Caroline County board designates Cedar Lane site a cemetery, recommends ground‑penetrating survey

The Caroline County Burial Sites Preservation Board voted unanimously on May 28, 2024, that an area on Cedar Lane should be designated a cemetery and recommended the board strongly pursue a ground‑penetrating‑radar (GPR) survey to define the site’s extent.

The vote followed presentations from board members who reviewed deed references, a broken marble marker the sheriff’s office removed from the site, and the county’s burial sites preservation code. “If it is determined that the area of discovery is a burial site, the property owner shall comply with the requirements of chapter 175 and all development and zoning regulations regarding burial sites,” a board member summarized while reading from the county legislative bill 2007‑6, the Burial Sites Preservation Code (effective 11/24/2007). That member then moved the motion: “I move that we vote that the area is a cemetery,” which was seconded and carried unanimously.

Why it matters: board members said the GPR survey is needed to confirm whether there are multiple graves and to delineate how much land is affected before permitting any further work such as center‑pivot irrigation. A board member said the marble marker recovered from the site was small and broken and could be easily removed if left unsecured; board participants discussed options such as embedding the stone in concrete but cautioned that some repairs can damage older markers.

Context and next steps: the board discussed that the state’s attorney has declined criminal charges in the case and that any enforcement related to the cemetery may be civil. “Maryland Historical Trust has been notified,” a board member said; members agreed to contact archaeologists (several referenced Washington College contacts) to obtain scope and cost estimates and then to approach the landowner with a proposal and request for consent to perform a noninvasive survey. One member recommended lining up an archaeologist and an approximate cost before contacting the landowner so the request would be practical and timely.

Votes at a glance: the board recorded a unanimous vote to determine the area is a cemetery and a subsequent unanimous vote recommending that the GPR survey be pursued (both motions were made and carried during the meeting). The board also agreed to draft a letter to the landowner and to coordinate with planning and zoning and the county attorney; the code language cited places responsibility for survey costs on the property owner unless the department waives that responsibility for good cause.

Remaining questions: board members agreed the precise scope and cost of the GPR work remain to be clarified, and they assigned members to contact archaeologists (a Washington College archaeologist and other local experts were named in discussion) and to return with estimates at a special meeting prior to the board’s planned October session. The site remains marked with yellow tape and a stop‑work order is in effect for related tree‑clearing and other violations.