The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1925-02-19
new JUDGMENT
IN FRIEDMAN CASE
Judge Belden Reverses Old
Decision in the Fried
man Case.
DECIDES FOR THE CITY
Present Decision, Is in City's
Favor; First Decision Was
Given the Plaintiffs.

Dy new decision just eHIeLSu III
circuit court, Judge Belden reverses
himself in the case of Max Friedman
and Jennie Friedman VS.. J. M. Albers,
chief of the inspection department of
the city of Kenosha, and finds for the
defendant, who represents the city Of
Kenosha.
By the former decision first entered
Judge Belden found for the Fried
mans, but he himself reversed this
finding on representation of the
case.
Old zoning Argument.
The case arose out of an alteration
made by Friedman of one story
frame building at Oil Sellick avenue,
after being warned by the building in
spector that he could not secure per-
nit to make the alteration.
The zoning ordinance was passed,
and as it happened, Friedman's build
ing fell into a residential and not a
commercial district. On March IL,
1924, Friedman was notified by the
building inspector that the use to
which he was putting the building was
a non-conforming use. Friedman APP
piled for a permit to. make certain
changes and was refused. He carried
the matter to the board of appeals of
the city of Kenosha and the decision
there after hearing was against. him.
Went On Building.
Sometime later Albers discovered
that during the month of April, after
the permit to make certain. alterations
had been denied, Friedman had gone
ahead notwithstanding and enlarged
the building by constructing foun-
dation and a brick wall across the cen.
ter.
He was brought into court and
charged with violating city ordinance
No. 461, was found guilty by jury
and fined $25 and costs. Later he
pleaded guilty to violation of ordin-
ance No. sos and was fined another $50
and costs.
Meanwhile Friedman's building was
not complete and he started injunction
proceedings against the building in
spector who represented the city OF
Kenosha in circuit court.
The plaintiffs attorney held that "a
building may be structually altered
if the alteration is of portion or
accessory to the main building and
incidental to the main building, and
that prohibition of such alteration ap-
plies to the enlargement of a build,
ing other than the construction OF a
cellar"
5 By his first decision Judge Belden
held with this view.
A Nom Conforming Use.
City Attorney C. E. Randall, how
ever, presented the facts again to the
court, pointing out that the judge had
not taken cognizance of the fact that
by constructing this foundation the
plaintiff was extending the non-con-
forming use; that the city building
inspector and the board of appeals
were within their rights in denying
him aNpernit. Judge Belden acknow-
lodged this presentation, and came to
new finding.
The following decision entered in
behalf of the chief of the inspection
department reads as follows:
upon the representation and re-
consideration of this matter, l am
Of the opinion that the conclusion OF
the court based upon the former pre-
sentation should be changed. 1t is now
the conclusion of the court that the
construction of the basement under
the building occupied by the plaintiffs
and used for con-conforming use was
contrary to and in violation of the zon-
ing ordinance; that such construction
involved structural alterations and en-
largement of the building for the pir-
pose of extending such non-conforming
use beyond the limits permitted by the
ordinance; that the construction of the
basement, involving change in the sup
porting members of the building, new
bearing walks, beams and girders and
an outside entrance to the basement, is,
contrary to the ordinance, and that the
chief of the inspection department and
the board of appeals were within their
authority under the ordinance in re-
fusing the plaintiffs permission TO
make the changes, alterations and I'M
provements in question.