HomeMy WebLinkAbout1950-08-11August 11, 1950
Meeting was called to order by the Chair~n at 8,1~0 P.M. in the Court ~oom.
This meeting was called by the chairman to act on the application of Alfred
H. McKee. This was a Public Hearing.
Members present: Peter Ritchie, ~hair~___n, Richard G. Whipple, secretary,
Gregory Mooradkanian, Luman H. Eilton and ,:d. ln Reinhold.
An application was received from Alfred H. McKee, 30 Church Street, No~th
Andover requesting the approval Qf plans and requesting an amendment, of the
Zoning By-Laws of the l'own so as to change the classification of a parcel
of property, owned by Alfred H. McKee, said property is located at 30 Church
Street and is in a residential district. Mr. NcKee requested a. change of
classification f rom a general residential district to a business district in
order to enable h~s son Alfred S. MeKee to establish and maintain a funeral
home at this location. Petition was accompanied by twenty signatures of
abutters, neighbors and voters of the Town.
Mr. McKee Sr. was present and stated to the Board that this application ha~.
been before the Board of Appeals the previous month and had been denied by
that Board on the grounds that it was out of their Jurisdiction to grant it.
M~ MeKee further stated that he had since been to the attorney general's
office and had been informed that the Board of Appeals had the power to gr..ant
this petition, but since it had been refused, he was presenting it to the
Planning Board for re-zoning. Mr. McKee also rotated that the only traffic
hazard,in his opinion, which might be detrimental ko the neighborhood, was a
hedge and a stone w~11 which are located directlya cross the street from his
property and that furthermore, the Highway Surveyor had surveyed this stone
wall and hedge and found that it was located three inches over on town property.
M~McEee further stated that he was trying to ~elp his son along in setting up
this business by giving him the use of their home and sske~ that the Board
grant approval to his application.
A letter from Miss Sarah Field, who lives at 266 Main Street, but who owns
land across the street from the McKe~ property, was received by the ~oard.
Miss Field asked to be put on record as opposing this application stating that
~he land owned by her across the stree~ were potential house lots for bette, r
~class homes and that the value of this land would be reduced and be less '
desireable iX* ~here was to be a business ldstrict in the area. Miss Field was
represented by .Attorney Arnold H. ~allsbury. ~N~~. ~zx~
Mr. Charles T. McCarty, ~3 Bradstreet Road, North Andover was present, and spoke
in favor of granting the approval of this application. He pointed out to the
Board that Alfred McKee Jr. was a licenced embalmer and funeral director an.d
that his folks were trying to help him to get started in business in order that
he could make a decent livelihood for himself and also make a ~uture for himself.
M~ McOarty stated that Just because one or two ~people objected to it there were
other things which should be taken into consideration. He also stated that he
could understand the objections if this were to be any other kind of business,
but in this case it would be a dignified and quiet establishment and he could
see no good reason why this could not be ~ranted.
Mr. John L. Pillion, 181 Massachusetts Avenue also stated that in other cities
and towns establishments.of this type were generally located in a quiet and
residential district and he wished to be recorded as being in favor of granting
the approval.
August Il, 1950 Cont.
Attorney Arnold H. Salisbury was present and informed th~ Board that he was
representing Miss Field, Mr. Arthur Sunderland and John R. Hosking. He also
read to the Board a letter from Rev. Clinton ~arvell stating that he was not
opposed to the ~neral Home but that he was definitely opposed to this property
being reclassified as a business distric$. Mr. Salisbury further st&ted that
if this property was re-zoned into business, that many other things could happen
in ~he future and any other type of business could be established in that
location if and when ~Mr. McKee ever decided toSell it or .if something happened
to h!m. This was no longer a problem as it was presented to the Board of
Appeals for a variance but that is requesting a re-zoning the situation was
different. He stated that in his opinion Mr. McKee was asking too much .when
requesting a re-zoning~ because anything can happen in a business district.
Personally he was not opposed to the Funeral Home · He also stated' that this
was a clear case of spot-zoning. · Mo business area was located any nearer this
property than there was when the Zoning By-Laws were adopted in 1943. The lot
in question was not on the edge of a business district. Mr. Salisbury then
cited a case of Lea~y vs. Building Inspector, New Bedfor~ and stated that
according to the ruling in that case spot-zoning was ll!egal~ and wished to be
recorded as requesti~ that the Board deny this petition.
Mr. ~dward Shoreman, Marblehead Street, North Andover wished to be recorded as
opposing the approval of this application stating that if we s tart spot-zoning
now it would eventually lead to OSher things.
Mr~.~arles Wentworth, 7 Main Street, North Andover was present and wished to
be recorded as being in favor of granting this request. He stated that in his
opinion a funeral home is not in the same class with other types of businesses
as stated by Mr. Salisbury. He stated that in this case the young man ~in
question had been educated for this type of profession and that his parents
were willing that he should use their home to make a business for himself,
that it would not be detrimental to the community and that there was a need
for a funeral home in this town. Mr. Wentworth stated that it seemed to him
that a boy who had been born and brought up in this town should be given
consideration and that even many foreign boru people came to this country and
could make a good living by going into business for themselves. ~This was a
land of opportunity and the young man in questionwas trying to avail himself
of this opportunity to set up a business~
Mr. Salisbury then stated that if this was a land of opportunity and if we
let everyone do as they please we might as well throw out all the Zoning laws.
He further stated that there was no guarantee that the ilu~eral home would be
there in six months or a year from now and that this application should not
be considered in connection with a funeral home but as a proposed business
district.
Mr. Pillion then~sked if this property could be re-zoned with restrictions to
keep it just for a funeral home and he was answered by the chairman that t~e
Board had been~dvised by the Advisory Board on a previous case that it was
illegal to impose restrictions on a case of re-zoning to business.
~r. Eilton thenasked Mr. Salisbury whether or not it might be possible that the
ruling in the New Bedford case might not be applicable to this case. Mr. Salisbury
answered in the negative.
There was no further discussion from the floor and a motion was ma~e and seconded
and it was VOTED to take the matter under advisement.
August 11~ 19~0 OOnto
At this point~ the Board want into executive session and a long discussion
was held with respect to the application of Alfred H. McKee.
Mr. Mooradkanian adressed the Board Members and admonished them that they
had a duty to perform. That a consideration of an ~mendment to the Zoning
By-Law was not to be considered as a privilege or a favor but that the
members should be guided by the law and that the decision should be given
in conformity wirer the intent and purpose of the law., and in conformity
with the district already established in this area. If it was possible
to grant this application without violating the law and their duty the
members could grant it if they saw fit.
Mr. Kilton then s tared that there had beem s o much spot-zoning in the past
that it would be rather difficult to draw the lines~ this time. He stated tha~t
he was not opposed to this application and that in regard to the traffic hazard
there would be only a few funerals and those would be of a very short duration
of time for each one, and that Mr. McKee had a very large side yard which could
be used for parking if the pressure of business necessitated this. He further
stated that there was much double parking at this particular location on Sundays
because of the church which is located on the other corner, that there certainly
would be no noise at an establishment of this kind and that the visiting hours
are generally over rather early. He stated that in may other cities and to~-ns
there were lhneral homes located in the verybest of residential districts and
that he could not see that they,re detrimental to the neighborhood. Mr. Kilton
I~rther stated that if this application were to be denied, he would vote against
any other application to establish a funeral home in this town. In ~is opinion
there was no Just oposition, and it was a matter where there were only one or two
who objected to it for reasons which he did not t~nhnk justifiable.
Reinhold then~sked if to the Board's knowledge there ware
interested in establishing this type of business in any other
Kilton answered that there were.
other persons
location and
Mr. Mooradka~nian then s~ated that the Board should be free of any personal-
ities~ and although he felt sure that ,ll ~he members would be very glad to
do ~. McKee a favor provided that it was not in violation of the law and that
in regard to previous .cases of re-zoning, this present board could not be held
responsible for what previous Planning Board Members had done in the past.
Motion was then made and seconded and it was VOTED to vote on this matter by
a secret ballot. Ballots were counted and it was then VOTED to deny~ this
application by a majority of four to one.
The clerk of the Board was instructed to send the recommendation of the Board
on this matter to the Board of Selectmen and to the Advisory Board.
Motion was Made and seconded and it was VOTED to adjourn at 10:15 P.M.
$i~ned {~~~' Chairman
Signe~/l~4,~ ~.~. Clerk
/ ' ( /