Evening star., 1901-12-28
REGARDING PARTY WALLS
BUILDING fNsfEC1BR SUBMITS IN
TEREsTING REPORT.
Property Holder Writes District Conn
mfssfoners for opinion on
Subject.

The District Commissioners have decided
to refer to the attorney for the District for
an opinion as to the applicability of the
building regulations outside the old "Boun-
dary' OF Washington in the matter of party
walls. The matter was brought before the
Commissioners by Mrs. Ernestine H. Ste
vens of 2115 California avenue, who re-
quested information as to the right of Mr..
Barr. the owner of the lot adjoining her
premises on the west, to construct party
wall. The papers were first referred to Mr..
Snowden Ashford. the building inspector,
who has submitted the following interest
ing report covering the subject of party
walls outside the original city limits:
Il conclude that the writer means to
question the right to locate a party wall,
and in reply would say that this office is
without conclusive advice on the subject
of party walls in the county or outside the
boundary of the city. Messrs. Barr and
Sanner were interested in a case where, l
believe, Judge Cole presided and held that
the party wall privilege extended to the
county by reason of the scope of the
building regulations of the District of CO.
lumba.
THE so-called party wall regulation is a
deed agreement recorded in the original
deeds of transfer to the original proprie-
tors at the time the city of Washington
was embraced in the old Boundary of the
ion that the question involved is one of rec
ord or law, and that the privilege of en-
cfoachment on adjoining property with a
party wall or otherwise cannot be con-
ferred by building regulation or any
other means than by agreement. as was
done in the case of the laying out of the
city under direction of President Washing
ton.
Il would suggest. however, the economy
of time, space and price in the use of a
party wall, and would recommend in all
cases where suburban property is being
improved by continuous rows of houses as
Is the case in the neighborhood under con-
sideration. that party walls be used. l re-
gret to say that In most cases the height of
buildings has been curtailed to permit the
use of nfne-inch wall, which width, in my
opinion. Is not suitable for party walls, for
reasons of comfort. strength and safety
from transmission Of fires.
In this case | would say first that Mr.
Barr has no right to locate party wall
unless such agreement runs in the deeds to
the adjoining property; second that if for
the purposes of obtaining additional space
in the interior of his building and Increased
frontage the construction of the wall is
contemplated the advantages appear to be
entirely in his favor, the adjoining house
Is built several feet off the dividing or
party line, and the use of the new wall by
the adjoining owner is of remote possi-
bility.
Il would therefore conclude that this is
a case for agreement between adjoining
owners. Mr.. Barr may wish to use a strip
of the adjoining owners ground six inches
In width and the depth of the proposed new
wall. The value of the strip may be ascer-
ta1ned and agreed on In the strip a sewer
is said to be located. and as the advantages
in locating the wall are all in Mr. Barr's
favor the cost of moving the sewer to per-
nit the erection of the wall should be paid
by Mr.. Barr, and charged against the value
of the ground encroached upon. l would
therefore recommend that the parties inter-
ested be notified that this is a matter for
private contract"
Capt. Chester Harding, assistant to the
Engineer Commissioner, in passing upon
the papers, suggest ed that 1t would be well
to have legal opinion on the question of
party wall outside the city, and so recon-
attorney for the District, which will be
dome