The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1925-08-13
COURT SUSTAINS
ZONING DECISION
Judge Affirrns Decision of
Board of Appeals In
Bartkus Case.
DEMANDED A PERMIT
Sought to Build Addition TO
Store in Restricted Area
Denied the Right.

The legality of Kenosha's zone ordi-
nance has once more been sustained
following the handing down OF the de-
cision of Judge E. B. Belden, on Fri
day, affirming the decision of the
board of zoning appeals OF the city
of Kenosha in the case of Felix Bart
kus.
The case was the outgrowth OF an
appeal made by Bartkus when J. M
Albers, city building inspector, refus-
ed to grant him a permit for the con-
struction of an addition to his build
ing at 766 Bronson street, declaring
that the provisions of the city's zone
ordinance prevented such action.
Bartkus appealed to the board of zon-
ing appeals, and this board approved
the action of the city inspector, and
then the case was taken to the circuit
court for decision.
History of the Case.
The latest legal fight is the last
one in the series of friendly suits
started against the city in an attempt
to test every point involved in the
Guy s OEQ1lidACS1 anu viz JUS
decision upholds once more the ordi-
nance and the city's right to enforce
it.
The history of the Bartkus case
dates back to May 20, 1925, when Felix
Bartkus appeared before the city
building inspector for permit to
erect an addition to his two-story
frame store building on Bronson street
Bartkus wanted to add living rooms
to the first story of the building, but
because this section of the city was in
the class &C" residential districts it
came under the n-conforming use
clause of the ordinance. Bartkus
took his appeal to the board of zon-
ing appeals which sustained the ac-
ton of the inspector, and the case
then came before the circuit court.
City Presents Its Case.
City Attorney Clifford E. Randall
represented the city of Kenosha in
the suit and his contention as outlin-
ed in the brief presented before Judge
E. B. Belden contended that "the or
dinance forbidding an addition to a
non-conforming use to be used for
residence purposes is reasonable, as
applied to the property in question,
The granting of a permit to construct
said addition by the city of Kenosha
would be distinct discrimination in
favor of the petitioner" the city's case
continues, "and against every other
property owner in &C. residential dis
tricts in the city, who has had the
use of his property restricted by the
zoning ordinance. The zoning ordi-
nance stabilizes the use of property
and the restrictions imposed upon
properties in the districts are in the
interests of public welfare. The res
trictions imposed upon the petitioners
use and occupancy of building which
was a non-conforming use existing at
the time of the adoption Of the zoning
ordinance are no greater and work no
greater hardship upon him than the
restrictions imposed upon other own
ers of property in CO residential dis
tricts by the ordinance"
The city went on to point out that
the supreme court of the United States
has held that the owner Of any prop
erty governed by zone ordinance is
compensated because there are like
restrictions upon the property of his
neighbor, and that the rights which
the ordinance endows are entirely
equitable.
In view of these facts the judge
found that the action of the chief of
the inspection department. and the
board of appeals should be sustained,
and orders that the writ against them
be quashed.