The Planning Board must establish a procedure for a person to request the addition of a burial site to the inventory. The
procedures must include an outreach program.
18
When there is a reason to do so, it would be the obligation of the Planning Board to determine if there is sufficient evidence
to add a burial site to the inventory. Exactly what that evidence is to warrant inclusion is left to the Planning Board's judgment
.
19
Lines 88-93.
17
16
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
A zero tolerance for grave relocation would, at some point in the future, result in a Court ordering the
County to pay for burial sites that it may not wish to own. Unless the
Council wants a program to
purchase burial sites, Staff recommends at least retaining the flexibility in SRA-17-01 as it was
introduced.
The Planning Board requested more flexibility to allow the removal of graves. Planning staff believes
that deleting the word "entire" before the word "property" gives the Board that desired flexibility. There
may be situations where it would be reasonable for the Planning Board to approve appropriate grave
relocation under State law, even if the
entire
property has a reasonable use.
There is also testimony that recommended amending the provision
in
SRA 17-01 because it is too
inflexible; the provision only applies to avoid a "taking" of the property. In Prince George's County, there
are requirements for the preservation of a cemetery only when "there are no plans [by the developer] to
relocate human remains to an existing cemetery." The Prince George's County provision is far more
permissive than SRA 17-01. In blackletter code, the developer may choose to move graves; it is not the
Planning Board's option to allow these moves. This is a bridge too far, in Staffs opinion.
Testimony suggested giving the Planning Board more flexibility to approve the relocation of a burial site
"if the Planning Board determines that the burial site can be better honored and more accessible through
relocation and accommodation of the burial site elsewhere either within the development." This is far less
discretion than that written into the Prince George's County law, but far more discretion than in
SRA 17-01 as introduced.
If
the Council
trusts
the Planning Board to make the judgment to determine when (if ever) grave sites are
more accessible by relocation, it is a reasonable revision, given the competing goals in any development.
20
The phrase "better honor" may be too subjective. Planning staff may wish to comment on that point. Any
such decision by the Board to allow relocation would be controversial.
21
Should there be a Cemetery Advisory Board?
Neither SRA 17-01 nor Bill 24-17 as introduced establish an advisory committee. Howard County
established a Cemetery Preservation Advisory Board to advise the Planning Board on the existence of a
previously unknown burial site:
The Department of Planning and Zoning, in consultation with the Cemetery Preservation Advisory
Board, shall determine if the discovered area ... above is a cemetery ....
22
There was testimony to allow a newly created board the authority to amend the inventory instead of the
Planning Board. That is more authority than Howard County granted to its board. This makes sense only
if the Council
distrusts
the Planning Board, which is not the case.
Some who testified have no trust in the Board regarding burial sites and would like all authority in this area to be vested in a
newly-created board.
21
htt_ps://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dozens-of-bodies-buried-next-to-mgm-casino-outside-washington-will-be-
moved/2017/09/26/935e99da-9fd4-l le7-84fb-b4831436e807 stor:y.html?utm term=.lca4b05810ea
22
Howard County Code, Title 16, Subtitle 13 Section 16.1305.
20
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
There is nothing to prevent the Planning Board from establishing and having the advice of an advisory
board if it chooses to do so.
The Planning Board has the flexibility
to
establish and maintain the
burial site inventory and to use any advice in doing so.
Should the Council establish a special advisory committee to determine the need for additional
legislation to add protection to burial sites to other steps in the development process?
Testimony from the Planning Board suggested approval of what is before the Council and a study using a
special advisory commit tee to determine if the protections should be expanded to other steps
in
the
process.
Staff notes that the Planning Board is always free to recommend ZTAs and Bills for introduction at any
time. The Board is also free to get advice from any source without regard to whether that source is a
consultant, residents, or committees that it establishes.
Staff would not recommend Council
establishment of a special committee.
Should the protection for a burial site include maintenance?
As introduced. the burial site must be protected by arrangements sufficient to assure the Planning Board
of its future
maintenance
and preservation.
23
The technical changes recommended by the Planning Board
deleted a requirem ent for continued maintenance because that requirement is within the concept of
preservation. The Committee may wish to hear more on that subject from Planning staff.
Can the Bill guarantee funding to staff the SRA's requirements?
SRA 17-01 and Bill 24-17 should not be approved without consideration of their fiscal impact. The fiscal
impact provided by 0MB concluded that the up-front cost would be $156,000 to $260,000, with staff
being reassigned to this task for the existing work complement. In the alternative, it would require the
addition of one staff member at $118,300 annually, with an additional $36,000 to equip the new employee.
(Prince George' s County has a full-time employee devoted to this work.) Staff believes that there will be
up-front costs to develop the inventory AND a continuing need to review sites as they file for subdivision
applications and develop the research on additional sites.
It
is unrealistic to assume that after the initial
establishment of the inventory, no additional staff will be required. There are no qualified archaeologists
on the Planning Departm ent's payroll.
Testimony wanted guaranteed funding of staff support for developing and maintaining the cemetery
inventory. This is not possible. The Council makes budget decisions in the annual budget process.
23
Line 78 and 86 delete maintenance but require protection.
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Are technical revisions warranted?
The following are specific changes to SRA
17-01,
suggested by testimony, that are technical in nature.
Line#
Line
54
Line
67
Line
68
Description of the Change
add "boundary " after "subdivision"
delete
"If
there is no surface evidence
of a burial site"
replace "historic and archaeologic best
practices" with "appropriate measures"
Line
72
Line
73
Line
74
Line
79
at the beginning of the sentence add
"Unless Planning staff believes that
vandalism concerns dictate otherwise,"
after inventory add "that may include
photograp hs"
after such as add "grave locations" and
"fences"
delete "fence or wall must be
maintained or provide" and add
"manner" , then add "must be provided"
at the end of the sentence
Staff Comments
Staff does not object to this change.
Staff recommends this change; it avoids unequal
treatment for different surface conditions.
Staff does not recommend this change. The
replacement was suggested because the phrase is
an undefined term; it may require extraordinary
measures. Staff finds that historic and
archaeologic best practices are well-documented.
Staff recommends this change to avoid looting in
particular situations.
Staff recommends this change.
Staff recommends this change.
Staff recommends this change; it leaves the issue
of how the site should be delineated to the
Planning Board.
This packet contains:
Bill
24-17
Legislative Request Report
Fiscal and Economic Impact Statement
SRA
17-01
Planning Board recommendations
Planning Board recommended revisions to SRA
17-01
Planning staff recommendations
Circle#
1- 4
5
6- 9
10-16
17
18-23
24-29
F:\Land Use\SRAs\2017 SRAs\SRA 17-01 Burial Sites\PHED Memo 10-16-17.docx
9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
24-17
Concerning: Land Use Information -
Burial sites
Revised: June
27, 2017
Draft No: 6
Introduced:
June
27 2017
Expires:
December
27 2018
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: ----'-"N=on""'e"'--- -----
Ch. _ _ , Laws of Mont. Co. _ _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMER Y COUNTY, MARYLAND
Lead Sponsors: Councilmember Rice, Council President Berliner and Councilmember Leventhal
Co-Sponsors: Councilmembers Katz, Navarro, Council Vice-President Riemer and Councilmember
Elrich
AN ACT
to:
(1)
(2)
require the Planning Board to establish and maintain an inventory of burial sites in the
County; and
generally amend the law relating to land use information function of the Planning
Department.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 33A, Planning Procedures
Sections 33A-17
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining ,
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law by original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deleted from existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 24-17
Sec.
1.
Section 33A-17 is amended as follows:
2
3
Article 4. Land Use information functions
33A-17.
[Land use information functions]
Information and referral services.
4
5
(a)
The Planning Board must provide [[informational]] information and
referral services on County land use and related regulatory functions to
interested members of the public. The services to be provided include
technical assistance and information on:
( 1)
(2)
(3)
master plans, including pending amendments;
zoning, including pending cases and pending text amendments;
subdivision
control,
including
pending
applications
and
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
amendments to Chapter 50;
(4)
(5)
(6)
growth policy and related regulatory requirements;
federal, state, and local environmental regulations; and
related administrative, regulatory, or legislative procedures
applicable to the Planning Board, Office of Zoning and
Administrative Hearings, Historic Preservation Commission,
Board of Appeals, other County regulatory agencies, Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission, and County Council.
(b)
A resource library must be maintained that contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
( 5)
relevant laws, regulations, and administrative procedures;
appropriate zoning_and other maps;
administrative and legislative hearing schedules;
significant administrative and judicial land use decision; and
master plans, policy documents, planning studies, and other
appropriate reference materials.
(
c)
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
All County departments, offices, and agencies must provide the planning
department with:
6)
F:\LA W\BILLS\1724 Land Use Infonnation - Burial Sites\Bill 6.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 24-17
28
29
30
31
32
( 1)
reque sted materials (other than confidential documents) to ensure
the availability to the public of current information[,]; and
the location and telephone numb er of the person or persons to
whom inquiries may be referred.
In this subsection, £
burial site
means £ physical location where
huma n remains were buried in the earth, or entombed in £
maus oleum or columbarium. A burial site inclu des£ cemetery, but
does not include the sprinkling of ashes from cremated remains.
(2)
@
ill
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
ill
The Planning Board must maintain, and revise as appropriate, an
inventory of burial sites located in the County. The inventory
must:
(A)
include each burial site located in an area of the County
where the Planning Boar d is authorized to approve £
subdivision;
ill.)
include £ map and £ description of each burial site including
ownership information when available;
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
.(Q
@
be made available to the public electronically; and
be updated annually.
ill
47
48
The Planning Board must estab lish£ procedure for£ person to
request the addition of £ burial site to the inventory. The
procedures must include [[£]]an outreach program.
49
50
51
Approved:
52
53
Roger Berliner, President, County Council
Date
&
W\BILLS\1724 L,md Use
lnf-ati< m -
Brnial
s;i,,\Bill
6.Do~
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 24-17
54
55
Approved:
56
57
58
59
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
This is a correct copy ofCouncil action.
60
61
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
&
F:\LAW\BILLS\1724 Land Use Information - Burial Sites\Bill 6.Docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 24-17
Land Use Information
-
Burial Sites
DESCRIPTION:
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
The Bill would require the Planning Board to establish and
periodically update an inventory of burial sites.
In the absence of an inventory land disturbances may unknowingly
violate burial sites.
Provide an inventory of burial sites with an opportunity to update
information. The Bill is a companion to Subdivision Regulation
17-
01
which accommodates burial sites in the subdivision process.
Planning Department
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Jeff Zyontz, Senior Legislative Analyst,
240-777-7896
To be researched.
Not applicable
({)
f:\law\bills\ 1724 land use information - burial sites\lrr.docx
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND
MEMORAN DUM
Julyl7,2017
TO:
Roger Berliner. President, Couniy Council
Jennifer
A.
Hughes, Director, Office of Management and Budge ;
Alexandre A. Espinosa. Director, Depaiiment of Finance , '..
-!,
;-1,
.
.,~
~~'ff
FRot\:1:
ltf
v<:·,,-rYZ.,/J
.'f
jP..0..
;
V
,,
1--·/
.
'J{v'
l~:)/i"'
SUBJECT:
FE!S
for Bill
24-17,
Land
Use
Information - Burial Sites
\.,:,
,
i
l;
Please find attached the fiscal and economic impact statements
for
the above-
referenced legislations.
JAH:fa
cc:
Bon111e
Kirkland, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices of the County Executive
Joy Nurmi. Special Assistant to the County Executive
Patrick Lacefield, Director, Public Information Office
David Platt, Depaitment of Finance
Dennis Hetman, Department of Finance
Jennifer Nordin, Office of Management and Budget
Felicia Zhang. Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal Impact Statement
BILL
24-17,
Land Use Information-Buria l Sites
1. Bill Summary
Bill 24-17 requires the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-
NCPPC) Planning Board to create and maintain an inventory of burial sites in
Montgomery County. This Bill is a companion to Subdivision Regulation 17-01 which
includes burial sites in the subdivision approval process.
2. An estimate of changes in County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether the
revenues or expenditures are assumed in the recommended or approved budget. Includes
source of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
No impact to revenues.
M-NCPPC estimates ongoing expenditures for one new Planner Coordinator position
($118,300) and first year expenditures for supplies ($36,000); however, the Office of
Management and Budget (0MB) believes the upfront workload to create an inventory
can be completed by a contractor and the ongoing workload is manageable through
existing staffing levels.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least the next 6 fiscal years.
No impact to revenues.
M-NCPPC estimates ongoing expenditures for one full-time staff position and first year
expenditures for supplies (vehicle, computer, furniture).
Personnel
Costs
Operating
Expenses
Year l
$118,300
$36,000
Year2
$118,300
$0
Year 3
$118,300
$0
Year4
$118,300
$0
Year
5
$118,300
$0
Year6
$118,300
$0
Alternatively, 0MB estimates the upfront workload can be completed in the first year
by
a contractor ($156,000 - $260,000 based on an hourly rate of $75-$125) and the ongoing
workload can be absorbed by existing staff.
Personnel
Costs
Operating
Expenses
Year l
$0
$156,000-
260,000
Year2
$0
$0
Year 3
$0
$0
Year4
$0
$0
Year
5
$0
$0
Year6
$0
$0
4. An actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill/regulation that
would affect retiree pension or group insurance costs.
Not applicable.
5. Later actions that may affect future revenue and expenditures if the bill/regulation
authorizes future spending.
Not applicable.
(j)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
6. An estimate
of
the staff time needed to implement the bill/regulation.
M-NCPPC estimates one new position is needed to complete infom1ation assessments,
fieldwork, mapping; and evaluations of development applications.
Alternatively, 0MB estimates the upfront workload can be completed by
a
contractor and
the ongoing workload can be absorbed by existing staff.
7.
An explanation of how the addition of new staff responsibilities would affect other duties.
M-NCPPC estimates one new position
will
complete the workload and existing
staff
duties
will
not be affected.
Alternatively, 0MB estimates the upfront workload can
be
completed by
a
contractor and
the ongoing workload can be absorbed by existing staff.
8. An estimate
of
costs when an additional appropriation is needed.
Not applicable.
9. A
description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
Not applicable.
10.
Ranges of revenue or expenditures that are uncertain or difficult to project.
Not applicable.
11. If
a Bill is likely to
have
no fiscal impact, why that is the case.
Not applicable.
12. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
Not applicable.
13. The following contributed to and concurred with this analysis,
Karen Warnick, MNCPPC
Diane Jones, DPS
Oreg Ossont, DOS
Emil Wolanin, DOT
Timothy Goetzinger, DHCA
Jennifer Nordin, 0MB
Date
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Hill
24-17,
Land Use Information-
Burial
Sites
Background:
This legislation would require the I'v1ontgomer~ Count~ Planning Board
or
the \farylanJ-
National Capital Park and Plaiming Commission to t~stablish and maintain an inventory
of burial sites in the County. Subdivision
Regulation 17-01
would require that such
burial sites identified in the
1mentor;-
be re:-.pected in the subdi,ision
appro\al
process.
l.
The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
There are no sources of information. assumptions. or methodologies used in tbe
preparation of the economic impact
statemem.
2. A description of any variahlc that could affect the economic impact estimates.
\lot applicable.
3.
The
Bill's
positive or negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending, savings,
investment, incomcs
1
and proper~ values in the County.
Bill 24-17 \vould have no
economic impact
011
employment. spending.
sa\
ings.
investment. incomes. and property
values
in the CounL~.
-4.
If
a
Bill
is
likely
to have no economic impact,
why
is that the case'?
Bill 24-17 \vould have no economic impact because
it
establishes and maintains an
inventory of burial sites \,\·hich dol.:'s not ha\'e an impact on
employment. spending.
savings. investmem. incomes property \Blues.
5. The following contributed to or concurred
with this
analysis:
David Platt and
Robert Hagedoorn. Finance.
Alexandre A. Espmosa. Director
lkpanmcnt
of Finance
- ik¾e-:-
~----:Z!JL
·_
7
°
11_
!)ate
I
I
Pagel
or
l
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendm ent No.: 17-01
Concerning: Approval Procedures - Burial sites
Draft No. & Date: 3 -6/27/1 7
Introduced: June 27, 2017
Public Hearing:
Adopted:
Effective:
Ordinance No:
COUNT Y COUNC IL FOR MONT GOME RY COUNT Y, MARY LAND
SITTIN G AS THE DISTRI CT COUNC IL FOR THAT PORTI ON OF
THE MARYL AND-W ASHIN GTON REGIO NAL DISTRI CT WITHI N
MONT GOME RY COUNT Y, MARYL AND
Lead Sponsors: Councilmember Rice, Council President Berliner, and
Councilmember Leventhal
Co-sponsors: Councilmembers Navarro, Hucker, and Elrich
AN AMEND MENT
to:
1) define burial sites;
2) require the identification of burial sites on preliminary plan applications;
3) require approved preliminary plans to appropriately preserve burial sites; and
4) generally add provisions to protect and preserve burial sites in the subdivision
approval process.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 50
"Subdivision of Land"
Section 50.2 "Interpretations and Defined Terms"
Section 50.4
"Prelim inary Plan"
Boldfac e
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
*
*
*
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by introduced Subdivision Regulation
Amendment.
Deleted from existing law by introduced Subdivision
Regulation Amendment.
Added to the Subdivision Regulation Amendm ent by
amendment.
Deleted from existing law or the Subdivision Regulation
Amendm ent by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by Subdivision Regulation Amendment.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ORDINANCE
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, sitting as the District Council
for that portion ofthe Maryland-Washington Regional District in Montgomery County,
Maryland, approves the followin g Ordinance:
@
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
1
2
Sec.
1.
Chapte r 50 is amended as follows.
*
* *
3
4
Divisio n 50.2. Interpretation and Define d Terms
*
Section 2.2. Definit ions
*
*
5
6
7
8
9
All terms used in this Chapter that are defined in Chapter 59 or Chapter 49 have the
same meanin gs as the definitions in those Chapters, unless otherwise defined here.
In this Chapter, the following words and phrases have the meanings indicated.
*
B.
* *
10
11
*
*
*
12
13
14
15
16
17
Block:
Land area bounded by roads, other rights-of-way, unsubdivided acreage,
natural barriers, and any other barrier to the continuity of development.
Burial site: A physical location where human remains were buried in the earth, or
entomb ed in
~
mausoleum or columbarium. A burial site includes
g
cemetery, but
does not include the sprinkling of ashes from cremated remains.
*
Article II. Subdiv ision Plans
Divisio n 50.4. Prelim inary Plan
*
*
18
19
20
21
Except for an administrative or minor subdivision submitted under Divisions 50.6
and 50.7, the subdivider must submit a proposed subdivision to the Board for
<iff)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
22
23
24
25
26
appro val in the form of a prelim inary plan before the submi ssion of a plat. The plan
must show graphically, and supporting docum ents must demon strate, the data
neede d for the Board to make the findings requir ed by this Article.
Section 4.1. Filing and Specifications
*
B.
*
*
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
The drawing.
The subdivider must submit a prelim inary plan drawi ng in a
form requir ed by regulations of the Board. Details and inform ation must
include:
*
7.
*
*
graph ic repres entati on of the propo sed subdivision, including:
*
J.
*
*
lines showi ng the limits of each zone, if the prope rty is locate d
in more than one zone; [and]
k.
all existin g topog raphy , structures, and pavm g on adjoining
prope rties within 100 feet[.]; and
1.
locati on of any burial sites includ ed in the Montg omery Count y
Ceme tery Inventory.
38
39
*
Section 4.2. Approval Procedure
*
*
40
41
*
D.
*
*
42
Requi red Findings.
To approve a prelim inary plan, the Board must find that:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
43
44
45
46
1.
the layout of the subdivision, including size, width, shape, orientation
and density of lots, and location and design of roads is appropriate for
the subdivision given its location and the type of development or use
contemplated and the applicable requirements of Chapter 59;
47
48
49
2.
the preliminary plan substantially conforms to the master plan;
public facilities will be adequate to support and service the area of the
subdivision;
3.
50
51
52
53
54
55
4.
5.
all Forest Conservation Law, Chapter 22A requirements are satisfied;
all stormwater management, water quality plan, and floodplain
requirements of Chapter 19 are satisfied; [and]
any burial site included in the Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory
and located within the subdivision is approved under Subsection 50-
4.3.M; and
56
57
58
[6]1.
any other applicable provision specific to the property and necessary
for approval of the subdivision is satisfied.
*
Section 4.3. Technical Review
*
*
59
60
61
In making the findings under Section 4.2.D, the Board must consider the following
aspects of the application.
62
63
M.
Burial sites
* * *
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
64
65
1.
When f! proposed preliminary plan includes f! burial site identified on
the Montgomery County Cemetery Inventory within the site, the
applicant must satisfy the following requirements:
a.
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
If
there is no surface evidence of the burial site, the applicant
must use historical and archeological best practices to establish
the location of the burial site. The comers of the burial site must
be staked in the field before preliminary plan submittal. The
stakes must be maintained
by
the applicant until preliminary plan
approval.
b.
An inventory of existing burial site elements (such as walls,
gates, landscape features, fieldstones, and tombstones) and their
condition must be submitted as part of the preliminary plan
application.
74
75
76
77
78
79
d.
C.
The placement of lot lines must promote long-term maintenance
of the burial site and protection of existing elements.
An appropriate fence or wall must be maintained or provided to
delineate the burial site. The design of the proposed enclosure
and f! construction schedule must be approved
by
the Planning
Board, before the approval off! record plat.
80
81
82
83
84
e.
The burial site must be protected
by
arrangements sufficient to
assure the Planning Board of its future maintenance and
preservation.
85
86
87
The Planning Board must require appropriate measures to protect the
burial site during the development process.
@
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
88
89
90
91
Without regard to Subsection
.b
if the Planning Board determines that
an accommodation of the burial site with the development cannot be
accomplished without denying the property owner reasonable use of
their entire property, then the Planning Board may approve
£!
plan for
development with the appropriate treatment of the burial site under
State law.
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
law.
* * *
Sec. 3. Effective Date.
This amendment takes effect 90 days after it becomes
Approved:
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
This is a correct copy of Council action.
103
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MONTGOMERY COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
TltE M,\RYl..t\ND-N,\110N.\1.C..\PfTAL P,\ll!i; AND
Pl.ANNIN<,
COl\lMl!->'SION
OFFICE OFTHE CHAlR
September 12, 2017
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland, sitting as the District
Council
for
the Maryland-Washington Regional District in
Montgomery County, Maryland
·
Montgomery County Planning
Board
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.
17-0 I
&
Bill
24-17
BOARD RECOMMENDATION
The Montgomery ' County Planning Board of The Maryland-National Capital Parle and .
Planning Commission reviewed Subdivision Regulation Amendment No. 17-01 and Bill 24-17 at its
regular meeting on September 7, 2017.
By
a vote of 5:0, the Planning Board recommends approval,
with amendments,ofthe subdivision regulation amendment and bill to establish burial site procedures
for Montgomery County. The Board believes that the legislation as introduced provides a good start to
addressing burial procedures but also has several concerns that
wiJI
require additional deliberation
beyond those addressed in the technical staff report. The Board recommends that the language in the
SRA pertaining to the standard for when burial sites must
be
preserved (Section 43.M.3.), be modified
to reflect a recognition that in some cases
it
is appropriate to relocate buried remains even when
leaving remains in place would not deprive the owner of all economic use of the property. The Board
further commented that the legislation needs to address processes for historically marginalized groups,
and to make clear the scope of archaeological work. The Planning Board also believes that the
proposed annual update of the Cemetery Inventory would not be sufficient and therefore recommends
that updates occur as burial sites are discovef"e4. The Board recommends that the County establish a
special advisory committee with wide representation to more comprehensively explore additional
legislation surrounding burial sites and archaeological resources, without delaying the processing of
SRA 17-01 and Bill 24-17.
.
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the attached report is a true and correct copy of the technical staff report
and the foregoing is the recommendation adopted by the Montgomery County Planning Board of The
Maryland-National Capital Parle and Planning Commission, at its regular meeting held in Silver
Spring, Maryland, on Thursday, September 7, 2017.
Casey Anderson
Chair
CA:GR
6)
8787 Georgia Avenue, Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 Chairman's Office: 301.495.4605 Fax: 301.495.1320
www,mntpmundamma~
E-Mail: mcp-chair@mncppc.org
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
AS MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON 9/7/2017
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
Concerning: Approval Procedures - Burial sites
Draft No.
&
Date: 2 - 6/2/17
Introduced: June 27, 2017
Public Hearing:
Adopted:
Effective:
Ordinance No:
COUNTY COUNCIL FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
SITTING AS THE DISTRICT COUNCIL FOR THAT PORTION OF
THE MARYLAND-WASHINGTON REGIONAL DISTRICT WITHIN
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,MARY LAND
Lead Sponsors: Councilmember Rice, Council President Berliner, and
Councilmember Leventhal
AN AMENDMENT
to:
1)
2)
3)
4)
define burial sites;
require the identification of burial sites on preliminary plan applications;
require approved preliminary plans to appropriately preserve burial sttes; and
generally add provisions to protect and preserve burial sites in the subdivision
approval process.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 50
"Subdivision of Land"
Section 50.2 "Interpretations and Defined Terms"
Section 50.4 "Preliminary Plan"
Boldface
Underlining
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by introduced Subdivision Regulation
Amendment.
Deleted from existing law by introduced Subdivision
Regulation Amendment.
Added to the Subdivision Regulation Amendment by
amendment.
Deleted from existing law or the Subdivision Regulation
Amendment by amendment.
Existing law unaffected by Subdivision Regulation Amendment.
[Single boldface brackets]
Double underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* *
*
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Subdivision Regulation Amendment No.: 17-01
1
2
Sec. 1.
Chapter 50 is amended as follows.
*
*
*
3
4
Division 50.2. Interpretation and Defined Terms
*
Section 2.2. Definitions
*
*
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
All terms used in this Chapter that are defined in Chapter 59 or Chapter 49 have the
same meanings as the definitions in those Chapters, unless otherwise defined here.
In this Chapter, the following words and phrases have the meanings indicated.
*
*
*
B.
*
*
*
12
13
14
15
16
Block:
Land area bounded by roads, other rights-of-way, unsubdivided acreage,
natural barriers, and any other barrier to the continuity of development.
Burial site: A physical location where human remains were buried in the earth, or
entombed in
f!
mausoleum or columbarium. A burial site includes
f!
cemetery, but
does not include the sprinkling of ashes from cremated remains.
*
Article II. Subdivision Plans
Division 50.4. Preliminary Plan
17
*
*