On April 9, 2025 resident Bruce Epperson filed an appeal to overturn a determination made by Lloyd Building Department Director Dave Barton that a proposed pet crematorium project is a “Service Business.” Barton cited section 100-8 of the town code to back up his determination that this project, proposed for 3525-3523 Route 9W, is a permitted use in the General Business [GB] district. Epperson, however, contends that a pet crematorium is not a ‘Service Business’ and is not a use listed in the zoning code’s table of uses and thus under Sec. 100-12 of the town’s zoning code, is not allowed within the Town of Lloyd.

 

The matter is headed to Lloyd’s Zoning Board of Appeals [ZBA] on May 8 at 7pm at the Town Hall 12 Church St, Highland. They will have to decide if this project is a ‘Service Business’ and is an allowed use or that it is not permitted in the town.  

 

Epperson points out that the Highland Elementary School is approximately 110 feet from the proposed crematorium and that the school, “will be adversely and irrevocably damaged by the proposed animal incinerator.” At the Highland School Board meeting of April 8,  the Administration and School Board members said they were not aware of this proposed project despite a requirement in the town code that adjoining property owners must be notified by a certified/return receipt request mailing ten days prior to a public hearing. The response from the town’s Records Officer to a Freedom of Information request for copies of all of the return receipts was that ‘No record exists.’

 

Epperson wrote that a 2020 National Emissions Inventory Technical Support Document: Miscellaneous Non-Industrial NEC: Cremation - Human and Animal, found that the incineration of one ton of animal remains (approximately 75 domestic pets) released the following pollutants into the atmosphere: Nitrogen oxide 3.6 lbs; PM-10 particulates 3.1 lbs; Carbon Monoxide 2.9 lbs; Sulfur dioxide 2.2 lbs; Volatile organic compounds 0.3 lbs; Hydrogen Fluride 3.9 grams; Cadmium 1.3 grams; Arsenic 0.2 grams; Naphthalene 0.4 grams. Additionally, Epperson stated there would be measurable amounts of formaldehyde, selenium, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, fluorine, nickel, hydrogen chloride and selenium detected.  

 

At the March 27 Planning Board Public Hearing, Epperson asked Chairman Scott McCarthy what had occurred that moved this project to the Planning Board. McCarthy responded by saying, “This is not an open session where I’m going to answer any of your questions. I’m sure our attorney would have been able to answer many of the questions that you threw out, but we’re not doing a discussion.” Through a Freedom of Information Request from the Southern Ulster Times, Barton’s determination was released where he contends that a pet crematorium is a ‘Service Business’ and is an allowed use in the General Business zone where the project is proposed.  

 

Epperson highlighted Section 100-8 of the town codes that states a Service Business is a, “business or nonprofit organization that provides services to the public, either on or off the premises. ‘Service Business’ does not include retail business, restaurants, warehouses, or other uses, listed separately in the Use Table.” Epperson also noted that in that same section of the code, ‘Principal Use’ is defined as: “The specific purpose for which land, water, or a building or structure is designed, arranged or intended, or for which it is or may be occupied in compliance with the Town of Lloyd Town Code.”

 

Epperson disputes that the proposed Pet Crematorium is a ‘Service Business’ because it provides services only to veterinarians, humane societies, universities and other institutions and not to the general public. He also noted that a license from New York State Secretary of State is needed to operate a pet crematorium according to New York Conservation Law (chapter 43-B, article 27 title 7).

 

Epperson states that the Town Code defines a ‘Protected Fire’ “as any fire contained within a stove, furnace, incinerator, or device that fully contains such fire and is constructed as to prevent spreading of the fire or the discharge of burning particles or materials into the atmosphere.” He added that the town code requires that anyone wishing to burn any material within the town must, “first notify the town building department and the county emergency management center at least 24 hours before each burning. The use of accelerants such as tires, fuel oil or other products is prohibited. Animal incinerators use fuel oil or propane to create and maintain temperatures within their firing chambers of up to 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit.

 

Epperson pointed out that, “the inclusion of a permitted use in a zoning ordinance is tantamount to a legislative finding that the permitted use is in harmony with the general zoning plan and will not adversely affect the neighborhood.” Epperson stated that by Barton determining that a pet crematory is a “’Service Business, he “finds that such a facility is always and everywhere a harmonious use if located in the GB (General Business) zoning district.”

 

Epperson points out that Barton’s ‘Service Business’ determination violates section 100-6 of the town code, which mandates that the zoning code, “is to be interpreted as the minimum requirements for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare, and must not, therefore, set standards of care lower than those within state laws and rules and the town’s own code of ordinances.”

 

Epperson concluded by stating that maintaining a standard of care in the Town of Lloyd must be in agreement with New York State General Business Law and Environmental Conservation Law and that Lloyd’s Zoning Board of Appeals should determine that the proposed animal incineration facility is not a ‘Service Business’ as defined in the town’s zoning ordinance but is, instead, an unlisted use and should be prohibited in the General Business zoning district.

 

Lloyd Building Department Director Dave Barton responded to a request for comment from the Southern Ulster Times by stating that, “the appeal has been made to the ZBA for its determination, and it is anticipated that the appeal will be on the ZBA’s May 8th agenda.”