Rowland v. City of Racine
| Decision Date | 12 January 1937 |
| Parties | ROWLAND et al. v. CITY OF RACINE et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Racine County; E. B. Belden, Judge.
Affirmed.
Action brought by John D. Rowland and Guy A. Benson against the City of Racine and its inspector of buildings to enjoin them from enforcing a zoning ordinance on the ground that it was void as to the premises of the plaintiffs. Defendants filed an answer which resulted in issues of fact tried by the court, which made findings and conclusions upon which judgment was entered perpetually enjoining the enforcement of the ordinance against the premises in question. Defendants appealed from that judgment.
Cornelius M. Colbert, of Racine, for appellants.
Donald A. Butchart, of Racine, for respondents.
The judgment under review enjoins the enforcement of a zoning ordinance as against two lots owned by plaintiffs', and located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Washington and Lathrop avenues in the City of Racine. The following facts, established by the evidence, were found by the court: The ordinance, as enacted in 1929, established certain residence districts within which no factory building, warehouse, public garage, oil filling station, mercantile establishment, funeral parlor, morgue, flat, or apartment building should be erected, established, or maintained; but it also provided that the continued use of a building or land for an industry, or for which it was lawfully used at the time the ordinance took effect, was not prohibited thereby. However, the latter provision was amended in 1932 so as to provide, in relation to land or a building so used in an established residence district, when the ordinance took effect, that no extension or improvement except ordinary repairs and maintenance should be made for any use or in any manner prohibited by the zoning ordinance. Under the ordinance the plaintiffs' lots, and all other land located in the four blocks cornering on the intersection of Lathrop and Washington avenues, and some adjacent territory have been, since its enactment, within a residence district established thereby, with the exception that, by an express provision in the ordinance, the lot at the northeast corner of the intersection was not included as part of that residence district and has been occupied continuously by a gasoline filling station. Both Washington and Lathrop avenues are sixty-six feet wide, and are main thoroughfares through the city. They connect with the principal highways to the north, south, and west of the city, and the vehicular traffic at the intersection in question is very heavy. Plaintiffs' lots have a frontage of eighty-seven feet on Washington avenue, and extend south one hundred twenty-five feet along Lathrop avenue to a ten feet wide alley. They have been occupied continuously since prior to 1924 by a small dwelling house, adjacent to the alley, and a small store and gasoline filling station on the northerly portion. On appraisals in probate proceedings the property was valued at $15,500 in 1924, and at $15,000 in 1929. It was sold for $11,000 on land contract in 1930, and the plaintiffs acquired it subsequently at a cost of $8,333.74. At the time of the trial, the value of the land was $6,500 to $7,632 for business purposes, but only $1,600 to $2,000 for residence purposes, and the value of the improvements was $1,650.
Along the south line of the ten feet wide alley, at the south line of plaintiffs' lots, is a tract of sixteen lots which are owned by a dairy products company, and upon which it has its main plant consisting of a large brick building erected prior to 1926, and a large automobile garage, horse barn, and other buildings, with extensions made thereto since that time. That company employs sixty-five people, and has twenty horse-drawn wagons and ten automobile trucks, which are used in hauling dairy supplies to and from the plant at all hours commencing daily from 2 to 4:30 a. m., depending upon the season; and the plant is operated with considerable noise and smoke in and around the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carter v. Bluefield
...222, 15 N. E. 2d 587, 117 A. L. R. 1110; Glencoe Lime and Cement Co. v. City of St Louis, 341 Mo. 689, 108 S. W. 2d 143; Rowland v. Racine, 223 Wis. 488, 271 N. W. 36; City of Pleasant Ridge v. Cooper, 267 Mich. 603, 255 N. W. 371; Reschke v. City of Winnetka, 363 111. 378, 2 N. E. 2d 718; ......
-
Carter v. City Of Bluefield
...278 N.Y. 222, 15 N.E.2d 587, 117 A.L.R. 1110; Glencoe Lime & Cement Co. v. City of St. Louis, 341 Mo. 689, 108 S.W.2d 143; Rowland v. Racine, 223 Wis. 488, 271 N.W. 36; City of Pleasant Ridge v. Cooper, 267 Mich. 603, 255 N.W. 371; Reschke v. Village of Winnetka, 363 111. 378, 2 N.E.2d 718;......
-
City of St. Paul v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.
...applied to the property involved are violative of fundamental, constitutional property rights of its owner. Rowland v. City of Racine, 223 Wis. 488, 271 N.W. 36; City of Pleasant Ridge v. Cooper, 267 Mich. 603, 255 N.W. For further references concerning spot zoning, see annotation in 51 A.L......
-
Carter v. City of Bluefield
...278 N.Y. 222, 15 N.E.2d 587, 117 A.L.R. 1110; Glencoe Lime & Cement Co. v. City of St. Louis, 341 Mo. 689, 108 S.W.2d 143; Rowland v. Racine, 223 Wis. 488, 271 N.W. 36; City of Pleasant Ridge v. Cooper, 267 Mich. 603, N.W. 371; Reschke v. Village of Winnetka, 363 Ill. 378, 2 N.E.2d 718; Ehr......