Evening star., 1951-10-10
Council Weighs
Cemetery Issue
On Reheariing
$50 Argue For or
Against Project
On Wilkins Tract

1
| On Wilkins Tract
Fate Of the hotly disputed
Montrose Cemetery proposal. de-
tended as necessity and at
tackled as nuisance, was in the
hands of the Montgomery County
Council today. +
The council must decide whether
the cemetery would be a valuable
economic and scenic asset to the
county, as contended by the
would-be operators, or a threat
to desirable residential develop
ment of suburban Montgomery
and to the value of adjoining
real estate, as contended by op-
ponents.
Some $50 persons argued the
issue before the council yester-
day at a re-hearing, scheduled
after opponents brought in a Pc
tition signed by some 1850 per-
sons who said they did not want
"a cemetery on the 409-acre Will
kins tract, bounded roughly by
Viers Mill road, Randolph road, :,
Rockville pike and Halpine road.
First Hearing in August.
The council held the first hear
ing on the application of North
Washington Cemetery. Inc. to put
a cemetery on the middle 90
acres of the tract last August Is.
A battery of hired experts led
the fight for the cemetery associa-
ton.
One of them, Earl S. Draper,
landscape engineer from Bethesda,
said he had never seen a piece
of property more perfectly suited
for the memorial park type of
cemetery which the applicant
plans to establish"
Tax Issue Raised.
Not only will the burial park be
a scenic asset to the county. Mr..
Draper asserted. but it will pro-
vide tax money without the in
vestment in streets and drainage
facilities which a subdivision
would require.
Mrs. Stella B. Werner council
member, said, however, that no
taxes are now collected from any
cemetery in the county and 1t is
questionable whether the proposed
Montrose Cemetery would be
liable to taxation.
Leading spokesman for the OPP
position was Attorney James r.
Miller, who preferred to refer to
the cemetery as a graveyard. He
said it lis @an imposition ON the
people who have come out TO
Montgomery to settle down and
make their homes. " @
Attacking assurances by North
Washington that the cemetery
would be of d memorial park type.
Mr.. Miller declared:
'The council well knows that It
has no authority to tell the appli-
cants what they can do with their
land after the application Is
granted. This is a lucrative COM
mercial enterprise, and If more
people want tombstones than don't
want tombstones, they'll put in
tombstones because it will put
money in their pockets"
Residence Requirement Cited.
Mr.. Miller, who represented
three adjacent property owners
and the Bulls School of Silver
Spring, which plans to build new
school next to the Wilkins tract,
also charged that the Montrose
site does not suit the county re-
that no more than 100
persons live within 500 yards of
the cemetery.
Other opponents Of the applica-
ton include the Maryland-Na-
tional Capital Park and Planning
Commission, the Montgomery
County Civic Federation, Allied
Civic Group Of Silver Spring Route
240 Citizens Association. Twin
brook Citizens Association and
several adjoining property own
ers.
Supporters Of the cemetery in
clude the county real estate board,
whose spokesman said it will not
depreciate adjoining property
values; the Rockville Pike Busi-
ness Association and some ad-
joining property owners.