The Washington times., 1901-10-22
AFFAIRS OF THE DISTRICT.
Bathrooms in Frame Additions TO
Brick Houses.
Construction of Such Work Con-
trnry TO the Building Regulations
Location of the Male Workhouse
on Washington Asylum Grounds

The question Of allowing the consuuc-
tion of bathrooms in frame additions 10
brick houses has again been considered
by the Commissioners. though the matter
is fully covered by the building reguia-
tons The question came up for con-
sideration upon The application of John
F. Donohoe, of 30S East Capitol street
who requested permission to replace
bathroom in a frame addition to the
house at go Second Street southeast The
application was first referred to the IN
spector of Buildings. who submitted the
following report:
The former building regulations con-
tanned a section permitting frame bath
rooms not over feet by feet. or 64
square feet. on a brick house. but in con
sideration of the enclosed order received
in the latter part of 1896 the provision
for frame bathrooms on brick houses was
stricken from the draft of the regulations
of 1897 by the Commissioners and they
have not been permitted since
This office has never recommended the
abolition of mc-Dathrooms, but / un-
derstand that the regulation was changed
at the suggestion Of the Inspector of
Plumbing who might assist in enforcing
the regulation with less friction by not
approving the plumbing plans for frame
bathrooms on brick houses.
I'm view Of the present regulations, 1
cannot recommend an exception Ia this
case"
The papers were then sent to the In
spector of Plumbing. who has returned
TO the Commissioners the following state
ment:
when this application was received l
ton. and found the bathroom existing
on the porch, as indicated by the dotted
lines on the drawing, and carefully ex
amined the plumbing and boxing and
made enquiry as to freezing of the lines
or fixtures.
"It was stated that the plumbing in
the bathroom had never frozen, and that
no trouble had been caused by the con-
nections from freezing, and there are no
signs about the boxing. floor, or ceiling
that trouble had occurred Under these
conditions and with the presence Of
steam radiator IN the propcs sed room, /
considered that there was no danger of
freezing to the plumbing, and gave my ap-
proyal TO the permit ! did not consider
il as an original case. but as necessary
extension of a bathroom in position.
1T is true, as stated by the Inspector
of Buildings. that TINS Office was active
in securing the passage of a regulation
in such form as practically to forbid the
addition of frame bathrooms to brick
structures, but there have been numer-
Gus cases IN recent practice in which
plumbing has been approved in bath
rooms on account Of the heat afforded by
a steam radiator; and 1t Is my under
standing that the Engineer Commission
or. in instructug me TO issue such per
nits. has made the policy general one.
While il Is true that ii would have been
better had | stated 10 this applicant that
the building regulations did not allow the
construction of frame bathroom, it is
also 10 be noticed that the material for
such construction is not within the prov
iuce of this Office to determine.
i believe that. II suitable precautions
are taken to ensure a reasonable degree
of permanence in the frame structure, aud
ii be supported on iron posts. and heated
as indicated by steam. that these condi-
tons viii justify exception and the is
suance Of permit
In Forwarding the report Of the lnspec-
tor Of Plumbing TO the Commissioners.
Capt Chester Harding said:
I'm my judgment. the construction for
which authority is desired comes clear
ly within the class Of cases objected to by
the Commissioners IN their order. copy
of which Is enclosed, which objection led