Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-04-20
UPON PROTESTS
ATTORNEYS OPINION REGARDING
RE-EsTABLIsHMEN OF BRICkYARD
Regulations as Amended Decemer 20,
1900, Regarded as Not Retroac-
tive Points Involved.

1900, Regarded as Not Retroac-
tive Points Involved.
The attorney for the District, Mr.. A. B.
| Duvail, in the matter of the protests hled
with the Commissioners against the re-
| establishment of the yard of the Chlds
Brick Company. located between Mount
| Olivet cemetery and the Baltimore and
Ohio railroad, today advised them that sec
ton III of the building regulations, as
amended December %, 1900. could not have
retroa ctive effect, and that it's provisions
are inapplicable to the present situation.
| From Mr.. Duvalls statement of the case
| it appears that April A.. 1890, a permit was
| issued to Isaac P. Chlds & Sons ito build
| brickkilns and locate brickyard' on the
Fenwick farm, between the Baltimore and
Ohio railroad and Mount Olivet cemetery,
opposite Ivy City. In November, 1@o
| Messrs. w. ]. Frizzell and w. E. Collier
made inquiry of the Commissioners whether
| the brick company could resume operation
without obtaining new permit, alleging
| that the brickyard had not been in opera
ton since July, 1899. This inquiry was re-
| ferred to the inspector of buildings, who
reported that the brickyard had been To-
| Gated upon the approval of the Commits
| sioners and permit issued therefor April
| IA, 1890, and had been used as such. and
! that there was nothing in the building
regulations (Sec I'D that required the
owner to obtain the consent of property
| owners to resume the operation of brick
| yard on the same site.
| Amendment Prepared.
| Thereafter, at the request of the Comis-
sioners, the assistant inspector of buildings
prepared an amendment to section III,
which, on December %, 1900, was adopted,
and said section was amended so as to read
| as follows:
No building or premises to be used as a
slaughter house, soap or candle factory
| bone-boiling or other establishment where
by offensive unhealthy OdOrS or gases
are generated, shall be erected or located
within 30 yards of a dwelling without the
written consent of the owners of all the
property within go yards of the site occu-
pied, or to he occupied, by such building or
premises. If any such establishment is not
in operation within twelve months from the
date of the permit for it's erection op-
GRAFTON the permit shall be void. If at any
time thereafter the establishment Is not
operated for a period of one year, for the
purpose for which the permit was issued,
said permit shall be void, and in order to
renew same similar steps must be taken
for a new establishment. The same condi-
tionS shall also apply to brickyardS, brick
kilns and pottery furnaces
On March 21, 1901 the attorney says, Mr..
w. j. FriZZell again called attention to the
re-esta blishment of said brickyard, suggest
ing that it had been unused for more than
year past and was in the hands of new
owners, who should be required to procure
a permit under the amended building reg
ulatiOn.
Thereafter on March %. 1901. upon re-
port by the assistant inspector of buildings
that workmen We're employed reconstruct
ing some portions of the machinery for the
purpose of continuing the manufacture of
bricks, Messrs. Agnew and Phillips the
parties Interested notified that a Der-
init must be taken out for the reconstruct
ton and operation of the brick plant be-
cause the same had been abandoned for
the period of one year. They were also re-
quested to file with their application an
afhdavit as to the space of time the plant
had not been operated.
Claim of the Company.
March %. 1901, Messrs. Birney and Wood
ard, attorneys for Mertons and Agaew
acknowledging the receipt by them Of the
notice addressed to Agnew and Phillips
claimed that their clients were not required
10 apply for new permit, because the
property had been operated and used as a
place for the manufacture and sale Of brick
since 1880, under the permit; that Il had
net been used for any other purpose
neither had 1t been abandoned, end its
abandonment had never been in contemDla-
tfon Of its owners: that Its Integrity as a
brick yard had been at all times MAIN
tanned; that the only foundation for the
cidlIn tndt the place mad not been operated
as brick yard was that in April, 1900, it
was deemed necessary to make extensive
repairs to the machinery, the completion of
winch repairs was unavoidably delayed
until october, 1900. SO late in the season
that 1t vas not deemed advisable Their to
start anew upon the manufact Of bricks:
that In September the machinery was test
ed In the actual making Of bricks on the
premises. &C.. &c.
1t is claimed among other thines that
1nasmuch as until December %, 1900, there
was no regulation providing for the termi-
nation OF rights under such a permit on ac-
count OF cessation of operation, the amend
ed regulation was only enforceable after at
least one year from the date of its adop-
ton.
A hearing was given by the Commission
ers upon the subject, April H. 1901, at
which time petitions, affidavits and state
UentS or the parties on both sides of the
controversy We're submitted; at this hear
ing there was considerable conflict as TO
the period and extent of the actual and
voluntary cessation of some parts of tho
work, &C, ordinarily included in the opera-
tion Of a brick yard.
without regard says Mr.. DuyaIl Ito
Wnat the facts may be respecting the AL
legged cessation Of such operation I am of
the opinion that section III of the building
regulations. as amended December 20 1890
could not nave retroactive effect, and that,
therefore, the provision that if at ary
time thereafter the establishment is not
operated for the purpose for which the per-
init was issued, said permit shall be void
and In order to renew the same similar
steps must be taken for new establish
ment, must be taken and construed to re-
late to a failure after December 20 1900. to
consequently results that said provision is
inapplicable to the present situation