|
54
<br />I have not found any slatutory cyr caqe law specifically addrcssing liability rciated to
<br />disturbance to gravesites caused by constyuction activity on neighboring property
<br />In the circunistwLces vresejited with 11w. L,ibrary siite, the "OM M OVAIS the Cemetery
<br />property. I have assurned for purposes of this incrnorandum that t, he Town would Lficr sell flic
<br />Library site, to, the County., oT cnt.-r into a long torn lease Of the Library site with the County, and
<br />would continue to ownloperate t1w, Town cernetery, Under the reasonine, in WfItCM, (11C COUTIty
<br />would, lurve sorne oblipition to uptify the J'owp of its plans w excavam and/or bla%t during trtiur
<br />library construdAion,process, so Chat djc'fown could take appropriate steps to protect its Property.
<br />The (,'Alounty would also be obfispted to take reasonable steps to proteof this cemetery From
<br />foresceab[c ctaniage caused: by auy eXUNatiOn or blasting related t,,o tbe library constructio . n. . The
<br />County would have a &ty to "'exercise due me to anticipate and prevent injurityus
<br />consequetices" of the constraclion activity on its properlym The County would have this SpiTle
<br />obligation at any site chosen for tlW Ubwy
<br />"U"
<br />if the Fidelity Stre-.4t, Site Were Sojected for the library, the plans and implainentatian of
<br />the pr *t should include consideration Of potctlbal impacU of' construction activity (tikc,
<br />c-xca-v,atihg andior blasting) oR,, and protection 'fir, the grave.�ites. liowever, the County's legal.
<br />Orbligation would not, appear to 'be any greater Beare or diftereLA from t1te obhgation 1haL an
<br />excavating owner otherwise„ has to neighboring properties. In NS Werarjo of the Passible
<br />constractioir) of a libnLry building on a porticin, ()f the Town ref Carxboro Cemetery property,, it
<br />appea,is, ffiat th(,- COU13ty NVOUld Ilave a d4ty to notify 1he Town. of 'its excavafing/blasting plan, so
<br />t,ljatth(,-Town muld take necusso.:-y Inerisures bo protect its property, walems, Sapra" 309 N,(,',, at
<br />1619-tjo,, The County would also have than typical duty of designing and performing LIte work (or
<br />onus ing/req u i ring it to be performed by its contractors) in a way to pmvent reasanably
<br />foreseeable harin to adjoinine property. t d ceg cruet ppe a
<br />r, ba5zd on my ljaa tcd rcs,:arch, that the
<br />prvsonce, of gravesites on l adjoining prqperty presents any c,r-1aj1ct(1 0, v greater duty or degree
<br />orpotew"iAl Habidfty. I Would ajj.t1.cipqe,, 1.,,wwcvcr, a. greater degree of sensildv'Lty due to than ral'Are
<br />or the use of Ifie cenictery propetly, I would also 3,uggest that if the cenictery property sere
<br />sulcowd as the I " ibrary site, that the owners/holders of Certificates Bu
<br />of rial piglets s1icafld 'be
<br />notified prior to the cornmencei nent of ally excavalion or bbl hs
<br />ting that njight, cauic tiny claxnagr
<br />to m ,o r� L dive
<br />. arkers and nionuments, �g thAt th,ey may have to take whatever ecti
<br />mcasures might be appropriate,
<br />2
<br />
|