Evening star., 1900-12-18
Proposed Establishment Provokes a
Protest From Property Owners.
COMMISSIONERS GRANT A HEARING
Attorney DuvaI's Opinion Ad-
verse to Issuance of Permit.
THE LAW POINTS RAISED

The District Commissioners today gave
hearing upon the application of Robert
Head and Francis r. Percival. who recent
ly applied for a permit to erect a market
building on the east side of 14th street be-
tween V and W. upon lots to I, inclusive,
square 23J. The application was made to
the inspector of buildings, Mr.. John B.
Brady, who asked. that it be referred to the
attorney for the District, Mr.. A. B. Duvall,
for an opinion to whether, under the cir
cumstances, the consent of more than one
half the property owners on the south side
of V street is required. The case was so
referred, and Mr. Duvall advised the Com
missioners that the application is not in
compliance with the provisions of section
10 of the building regulations, and that 1t
should be denied.
1t appears. explained Mr.. Duvall, that the
applicants have obtained the consent of the
owners of more than one-half of the prop
erty in the square upon which the proposed
market is to be erected. and of the owners
of more than one-half of the property sit
uated on the confronting side of the oppo-
site square 14th street. The building
will have a frontage of III feet on l4th
street and will extend back to depth Of
14O feet, and De SO placed to leave one
lot, sixteen feet wide, between its south
wall and street lots 9 to being owned
by the same person.
According to the proposed plan of the
building, Mr.. Duvall further explained, its
south wall is treated in a manner similar to
its front wall, with doors and windows de-
signed for light and ventilation, and such
other purposes as are incidental to such
building. The question for decision is he
holds. whether the applicants have complied
with the requirements OF section 40 of the
building regulations which is as follows:
mo building shall be erected or converted
for use as market unless the person or
persons applying for permit to erect or
convert the same shall file with the inspec-
tor OF buildings the written consent of the
owners of more than one-half Of the prop
erty situated in the square on which said
building Is to be located, and of the own
ers of more than One-haf of the properly
situated on the confronting side or sides of
the opposite square or squares.
Protection to Adjacent Property.
This section says Mr. Duvall, was ev-
identity designed to protect the owners of
adjacent property from the injury and in
convenience which may be supposed to re-
suit from the establishment of a market
building. While the south wall of the pro-
posed building is located as party
wall. yet it is provided with doors and win
dows similar to the front wall, so that to
all intents and purposes the proposed mar
ket building will front on V street as well
as on 14th street, the manifest intention of
the owners being to use as appurtenant to
the building the narrow lot owned by them
situated between the building and street
1T appears 10 me that this is evasion
Of the building regulations, and that the
consent Of tne owners Of more than one
half of the properly situated on the con-
fronting side of the opposite square, 272,
should be first obtained. l am of opinion
that the present application is not in COM
pliance with the provisions of section 40
of the building regulations and that the
permit should not be granted
The attorneys Of the applicants, Messrs.
Turner & Mitchell, represented them al to-
days hearing, while Mr.. w. l.. Soeau ap-
peared as one of the protesting property
owners stating that the attorneys of the
protestants We're absent because of a mis-
apprehension as to the time of the hearing.
Messrs. Turner & Mitchell contended that
the applicants have complied with all the
requirements Of the section of the building
regulations in question, having, they claim
ed, secured the consent of the owners OF
more than one-half the property in the
square in which 1t is proposed to locate
the market, and of the owners of more than
one-han the property on the west side Of
14th street. Therefore, they said. their
clients are entitled, not as a matter OF IA
vor or Of privilege. but as matter OF
right to the desired permit. AS a lot VIII
intervene between the market building and
v street. they insisted that the structure
will not face or confront that street, ana
for this reason, they argued. the consent
of the property owners on street Is not
required.
The opinion of the attorney for the Dis
trict, they submitted, is a forced construc-
ton of the building regulations. and to
adopt that opinion would, they contended.
operate as a punishment upon the appli-
cants for owning more property than they
desire to build upon. No man, they said,
Is presumed to intend the doing OF any
wrong or unlawful thing. and that pre-
sumption of innocence which follows even
the most hardened criminal into a court of
Justice up to the rendition Of the verdict
Of guilty should follow the applicants. 1t is
true, they admitted. that a market has
some Objectionable features but, on the
other hand, they submitted. markets are
absolutely necessary institutions. and there
fore desirable to the public. In this par
ticular instance, they stated that the pro-
posed market Is most desirable to the resi-
dents Of Columbia Heights. Mt. Pleasant
and Of that vast territory which now is
forced to depend for market conveniences