Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1890-01-30
1NsrsoroE DILLoN,s MANDATE.
Ene FerSida rbc Bodybuilding of fhs
Kurlcd ScSry y Buckley Frame
SsnKtrtntr

---s
Ene TerSida stac ssebui'd,ng of ibe
kurnca NcSry y Buckley Frame
IsnIidiRg.
An Incident occurred On Friday Yh'ch
has caused small hutter among those
tntarasted 10 the eepairiug Or recOastrutt-
ing Of this partially hurned framed building
recently occupied by Messrs. Neary %
ID sey at Front and Orange streets.
Elilding Inspector Patrick Dillon sud
denly appeared on the scene among the
carpenters aud men busily engaged making
measurements and inspecting the pramlsas
preparatory rebuilding, and told them the
structure must nor bs rebuilt-that ~ TO
say OF lnm6er--a5 before. John y. DLckey
wHs cold 80 Also by the building ilgpeot0r.
Bur aa. DleEoy has noihiog 10 DO win tho
matter now. so the Information does not
affect him.
dir. Dlion's reason for the above action
ara OF course, that the reconstruntjon wouid
| be a violation Of The city Ordnance in re-
gard to frame buildings. MIR. Diilenis man
date opeus ny a contested question upon
A the contrnstei vaina OF the terms repair
Ing' and Reconstruction"
i The structnre IL the large two story
wooden building which has occupied the
\ locality for many wears. IL belongs 10 the
| Alderdioe estate and is in the hands of
Head Il Go. The amount OF damage done
| to It by the recent fire was estimated by q
$500 aud $1,000. Tho New Castle County
Insurance Company, with whom the build
! in was insured, stands ready to meet It's
customers either with cash payment or to
rebuild. But Of course the company Is not
wiling to rebuild IL such rebuilding be
contrary to law. II is with the owners TO
do us they please.
What the building needs Is new roof
aud some reconstruction In the second
story, A contractor, who closely eXauiined
the structure Friday, claims that 1t does
not need rebuilding, oniy repairing. he
say the frames are sound, solid and good
to stand for 500 years. Thsre Is great deal
OF opposition to Mr.. Oillon's action the
claim being that that official is going be-
You'd his rights In forbldding the WORK to
be- procssdal with and OF the replacing
with shingle roof and redtting the upper
story with frame work as 1t stood befoteths
fire.
One citizen standing In front the burned
building pointed across to huge wooden
sign erected on two posts: why you can
take all that down, all but the posts. anc
replace IT. You would still be within TIT
law. But II you .ook the posts down az
we'll you could not re-erecL the sign. Thai
Ia law according to decision. Well, aErll
tho same here to this partly burned bulld
Ing. Why, every one, all over the city re
pairs his building, that Is frame building
whenever 1t is needed"
In regard &c INC law on the question:
section 2 OF the ordinance bearing upoL
tho matter says: mo wooden building tina
has one half of Its value exclusive OF thu
yaiue OF it's foundations, damaged BY fire
or otherwise, within said limits, shall b
built up again or repaired, but shall b.
taken down. The building inspector shal
determine the extent OF such damage, DC.
The above leaves the question as Y
whether one-halt of ths value of The build
ing has been destroyed. A reliable con
tractor estimated the cost OF rebuilding d
between $9O0 and $1,000.
Did the whole building cost double tina
, as it stood previous to the tleef From Mi
Dilon's action 1t would appear he think
not. And the law makes him tire sol
arbiter.
The ordinance In section says: Ever
owner, or builder, who shall erect, con
struct, or cause TO be erected, IT ra!set
added to or reconstructed any building, :
} part OF building or structure contrary
I the provisions OF this ordinanc
i shall forfeit AMI pay tine. 6c,"
! In tho pressa. contention between tn
building inspector and the carpenters {
. contractors, the difficulty Is on the meaE
ing OF the word RECONSTRUCT" as contraste
| with repair" and additionally whetht
o half the value OF the building was de
Q troyed at the recent Ore.