Kurz v. Board of Appeals of North Reading
| Decision Date | 03 June 1960 |
| Citation | 167 N.E.2d 627,341 Mass. 110 |
| Parties | Eleanor M. KURZ v. BOARD OF APPEALS OF NORTH READING. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Vincent J. Colia, Boston, for plaintiff.
Thomas P. Russell, Boston (Walter G. Bilowz, Town Counsel, Malden, and Arthur S. Drinkwater, Boston, with him), for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and SPALDING, WILLIAMS, COUNIHAN and CUTTER, JJ.
The plaintiff, 'an instructress of the dance' and a member of a number of professional dance teachers' organizations, is the owner of land and a building on Haverhill Street in North Reading. She has used the premises in part for 'the teaching of the dance' and in part as a residence for herself and family. The premises are in a district zoned Residence 'A.' The zoning by-law provides,
The plaintiff applied to the building inspector of the town for permission to erect an addition twenty feet by thirty feet for extension of the dancing area. The building inspector denied the application, and the plaintiff appealed to the defendant board, which, after hearing, denied her application and dismissed her appeal. The plaintiff then brought this bill in equity by way of appeal to the Superior Court. G.L. c. 40A, § 21, as amended.
Upon the foregoing findings the judge ruled that 'the teaching of the dance, as contemplated by the plaintiff, is not an 'educational use' within the meaning of the zoning by-laws of the town.' The plaintiff appealed from a final decree reciting that the decision denying the permit was within the jurisdiction of the board of appeals, and that no modification of it is required.
In accordance with our order entered pursuant to G.L. c. 231, § 125A, inserted by St.1949, c. 171, § 1, the judge has amplified her report of material facts with respect to the meaning of the phrase, 'teaching of the dance, as contemplated' by the plaintiff. Since 1950 the plaintiff has operated a dancing school in a garage approximately twelve by ten feet annexed to her five room dwelling house.
When the application was filed the dancing school had an enrollment of about fifty pupils from three to sixteen years of age. In a class of four to eight pupils most of them paid fees of $1 to $1.50 each. A very few paid $2.50. Several pupils took more than one lesson a week. Classes were held on four days a week. Instruction was given in modern jazz, tap, musical comedy and classical ballet, toe and acrobatic dancing, tumbling, and baton. Musical accompaniment was by tape recorder and record player.
The school was operated by the plaintiff as a sole proprietorship, and its expenses were claimed on her income tax return as a business deduction. She was particularly trained in ballet dancing, and was not qualified to teach, and never did teach, ballroom or any form of social dancing. Beginning about three months before filing the application, the plaintiff made available to 'Teen Agers' and adults ballroom dancing lessons which were given by a woman assistant under the plaintiff's supervision. The plaintiff advertised in a local newspaper and distributed cards. The only advertisement reproduced in the findings read in material part: 'Ball Room--Teen Age--Adult Instructor: Mrs. Thomas Eleanor M. Kurz School of the Dance.' There was a list: 'The Stroll Rock'n Roll ChaCha Mambo Tango Polka Waltz Fox Trot Lindy The Walk Other Forms.'
The plaintiff's purpose in applying for a building permit was to enlarge the facilities of the school and to make it economically feasible. The garage was not an appropriate place because of the cement floor.
The judge concluded by finding that the dancing school is 'a commercial enterprise operated for personal profit.'
The by-law refers to 'Educational use' in the ordinary sense. Town of Needham v. Winslow Nurseries, Inc., 330 Mass. 95, 99, 111 N.E.2d 453; Bendslev v. Commissioner of Pub. Safety, 331 Mass. 261, 265, 118 N.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Logan Equipment Corp. v. Simon Aerials, Inc.
... ... the court relies on the reasoning of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Turner v. Johnson & Johnson, 809 ... Milwaukee at least three times yearly to attend SAI board meetings, Id. at 22; SAI was separately incorporated and ... ...
-
Town of Los Altos Hills v. Adobe Creek Properties, Inc.
...use was properly permitted in a residence district.' (Id., at p. 60, 223 N.E.2d at p. 683. See also Kurz v. Board of Appeals of North Reading (1960) 341 Mass. 110, 113, 167 N.E.2d 627, 629; Dando v. King County (1969) 75 Wash.2d 598, 602, 603, 452 P.2d 955, 957--958; Shady Grove, Inc. v. Pa......
-
Mendoza v. Licensing Board
...Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Framingham, 382 Mass. 283, 290, 415 N.E.2d 840 (1981), citing Kurz v. Board of Appeals of N. Reading, 341 Mass. 110, 112-113, 167 N.E.2d 627 (1960) (in holding that ordinance's provision for "professional office" and "hospital" uses in business district incl......
-
81 Spooner Rd., LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Brookline
...5 (1991), citing Commonwealth v. S.S. Kresge Co., 267 Mass. 145, 148, 166 N.E. 558 (1929). See also Kurz v. Board of Appeals of North Reading, 341 Mass. 110, 112, 167 N.E.2d 627 (1960). 20 "Aggrieved person status is no less a jurisdictional condition to maintaining an appeal to a board of ......