Highland Residents Rally Against Proposed Pet Crematorium: Community Health, Zoning, and Civic Engagement in Focus

Highland residents can finally breathe a sigh of relief: the developer’s application to build a pet crematorium near a local elementary school has been withdrawn. Since its initial proposal in February, the project sparked intense debate within the community due to its proximity—just approximately 110 feet (33 meters) from Highland Elementary School and the sports field across the road. While residents have achieved a temporary victory, the town council’s ongoing consideration of zoning changes could open the door to similar projects in the future, highlighting the ongoing tension between urban planning and public participation.

The proposed crematorium, located at 3523–3525 Route 9W, was intended to provide pet cremation, funeral services, urns, and related products. Developer Justin Bogdanffy assured the public that the facility would strictly adhere to environmental regulations and utilize advanced emissions control technology. Nevertheless, parents expressed concerns that operating such a facility so close to the school could pose potential long-term health risks to children, particularly regarding air quality and exposure to hazardous substances. Some residents also argued that the project could negatively affect property values and local tourism, potentially harming the town’s image and economy.

In response, the community mobilized. Residents launched the website letkidsbreathe.com, organized protests—many families attending with their children—and submitted administrative challenges to halt the crematorium near the school. They also collected 918 signatures on a Change.org petition, demonstrating widespread opposition. The scale of local activism exceeded expectations, highlighting the power of grassroots action in influencing municipal decision-making.

The legal dispute centered on whether the crematorium qualified as a “service industry” under local zoning rules. Resident Bruce Epperson attempted to overturn a ruling by David Barton, the town’s building, planning, and zoning supervisor, which determined that the crematorium was indeed considered a service industry and therefore permissible in the general commercial zone. Epperson argued that the proposed use did not fit the definition and should be prohibited. However, the zoning appeals board dismissed his appeal, citing a lack of personal standing since Epperson lived roughly two miles away from the proposed site. Subsequent appeals submitted jointly with other parents were also denied in June. Though legal action did not directly block the project, public protest and media attention laid the groundwork for continued opposition, illustrating the potential influence of community advocacy on local policy.

Representing the developer, attorney William A. Hurst issued a statement sharply criticizing the behavior of opposing residents, comparing their tactics to those seen during the January 6 Capitol riots. Hurst claimed that some residents “shouted over others, spread misinformation, attacked individuals personally, and substituted emotion for evidence” during hearings. He accused opponents of disregarding the opportunities provided by town officials to participate in public discourse, monopolizing hearings with unrelated materials and self-proclaimed experts. According to Hurst, this conduct reflected “the most extreme form of NIMBYism—hostility toward small businesses, disregard for science, and complete lack of empathy.”

Hurst further criticized opponents for failing to provide meaningful risk assessments, noting that they did not compare the alleged risks of a regulated pet crematorium with everyday environmental exposures. “Perhaps most concerning,” he added, “are the families relying on bereavement services in times of grief, whose needs have been mocked throughout this process.” Despite the criticism, Hurst praised volunteer board members and town staff for maintaining professionalism and integrity in the face of significant public pressure.

Even with the withdrawal of the application, residents remain vigilant. Cathy Rought Jacobson, a parent of a child at the local elementary school and the organizer of the Change.org petition, emphasized that the victory was due to neighborhood solidarity and community engagement. “We made it clear that this project is not suitable for our town, particularly next to the elementary school,” she said. She added that the town council is considering amendments to zoning regulations that could allow pet crematoriums—and even human crematoriums—in light industrial zones, potentially setting a precedent for future proposals. Residents plan to attend the council’s August 20 hearing to advocate for a thorough assessment of long-term impacts on air quality, environmental safety, and public health.

The Highland case highlights the critical role of public participation in local governance. Through websites, petitions, public hearings, and media coverage, residents amplified their voices and created significant pressure on both the developer and the municipal government. Experts note that grassroots mobilization can exert a substantial influence on policy decisions, particularly in matters involving environmental health and public interest. This controversy also sparked broader discussions about NIMBYism—“Not In My Backyard”—where residents support certain facilities in principle but oppose them when located nearby. While attorney Hurst termed this “extreme NIMBYism,” many residents see their actions as essential to protecting children and community health. The debate underscores the challenge of balancing economic development with community well-being.

From a scientific perspective, pet crematoriums present several potential risks, including air pollution, noise, and possible contamination of soil and water. Modern cremation facilities generally include strict emissions controls, yet concerns remain over long-term exposure, particularly among children and vulnerable populations. Environmental experts recommend that municipalities require rigorous scientific risk assessments and long-term monitoring before approving such projects, ensuring both sustainability and public safety.

Economically, pet crematoriums can create modest employment opportunities, but their contribution to the broader Highland economy is limited. Residents argue that the facility would neither provide significant jobs nor substantially benefit the town’s budget. In contrast, potential negative impacts on property values and tourism could have long-lasting consequences. Urban planning specialists emphasize that local development should prioritize projects aligning with comprehensive plans and long-term community interests, rather than focusing solely on short-term commercial gains.

The psychological impact on residents is another important consideration. Parents reported feeling uneasy knowing a crematorium would operate so close to the school, with children discussing it during their commute home. Community psychologists note that urban planning decisions affect not only physical health but also residents’ sense of safety, belonging, and social cohesion. The presence of certain facilities near schools can influence perceptions of neighborhood quality and overall community well-being.

Meanwhile, the developer has indicated potential plans to resubmit the crematorium proposal in a different location farther from residential areas and schools. Bogdanffy stated that future proposals would feature enhanced emissions control technology and increased community engagement to minimize misunderstandings and conflicts. This approach suggests that while the immediate controversy may have subsided, the underlying issues remain unresolved and may resurface under different circumstances.

The town council’s ongoing involvement underscores that the pet crematorium issue is far from settled. Residents are advocating for clear zoning restrictions to ensure future projects undergo comprehensive evaluation and are sited appropriately. They argue that these measures are essential not only for pet crematoriums but for broader municipal planning and public health strategy. Jacobson emphasized, “We must unite and use the power of our voices to protect the well-being of our town. Solving the Highland crematorium issue once and for all is our responsibility.”

Highland’s experience offers lessons for other communities. When environmental and public health concerns intersect with development projects, effective governance requires both scientific evaluation and active public participation. This controversy represents more than a temporary struggle over a single project; it serves as a case study in civic engagement, municipal transparency, and the interplay between economic development and community health. How to balance business interests, community needs, and the protection of children and the environment will remain a pressing challenge for Highland and similar towns in the years ahead.

Through this episode, Highland residents, developers, and government officials alike have come to recognize that successful community governance requires more than legal compliance. It depends on ongoing dialogue, evidence-based decision-making, and meaningful citizen involvement. Whether or not a pet crematorium is eventually established elsewhere in Highland, the lessons learned from this dispute provide valuable guidance on advocating for public voices, fostering scientific oversight, and promoting sustainable community planning.

The story of Highland is ultimately a testament to the power of collective action and informed civic participation. By voicing concerns, engaging with local authorities, and emphasizing evidence over rumor, the community successfully influenced municipal decisions. At the same time, the debate illustrates the complex challenges towns face when reconciling economic initiatives with public health, environmental responsibility, and the emotional and psychological well-being of residents. Highland’s ongoing discussion about pet crematoriums may serve as a blueprint for other communities navigating similar conflicts, demonstrating that active, informed, and organized citizen engagement can meaningfully shape the future of a town.

As Highland moves forward, it is clear that development cannot be considered in isolation from the community it affects. Legal frameworks, scientific studies, and municipal regulations must be complemented by robust public participation to ensure that decisions reflect both technical feasibility and the lived realities of residents. In the end, the controversy over the pet crematorium has become more than a story about zoning and development—it is a vivid illustration of civic responsibility, community solidarity, and the enduring importance of protecting public health in local policymaking.

Residents, officials, and developers alike now face the challenge of learning from this episode: ensuring that future projects are compatible with the town’s comprehensive planning goals, environmentally sound, and socially responsible. Highland’s experience demonstrates that effective local governance is as much about fostering trust, transparency, and engagement as it is about enforcing regulations. Whether in Highland or elsewhere, the principles underscored by this debate—evidence-based policy, community voice, and strategic planning—remain essential to building resilient, healthy, and thriving communities.