|
Members of EMPOA's Board met for an hour and a half recently with Ghulam Sarwar. He requested the meeting. He has been and continues to be an owner and the principal spokesperson for the Suffolk Muslim Cemetery proposed for the former Spadaro airport.
Mr. Sarwar wanted to get support for his proposal from EMPOA and the community. His pitch was straightforward.
First, he reiterated that the cemetery would not be restricted to Muslims but would be open to persons of any faith or no faith. He had first proposed this last June (see EMPOA’s 6/23/25 newsletter).
Second—and this was new—he would make whatever changes we might request in the cemetery plans. You read that right: he said whatever changes. We have to wonder, despite his explanation, what it was that so impacted his proposal that he found it necessary to change his position so drastically.
EMPOA’s Board has not taken a position on Mr. Sarwar’s request. We said we would again ask for community input and get back to him.
We ask for your opinion at the end of this newsletter.
ALREADY ANSWERED?
Last fall we conducted a survey to find out what the local communities thought of Mr. Sarwar's proposal. The results were clear. The community was against it. The detailed results were reported in our 9/15/25 newsletter.
Our asking for community input again may seem simply unnecessary since we already got the answer in the survey. However, to be fair to Mr. Sarwar who has offered new ideas that he thought might change community sentiment, we are asking again.
And that’s the reason for the length of this newsletter. We are trying to include everything Mr. Sarwar said that might be relevant to your assessing his offered changes. So let's look at the details.
First, we'll list 10 ways the proposal won't change. Second, we'll list 10 changes in cemetery operations that are proposed. These are in the green numbered paragraphs. The gray text following each of them give details, additional facts, and our comments on what's listed in green.
First
IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSAL WOULD NOT CHANGE.
1. 16,000 graves would still be planned.
2. Mr. Sarwar would still own the land and be the head of the corporation operating the cemetery.
Although not discussed at the meeting, a separate investigation showed that Mr. Sarwar has not changed his handling of real estate taxes on property he owns. The amount differs but otherwise his approach to real property taxes is the same as it was in April 2025 when EMPOA reported on it (see 4/15/25 newsletter).
On the three properties he owns in our area, he is $421,091.97 behind on real property taxes! See the breakdown by property and year here and County records here.
3. Traffic impacts would not decrease.
In fact, Mr. Sarwar's idea is to increase the number of non-Muslim burials. With more burials, traffic impacts would increase.
4. Potential significant adverse impacts would not decrease.
Besides traffic, environmental pollution from decaying bodies was another adverse risk we pointed out and referred to studies on in our 3/7/25 newsletter. Both risks would likely increase because of more frequent burials. This makes the need for a full SEQRA review and an Environmental Impact Statement all the more compelling.
5. An Environmental Impact Statement won't be done.
The Town Board could still direct that it be done (as it should), but no offer was made to do one voluntarily. Even if it were, there would be concern given the sort of environmental reports filed on the application.
6. The same dilapidated buildings are still part of the plan.
They would get cosmetic changes to try and improve them (think lipstick on a pig) but not make them compatible with local architecture. However, Mr. Sarwar indicated he was amenable to specific changes if proposed by the community. For more on what might be possible, look here.
7. The same new 6,000 sf building is still part of the plan.
Many were concerned that the building would someday be used as a mosque, thereby increasing traffic volume even more. That has not been part of the plan, and Mr. Sarwar indicated he was amenable to community-recommended changes in the building plans. More about this is here.
8. The site would be used to disproportionally benefit many not from the local community.
As described by Mr. Sarwar, the cemetery would be expected to have many Muslim burials. In fact, one of Mr. Sarwar’s associates said that every week he sends one or two people to Mount Pleasant (which has a Muslim section).
9. The community preference for a park, recreation facility, or open space with or without trails would not be realized.
This is what EMMPOA’s survey showed the community wanted—not a cemetery (see 9/15/25 newsletter).
10. We still would not have any idea of Mr. Sarwar’s business plan or the likelihood that the cemetery would be self-supporting for decades to come.
Is a cemetery with low grave costs (see 5) below), buildings of questionable attractiveness, vegetation only on the perimeter, restricted to Muslim and unembalmed non-Muslim burials (see 3) below) financially viable? If not, who covers the shortfall?
Second
CEMETERY OPERATION WITH THE OFFERED CHANGES
An all-religion, or community, cemetery sounds good, at least on the surface. That's what Mount Pleasant is. Implementing Mr. Sarwar’s new proposal would not result in a second Mt Pleasant. There would be significant differences because of specifics of the proposed changes as well as the basic plans. Here are the changes from Mr. Sarwar’s prior proposal.
1) “Muslim” would be dropped from the cemetery’s name.
Mr. Sarwar threw out ideas such Montauk Cemetery or East Moriches Cemetery
2) There would be separate sections for Muslims and each other religion.
Mr. Sarwar said everyone from the community would be welcome to be buried at the cemetery. How sections would be resized to accommodate different demands at different times was left unclear.
3) Embalming would not be permitted because of environmental concerns.
Muslims are normally buried without embalming, but this rule would apply to everyone buried in the cemetery.
Prohibiting embalming would impact the cemetery in notable ways. While a review of literature and common understanding indicate that proportionately cremation and green burial have been increasing in the United States and in-ground burials have been decreasing, there are still a lot of in-ground burials.
The number of embalmed vs unembalmed burials apparently isn’t collected anywhere, but a defensible estimate is that about ¾ of inground burials are with embalming. That means that by prohibiting embalming, Mr. Sarwar is eliminating a significant part of non-Muslim burials that might be possible otherwise.
Reducing potential business means that the cemetery would have less revenue than it otherwise might to support its continued operation.
4) The Muslim section would have flat headstones even with the ground. Other sections could have tomb stones extending above the ground.
5) Graves would cost about $1800.
Mr. Sawwar said that graves at many other cemeteries are $9000 each. Mount Pleasant's website says graves cost $2100 with various additional charges for burial and other necessary services.
Would the “low cost” last? Mr. Sarwar said it would; corporate documents would require it to be so. Corporate documents, however, can be amended.
There has to be a question whether the cemetery can be well run with the lowest grave cost around.
6) Funeral Services at the cemetery would not be permitted.
What constitutes a “funeral service”? It is customary in many cases for a clergyman to accompany the body to the cemetery and to say short prayers over the body prior to burial. From our conversation with Mr. Sarwar, we cannot confirm that this would be allowed under his changed proposal.
7) Cremation would not be offered.
8) Cremated remains could be buried at the cemetery so long as they were in an environmentally friendly container.
9) Caskets would have to be environmentally friendly.
10) A position on the governing board would be reserved for a member of the East Moriches community.
There would be at least two corporations involved in the cemetery. One corporation (or perhaps multiple corporations functioning as one) would own the land. A second corporation, likely a not-for-profit cemetery corporation, would lease the and operate the cemetery. Mr. Sarwar would continue to own the corporation owning the land.
Currently Mr. Sarwar said he has a board of “trustees” consisting of 10 persons, 4 doctors, an engineer, and “a couple religion people”. None of the “trustees” have invested in the land or the proposed cemetery. They do not live in or near East Moriches. They would likely become the board of the cemetery corporation. The East Moriches representative would become a member of this group and so would have 1 vote out of 10 or 11.
HIS MOTIVATION
Mr. Sarwar emphasized that his motivation in this project is not financial but in helping the community and specifically in making inexpensive grave sites available to Muslims. His interest in the community must have developed in the last few months since that was not something he emphasized when he addressed us at the March 2025 public meeting at the firehouse or in meeting previously with EMPOA's Board.
He claimed that the graves available for Muslims in the area are too expensive for them. With graves at $9,000 apiece locally, Muslims have to travel to New Jersey or 150 miles upstate to find cheaper graves for burying their dead. But what about Mount Pleasant? It has a Muslim section, and its advertised cost is $2300 per grave. Mr. Sarwar said it was running out of space.
We've looked into Mr. Sarwar's claim about Mt Pleasant and, based on the information we have, found it wanting. Read more about that analysis here.
| 
