Anderson Funeral Home
1929- 1933
Now a Bed and Breakfast

In looking for material for a column today I came across articles on funeral home/cemetery zoning issues.  What peaked my interest was the idea that death care businesses could be on differing sides of zoning debates.  I find that somewhat interesting.

The first article that you can read here is an issue that we have had in front of our readers before.  It concerns Mr. Robert Zakar and his attempt to put a crematory into his funeral home building in El Cajon, California.  He was stopped in February 2017 from converting an existing empty industrial building in the city’s manufacturing zone and again in June he was denied by the planning commission to place a crematory in the garage of his mortuary.  He will be appealing that ruling on July 24.  If you read the article you will see that Mr. Zakar has done his homework and cannot understand why he is being turned down in his requests.

The second article from the Augusta, Georgia Chronicle, that you can read here, cuts the other way.  In this case a businessman wants to rezone property next to a cemetery in order to open a neighborhood bar and restaurant.  The family cemetery, that dates back to an 1817 burial, believes it would be impacted by the traffic and parking.  The owners believe that there would not be enough buffers between the restaurant and the cemetery.  Cemetery advocate Marcia Plunkett said, “I think he (the restaurant) has a great idea.  I just don’t think he’s got the right location.”

Funeral Director Daily take:  Zoning issues can be a big issue on where your facilities are located.  I know a little about zoning and the history of funeral home zoning in Minnesota law somewhat comes from a case with our funeral home.  In 1929, my grandfather purchased a “stately mansion” in a residential neighborhood with a private hospital across the street.  His intent was to turn it into a first class funeral home.

A petition dated February 4, 1929 to the city for a funeral home establishment license read in part, “. . .that when improved the building would give added dignity and appearance to the neighborhood.  That said premises are located in a semi-residential section in that said premises are in close proximity to the Tanquist Hospital, the county court house and other public buildings and in the winter time the city skating and toboggan slice are located in the immediate neighborhood.  Wherefore, your petitioner respectfully prays for a permit to establish a funeral home on said premises.”

Upon full deliberation and consideration of the Council a vote was taken and the results were 5-0 to grant the application for a funeral home.

A complaint was then filed by the hospital owners and the neighbors that a funeral home should not be in the neighborhood.  The complaint cited “heavy traffic and that at times noxious and poisonous gases may escape from the said establishment”.

The “Zoning Ordinance” was then given to the community to vote on March 10, 1931.  The results were 266-256 to let the zoning ordinance stand, and the funeral home stay,  as approved by city council.  My grandfather, the funeral home owner, was the Mayor and presided over such vote.

Another complaint was filed by the hospital and neighbors and this time taken all the way and argued in front of the State of Minnesota Supreme Court in 1933.  The Minnesota State Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and forced the funeral home to move out of that neighborhood.

At the end of the day it all worked out fine as my grandfather “swapped” buildings and moved into a building that served as our funeral home from 1933 until 2006.  I find it fascinating to read the 1200 plus pages of Supreme Court testimony that I have in a binded copy.  From this case much of the Minnesota State mortuary zoning law has developed.

In a future column, I’ll list what I think are great attributes for a funeral home location.

[wpforms id=”436″ title=”true” description=”true”]