Published: May 16, 2007 11:32 pm         

Court OKs cemetery protection ordinance

GREENUP — Greenup Fiscal County Court on Tuesday approved first reading of an ordinance that would require property owners to take steps to prevent livestock from damaging cemeteries located on their lands.

The ordinance, proposed by the chairman of the county’s cemetery preservation board, states that a property owner “shall not allow any circumstance to exist wherein cattle or other livestock is allowed to graze or otherwise travel over a cemetery or grave.”

The prohibition would apply regardless of whether the animals had actually inflicted any damage, the measure states.

Property owners who fail to correct violations within a 30-day period could be cited into district court and subjected to fines ranging from $5 to $50 a day, County Attorney Mike Wilson said.

The ordinance would not place any responsibility for cemetery upkeep on property owners. However, it would require them to take reasonable measures — such as putting up fences — to keep livestock from trampling on graves.

Judge-Executive Bobby Carpenter said the county would look for ways to work with landowners who might not have the financial means to erect fences.

The measure came about after Cemetery Preservation Board Chairman Elwood Tackett told the court he had seen a litany of abuses at the more than 500 small burial grounds scattered throughout the county.

According to Tackett, a majority of the damage has been animal-inflicted. Abuses have included tombstones being knocked over by cattle and graves being defecated on by cattle, he said.

The reason that so many of the small family cemeteries in the county have become subject to neglect, Tackett said, is that they are so old that there are no surviving family members to care for them.

Tackett has told the court repeatedly that he believes that Greenup County’s early settlers deserve to have the dignity of their final resting places protected.

The measure passed by a vote of 3-1, with Commissioner Tony Quillen casting the dissenting vote.

Quillen said he didn’t believe protecting cemeteries was a bad idea. But, he said he was of the opinion that preserving the rights of property owners trumped the need to do so.

“I just have a real problem with dictating to property owners,” he said.

Quillen said he felt the responsibility for protecting family cemeteries rested solely with families.

Tackett disagreed.

“If someone was to turn a herd of cattle loose in one of the Quillen family cemeteries, you might change your opinion,” he told Quillen.

The ordinance requires a second reading and publication before it becomes effective. Second reading is expected to come at the court’s June meeting.

     

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.