Prince George's County Zoning Hearing: Signature Funeral Alternatives - October 21, 2026

On October 21, 2026, the Prince George's County Zoning Hearing Examiner conducted a hybrid hearing on Special Exception SE-2024-013. The applicant, Cedric Whitaker PA Corp, requested permission to operate a facility providing alkaline hydrolysis (water cremation) services at 8641 Ashwood Drive in Capitol Heights. The central legal issue was whether the proposed use qualifies as an 'all other funeral and mortuary use' (permissible by special exception) or constitutes a 'crematory' (not permitted in the IE Industrial Employment Zone). The hearing featured testimony from a dozen public witnesses, the applicant, and expert land planner Mark Ferguson.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Supporters: Several family members, industry colleagues, and employees expressed strong support based on Mr. Whitaker's character and professionalism. Pierre Jones, Talisha Jackson, and Nicole Freeman spoke about his integrity and dedication. Courtney Weddington, a nearby resident, stated she had no objections. Nicole Bennett, a resident and volunteer firefighter, strongly recommended the technology. Pastor Robinson gave an impassioned religious endorsement. Tiffany Johnson highlighted the lack of end-of-life choices in the region.
• Opponents: Belinda Queen (President, Coalition of Central Prince George's County) formally requested the examiner deny the application, arguing the community had consistently voiced opposition to cremation-related uses. Margaret White (Millwood Waterford Citizens Association) argued the facility was incompatible with the neighborhood.
• Applicant & Expert Testimony: Cedric Whitaker testified he pivoted from a flame-crematory plan to address environmental concerns. The operation involves no flame, no emission stacks, three machines, minimal traffic, and seven employees. Land planner Mark Ferguson testified the use fits the IE zone and is compatible with the industrial park. He recommended approval with conditions.

Discussion Items

• Legal Definition of Crematory: The applicant's attorney, Tracy Scudder, argued the use does not meet the county's definition of a crematory, which requires 'fire'. Stan Brown (People Zoning Council) argued the application's own documents using the term 'water cremation' and state law grouping it with cremation created significant legal confusion. Ferguson conceded the terminology was confusing but adhered to the county zoning definition.
• Site Plan & Record Discrepancies: Brown highlighted discrepancies in the record, including building size estimates (7,500 sq ft vs. 8,800 sq ft) and employee counts (7 vs. a 40-person maximum occupancy on the site plan).
• Process & Environmental Impact: The process was described as using 200–300 gallons of water per body. The resulting liquid is sterilized, neutralized, and discharged to the sanitary sewer. No smokestacks or odors were anticipated. Cross-examination focused on the need for a WSSC permit and the chemical composition of the effluent.
• Community Character: Opposition leaders stated the area has been negatively impacted by the concentration of undesirable industrial uses and resented the proposal being advanced under a different terminology than what they had historically opposed.

Key Outcomes

• Hearing Adjourned, Record Left Open: The Zoning Hearing Examiner did not issue a decision. The record was left open for two weeks.
• Documents Requested: The examiner requested an amended Statement of Justification removing references to 'cremation'; an ethics affidavit for the property-owning LLC; formal opposition letters from community associations detailing their board votes; and manufacturer specifications for the proposed machines.
• Next Steps: A written decision will be issued by the Hearing Examiner following the close of the record.