Farm owner wants to build upscale memorial on his property, drawing cricism from a group of residents who say it will be a pollution-making machine that has no place in Millstone.
By: Lauren Burgoon
MILLSTONE A proposal for a 16-acre pet cemetery and crematorium at Showplace Farms is drawing the wrath of an organized, but so far anonymous, citizens group dedicated to overturning a zoning board decision approving the project.
A decision to postpone Wednesday’s appeal hearing before the Township Committee has only served to stoke the fires of debate between the two sides. The hearing is now tentatively scheduled for June 2. It had to be rescheduled after officials feared that the municipal building could not accommodate the expected turnout.
Showplace Farms owner, Howard Schoor, wants to build what he envisions as "the most upscale pet memorial in the country or if not the world." That would include an extensive pet cemetery that could accommodate 30,000 graves, plus more niches and granite mausoleums. The cemetery would include gardens and walking paths that people can visit. There would also be a chapel on site with a grieving room for people to spend time with their deceased pets before burial, Mr. Schoor said. The back of the site would include a two-unit, two-chimney crematorium large enough for a horse.
The zoning board unanimously approved the entire $1 million project Feb. 23 for the Route 33 farm.
The contention swirling around the proposal lies mostly with the proposed on-site crematorium. A group of residents, banded together by a Web site, www.noincinerator.com, is protesting what it says will be a pollution-making machine that has no place in Millstone. The group appealed the zoning board decision, which led to the committee review.
A resident affiliated with the Web site, who was the respondent to submitted e-mail questions by this newspaper (the site lists no contact number), agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity. He said the opposition group’s lawyer, Lewis Goldshore, who filed the appeal on behalf of them, insisted that he remain anonymous for now because "he’s worried that if our words get twisted we could be sued."
The resident said that a crematorium is absolutely the wrong project for Millstone.
"The bottom line is incinerators pollute and they are not always safe. Incineration can be a source of serious toxic pollutants, furans, dioxins, particulates, acid gases and heavy metals. Some emissions are carcinogenic," he wrote in a statement.
Those points are made repeatedly on the Web site, which includes an anti-incinerator guest book signed by dozens of residents. Top concerns include increased risk of cancer, foul smells and potential harm to students at the soon-to-be constructed middle school on Waters Lane.
None of the charges are true, Mr. Schoor and the farm’s general manager Bix DiMeo insist. They said that animal remains are organic and mostly made of water. There will be no chemicals released into the air because only the animal’s body is burned, not a coffin or clothing as in human cremations.
Lester Jargowsky, director of the Monmouth County Department of Health and a Millstone resident, backs up those arguments. He called any risks from the crematorium "extremely small" and said wood-burning fireplaces give off more pollutants than an animal crematorium.
Mr. DiMeo is criticizing the opposition group for supporting its pollution allegations with two studies from European countries, where animal crematoriums are not regulated. Showplace Farms’ project would be subject to Clean Air Council and Department of Environmental Protection regulations, he said. He also said the group purposefully is using the word "incinerator" rather than crematorium because it is a buzzword that draws negative reactions.
"I’m certainly not going to do anything to harm my own land and I am the most affected landowner by this because I own the surrounding 125 acres," Mr. Schoor said Monday on a tour of the farm given for local reporters. "I’m not going to put myself in jeopardy."
Mr. Schoor said there is a "tremendous need" for a pet memorial and crematorium, noting that about 70 percent of pets are cremated. There are two other animal crematoriums in New Jersey, in Hamilton and Lafayette in Sussex County both which sit close to residences without any problems.
"People need this service. A lot of people don’t know what to do with pet remains, especially because families are multipet owners now. You don’t want four or five boxes of ashes on the mantel," Mr. DiMeo said. "We want to provide a facility where people know their pets will be interred in a respected manner for perpetuity."
The property will be restricted to a pet cemetery once one animal is buried on the site. The cemetery will put Millstone at the forefront of a growing business, add a much-needed ratable to town and provide a place for people to walk their pets, Mr. Schoor said.
Those arguments aren’t enough to sway some residents. The man who spoke on the condition of the anonymity said he fears the crematorium will accept municipal road kill, leading to more pollutants and traffic.
"We believe they will accept municipal contracts to incinerate road kill. That’s where the money is in this project," he said.
Not so, Mr. Schoor responded. Cremating road kill is "not in our business plan," he said.
"People are acting like there will be truckloads of carcasses coming in trucks with hired hands to throw them into a fiery monster. It’s really way off," Mr. DiMeo said.
The opposing sides are promoting their positions but so far have not gotten together to discuss their differences. Mr. DiMeo complains that the opposition group is shadowy and members will not identify themselves.
"We can’t talk to them because we don’t know who they are," he said.
Meanwhile the people behind the Web site have held four meetings to explain their side to neighbors, which the resident said were each attended by 80 to 100 people.
Even if the sides do meet to discuss their positions, it could have little effect on the memorial and crematorium’s fate. The Township Committee will consider the residents’ appeal but can only consider if the zoning board process was handled correctly, such as if the zoning board hearing was noticed properly, which the residents insist it was not. The residents cannot present their own experts to refute earlier arguments in favor of the project because that needed to be done on the zoning board level.
Mr. Schoor said he will fight for the project and take the matter to Superior Court if necessary.

