Home/Wisconsin Supreme Court/Chrome Plating Co. v. City of Milwaukee

Chrome Plating Co. v. City of Milwaukee

17 N.W.2d 705, 246 Wis. 526, 1945 Wisc. LEXIS 324
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 15, 1945
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 N.W.2d 705 (Chrome Plating Co. v. City of Milwaukee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chrome Plating Co. v. City of Milwaukee, 17 N.W.2d 705, 246 Wis. 526, 1945 Wisc. LEXIS 324 (Wis. 1945).

Opinion

*527 Rosenberry, C. J.

The situation will appear from the statement of facts made by the trial court in its opinion. With slight changes as to reference to exhibits, they are as follows :

The premises are located at the northwest corner of East Chambers street, formerly known as Chambers street, a street and highway in the city of Milwaukee, running in an easterly- and-westerly direction, and North Humboldt boulevard, formerly known as Humboldt avenue, a public highway running in a northerly-and-southerly direction in said city.
The premises consist of four lots, referred to in various exhibits as lots 17, 18, 19, and 20, and each of said lots is 134.43 feet long, and the aggregate of all four lots is 117.4 feet in width. The lots run in an easterly-and-westerly direction from Humboldt boulevard to an alley on the west.
On March 7, 1907, which was about thirteen years prior to the passage of the first general zoning ordinance by defendant city, one Lierman, the then owner of said lots, obtained a permit from defendant city and the then inspector of buildings, to erect, at a cost of $2,000, a one-story brick blacksmith shop,, the actual dimensions of which shop were 25 feet by 55 feet, and which is designated as Building “C” on Exhibit 1, printed herewith. Since its erection, the said building was used as a blacksmith shop to the present time.
On May 28, 1907, the said Lierman, as owner of the premises, obtained a building permit from defendant city to erect, at a cost of $225, a ten-foot-high, one-story wagon shop, 24 feet by 18 feet. This wagon shop was built east of Building “C” on Exhibit 1, but moved to the northwest corner of the parcel in 1921, when Building “B” on Exhibit 1 was erected.
When the aforesaid buildings were permitted to be erected by the defendant city, the application clearly disclosed that they were to be erected on lots 17, 18, 19, and 20, which are the premises in question.
On November 15, 1920, the zoning ordinance and. the use map were adopted, placing the premises in question in a residential zone.
*528 This zoning ordinance, however, was amended on July 7, 1926, placing the boundary line between residence district to east and commercial and light manufacturing to west, 120 feet east of the east line of the now North Weil street, being west line of alley in the block, and was again amended on November 7, 1927, by the adoption of a new zoning use map, where the boundary line between residential, to the east, and commercial and light manufacturing, was a line 120 feet west of the west line of North Humboldt boulevard. This boundary line extended through both of the buildings situated upon the'premises, consisting, as heretofore indicated, of four lots, in the commercial and light-manufacturing district, and the easterly 120 feet of said lots in a residential district.
■ On October 28, 1921, a permit was issued, upon application duly made to the city, to Jiaczmarek and Nowicki as owners, for a “blacksmith-shop addition” to cost $2,500, which addition when completed was 45 feet by 85 feet, and was thereafter used by them until 1936 for auto garage and storage.
On August 25, 1925, the then owners, Kaczmarek and Nowicki, secured from the city of Milwaukee, upon application duly made, a permit for an “addition to garage,” to cost $9,000, which when completed was 50 feet by 85 feet, and was used by them until 1936 for garage and auto-repairing purposes. This building is referred to as “A”-on Exhibit 1.
Plaintiff acquired vendee’s interest in the premises by land contract on January 21, 1937, and on January 29, 1937, plaintiff applied for permit to- use Building “B” (Exhibit 1) for a chrome-plating works. The building inspector denied the application on April 14, 1937, and thereupon plaintiff appealed to the zoning board of appeals, which reversed the ruling of the building inspector and directed him to issue a temporary certificate of occupancy, and such certificate was issued, permitting the use of the premises for thcpurpose of conducting thereon chrome plating, for an indefinite period of time.
At the same time, proceedings were had by the president of the plaintiff, doing business individually as Sherin Company, to use Building “A” (Exhibit 1) for automobile body painting and repairing work, and such permit, pursuant’ to the decision of the zoning board, was issued to plaintiff, and both Buildings “A” and “B” (Exhibit 1) have since been used for such respective purposes.
*529 On March 18, 1941, the building inspector refused to issue a permit to plaintiff to conduct a filling station on the premises known as 1030 East Chambers street (Building “A”), claiming that the premises were located in a residential district. Upon appeal to the zoning board of appeals, the ruling of the building inspector was reversed, and the appeal board directed the issuance of such occupancy permit.
On December 21, 1941, the building inspector granted a permit to Allis Auto Body to use the premises known as 1030 East Chambers street (which are part of the premises in question), for an auto-body repair shop, and on April 8, 1942, the building inspector granted a permit to Schwartzburg-Nash Company for storage of new automobiles.
On October 21, 1942, plaintiff petitioned the common council to rezone the entire premises from residence to commercial and light manufacturing, which petition was placed on file July 26, 1943.
On July 26, 1943, the common council adopted a resolution declaring that the use of a portion of said premises for chrome plating constituted a nuisance, and that action should be taken to terminate the violations of the zoning ordinance.
On July 26, 1943, the Sherin Company applied for an occupancy permit for Building “A” for “auto-body repair garage,” which application the building inspector denied, and from which denial an appeal was taken to the zoning board of appeals, but was not prosecuted, and instead thereof this action was commenced by plaintiff.
Exhibit 34, printed herewith, is a photograph of the buildings and adjacent and surrounding premises and buildings.
Although the defendant city has not filed any cross complaint, it is conceded that unless the common council is restrained as prayed for by the plaintiff, the defendant city will take appropriate steps to enforce the resolution of. July 26. 1943, to terminate the use of the premises by the plaintiff for light manufacturing and commercial business, and to compel removal of the buildings and structures therefrom.
Section 959 — 17n, Stats. 1919, which granted the defendant city authority to regulate and restrict the location of trades and industries, and the locations of buildings, and pursuant to which the zoning ordinances were adopted, provided that “such ordinances shall not prohibit the continuance of the use

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Barney & Carey Co. v. Town of Milton
87 N.E.2d 9 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 N.W.2d 705, 246 Wis. 526, 1945 Wisc. LEXIS 324, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chrome-plating-co-v-city-of-milwaukee-wis-1945.