Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-06-10
Buildings Which Require Change in
the Regulations.
OPINION OF ATTORNEY FOR DISTRICT
Question Raised by the Assistant
Building Inspector.
APPROVE

In an opinion rendered in reply to GER
tain questions raised by Mr.. Snowden Ash
ford, assistant building inspector the at
torney for the District says the introdlic-
ton here of steel construction buildings
renders 1t necessary to amend the building
regulations relative to party walls. Such
buildings, the Districts law officer thinks,
should be placed entirely on the building
owners lot.
Mr.. AshfOrd's Queries.
The questions propounded by Mr.. ASH
ford were as follows:
Il. If the builder of a steel construction
building should provide d wall, in the first
instance, of sufficient thickness to the
height allowed for cumbustlble construc-
ton, seventy-five feet, to allow the next
builder to cut into the wall for joist bear
iings. &C., would such wall comply with the
legal requirements of a party wall?
- Above TIE height Of seventy-five feet
should the face of the steel construction
wall recede from the party line, and if so,
how much. to prevent the next builder
from cutting into the wall? In regard to
this question, l beg TO call your attention
to the fact that if the first builder Of
a steel construction building is required to
reoede from the party line the second
builder should he required to do the same,
thereby leaving space between the two
walls that could not be utilized by either
party.
''3. Would it be reasonable to require
the first builder to construct a wall of such
dimensions and size of columns, beams.
etc, to accommodate building more than
seventy-fve feat high. when the average or
usual height of buildings, even III business
sections, would not exceed fifty feet in
height?'
In his letter Mr.. Ashford explained that
at the time the party wall law was made q
height exceeding Seventy-fve feet was not
,fnvy .vNInt ,1 L.
modern buildings and the growing demand
for such buildings in Washington make 1t
very important that the question be settled
before more steel instruction buildings are
erected.
The Attorneys Views.
The opinion rendered by the attorney for
the istrict was as follows:
Our party-wall regulation contemplates
a wall of masonry. and was never intended
to apply to buildings of the class known as
steel construction. The Introduction of this
method Of construction will render it neces-
sary to amend the building regulations in
regard to party walls, so as to meet the
new conditions.
In my Judgment buildings of the class
Known as steel construction should be
placed entirely on the building owners lot
In order to prevent the owner of the ad-
Joining lot from cutting into such build
ing and exposing its fireproof construction
WOULD suggest that the inspector of
buildings ascertain what changes have
Eeen made in the building regulations of
Philadelphia, from whence our regulations
came. in regard to party walls, to meet the
conditions of steel construction and sub
nit the draft of an amendment to our
party-wall regulation.
Within Owners Lines.
In regard to the proposed building at
the corner of 18th and i streets my opin-
Ion is that 1t is permissible to place the
walls of the building entirely within the
lines of the owners ground, as shown on
the drawing
"A lot owner in this District in erecting a
building is not bound to avail himself of
inc privilege OF the easement of party wall
put may 90 so if he likes.
hava lot attempted to reply to the
speclf1c questions proponn:led by Mr. Ash
lord because l believe the points raised by
those questions are arson., the subjects
matter which sh.u,G ne controlled by a
building regulation"
me opinion has been approved by the
District Commissioners, who referred Mr.
Ashlor1s inquiries TO their attorney and
the inspector of buildings is preparing such
amendn ents t" the building regulations as
snail conform l." the OPINION.