The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-10-06

James H. Smith, attorney for J. W. Hun
ter. of 1862 Eighteenth Street northwest.
has written to the Commissioners again
calling their attention to the windows cut
in the wall of the stable occupied by the
contractors for street sweeping in W
Street, between Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Street northwest. adjoining premises 1913
W Street
The substance of this complaint has been
published in The Times and is to the effect
that the contractors liz question cut win
dows in the wall Of the stable named with
out first obtaining 12rmit for doing the
work, and were afterwa-d fined in the Po-
lice Court, the assistant inspector of the
Inspector of Buildings office being informed
that there was no law by which the said
contractors could be compelled to remove
the work done illegally.
This latter point is the burden OF the
second letter of the attorney who says:
The last communication l received from
your office advised me that the Inspector
OF Buildings had notified Messrs. Lilly &
Robinson, the contractors, to brick up the
openings cut by them in the east wall of
the stable within five days from the date
OF the notice, September is. 1t appears that
these gentlemen paid nc attention to the
notice, for they we're brought into court
on the 18th entered a plea of guilty and
a nominal fine of IS was imposed, the pros
ecution being for not obtaining a permit
Upon enquiry being made as to the eontin-
uation of this violation by refusing to close
up the openings. the prosecuting attorney
said that there was no law to cover such
cases. l asked the inspector what he pro-
posed to do and he said he could do moth
ing further under the opinion of the attor-
ney.
Under the building regulations p,ior
to 1897 it was clearly set forth that, in
addition to the penalty imposed for the
original violation, heavy fine was i'm
posed for continuing me wrong done
Whether or not the omission of this clause
in the present regulations was by mis-
take or intention, If the opinion OF Mr..
Pugh is correct, then it is within the
power of anyone to make such change as
they may elect in structure being sub
Ject only TO prosecution for not obtain
ing a permit to do the same; but the
change of structure made, the Office of the
Building Inspector is powerless to remedy.
Il speak advisedly when | make this
statement, that since the adoption of
the present regulations cases have been
brought into court by the Inspector of
Buildings, and parties have not only been
fined heavily for making alterations to a
building without a permit. but have been
ordered by the court to restore the struc-
ture to its original condition under a
penalty.
This is a serious case, and it has been
pending about two months. The condi-
lion arising from this stable is not only
working q lasting injury to my clients
property, but is endangering the health of
the people OF the neighborhood.
If the position OF the attorney in the
Police Court is correct, then the Inspector
of Buildings has issued an order you can
not enforce, and if the Health Office is
correct, so long as a stable is kept as
clean as such places can be kept, even
by the alteration of the structure, and a
nuisance injurious TO health is created.
there is no power in that Office to abate
ii.
'sThe present tenants Of my client's house
have occupied it fox the last eight years,
and have lived there in peace and comfort,
until these windows complained of were
constructed. They are now preparing to
Yacate. as they do not care TO endanger
their health or life by further occupancy"
This letter having been referred to the
office of the Inspector Of Buildings, Mir.
Brady stated the circumstances of the case
as already published il The Times, and
recommended that the Attorney for the
District be asked TO draft a suitable regu-
lation to cover such violations.
In transmitting the recommendation OF
the Inspector of Buildings to the Commits
sioners, Capt. H. C. Newcomer said: 1T
appears that the warrant was sworn out
under section 19 of the Building Regula-
lions. In my opinion it would have been
advisable TO have sworn il out under Sec
ton 103, as the wall in question was a
party wall, and the consent of the adjoin-
ing owner, I learned, had not been OBJ
taiped. II, as stated. the District authorI-
ties are poweriess to take further steps
looking 10 the removal Of the windows, for
the reason that a small fine has already
been imposed in the case, the precedent
will be exceedingly injurious to the in
terests of the District OF Columbia, and l
therefore recommend that this paper be
referred to the Attorney for the District
for an opinion as to whether, under exist
ing law. the District authorities are power
less to cause the removal of a structure
which has been erected without a permit
from the inH9ector of buildings and with
cut the consent Of the adjoining owner
both OF which are required under section
JOB of the Building Regulations
Some months ago J. H. Beck and others
petitioned the Commissioners to lay a
granolithic sidewalk on Ninth Street, te-
tween East Capitol and A Streets south
east. After due consideration the Com
missioners issued an order for the work
TO be done under the regulations OF the
assessment plan, at an estimated cost Of
$l,136. few days ago Joseph Loughran
Of Is Ninth Street southeast, sent a com
munication TO the Commissioners protest.
ing against the laying of the proposed
sidewalk until the signatures of a ma
iority of the property holders affected
should be obtained.
My attention" he says, has been call
ed to the recently issued order for the
work OF laying an expensive sidewalk on
Ninth Street southeast, with half the cost
to be assessed upon abutting property.
have never seen any notice of the pro-
posed work, although l have examined the
published notices in the newspapers from
tis.e to time.
u have deemed it my duty to examine
the petition Of the property owners upon
which your order is based and l find that
1t does not represent q majority OF the
property proposed to be taxed. Until the
signatures OF majority shall have been OBJ
tail ed. | protest against the attempt OF a
minority imposing upon me costs for work
which deem unnecessary. and shall have
recourse TO whatever legal methods may be
available TO prevent the imposition.
The letter OF Mr.. Loughran having been
referred 20 the Engineer Department for
consideration and report. Capt H C. New
conner. assistant to the Engineer Commits
sioner, informs the Board that according
TO the file made in connection with the zD-
plication for the sidewalk in question those
AG@an znz N Ana~n