Waterbury Democrat., 1902-02-18
Report from Law Committed.

Report from Law Committed.
 The report of the committee on la ", which came next, was one of the im- portant features of the evenings ses- sion. The report was relative to the building ordinance and was read by the clerk as follows:
 Waterbury, February IT, 1902. To the Hon Board of Aldermen
 City of Waterbury:
 The committee on law of the board of aldermen of the city of Waterbury, to whom was referred the ordinance relating to building as engrossed, to- gether with the criticisms of Iessrs Moore and Rice upon such ordinance, would respectfully report, that they have given this matter proper censid- eration and are of opinion as follows:
 That so much of section 2S, reading as follows: Using the same amount of materials" should be stricken out and the following inserted in lieu thereof: stSo proportioned as to give equal strength so that said section as amended should read as follows: Sec 2S.--In place of walls of a thickness specified in this ordinance, walls may be constructed with piers, or buttresses, so proportioned as to give equal strength.
 Concerning the criticism of para graph 30, that piers should be built of brick, your committee would report that this para graph defines only the kind of mortar to be used The con struction of piers is regulated by the seventh paragraph of section 2S, which provides that piers may be built either of stone or brick
 Paragraph six of section 49 was criti- cised and the suggestion made by AIr Moore that no wood beams should come nearer than two inches from the outside of smoke fue, instead of one ginch as provided. in the ordinance. Your committee is of the opinion that ample protection was given by the or dinance as drafted, taken into consid- eration with para graph four of section 53, which provides that no smoke 11ues shall be built with walls of less than eight inches of solid brick-worE, un- less fiueS shall be lined with fire-clay hue-linings, or other suitable things.
 Concerning the criticism as to the necessity of screens over skylights, ill section 77, we are of the opinion that with section 70, requiring metal screens under Slkylights, together with the provision in the eighth paragraph of section 77, providing that when the elevator shaft does not extend to the ground the lower end shall be enclosed with fireproof material, ample pro- tection is given i'll this respect.
 The ordinance was further criticised because there was no treatment of parapet walls contained therein. We would call your attention to para graph four of section 69, which provides that party walls shall, in all cases, extend above the planking of the cornice and be coped.
 In regard to the necessity for incor- porating ill the ordinance provision concerning fireproof shutters, we are of the opinion that it is impracticable to make any such requirement. ill this ordinance. They could not be required upon the fronts of buildings, and we do not believe that they should be required to be placed upon portion of the buildings only.
 We would recommend that section S1 be amended by striking out the word ''six' and inserting in lieu thereof the word ''five,'' so that such section as amended should read as follows:
 Sec S1 ~ Every building hereaf- ter erected and more than five stories in height shall be of approved fire proof construction.
 We would also recommend that new section be added, to be known as section 6O15, and entitled .'Verandas and Torches" and reading as follows:
 Sec 6Oh.-No porch or yeranda of total height of more than two ordinary stories above the ground level and connected with any building, which by the provisions of this ordi- nance would be required to be Dnilt with walls of masonry or other incom- bustible material, shall be built, unless it shall be constructed entirely of steel, iron or other uncomfortable material; except that treads of stairs may be of wood.
 FREDERICK w. CHESSON.
 LOUIS GATES.
 DANIEL FOLEY,
 Committee on Law.
 Alderman Walker moved that it be accepted and filed. Alderman Filling said that the building ordinances or amendments as recommended by the law committee should be passed at the quickest possible moment, and be moved that the amendments be passed. The chair ruled thatif there wereno ob- jections that could be done. Alderman Beach thought it should lie over q week and said there were some mis- takes that. should be remedied in tue ordinance. Alderman Blakeslee said it was mistake to delay, as buildings were now in the course of erection and others were being prepared and they ought to be looked after. The first thing we know there will be buildings erected just like those that were burned. Alderman Walker said that some most important matters in the ordinance had been left out, but those could come in later. He referred to d provision against fire stops and blind attics. Alderman Beach's motion to commit was put and lost.
 Alderman Blakesley then moved that the building ordinances as recommend ed by the committee on law be passed as amended, and this was voted unani- mously. On motion of Alderman Walk CT the clerk, who had signified his willingness to engross the ordinances, was requested to do so by the vote of the board. and a recess was taken during the engrossment When the recess was over Alderman Filling pre- sented another amendment to the or diflanceS This amendment was writ